Saturday, October 31, 2009


You have been told that the House's newest version of HealthCare legislation will result in fair premiums that will stay the same, right?

You've been told that your benefits will not change, right?

You have been told time-and-again, with the full insistence and weight of the presidency that there would be no waiting for health care benefits...remember?

President BO looked straight into the camera and assured us that there would not be any rationing in our health care plan. You hadn't forgotten that, had you?

I have not finished reading the bill, but I did read this:

"INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."




You can read it all at: house bill.

Here's some more information about this deplorable monstrosity:

1. Speaker Pelosi's 1,990- page bill is going to raise the cost of health insurance for most American families. President BO said IT WOULD NOT, but he lied (as usual)...IT WILL.

2. The "Public Option" is there to compete with private insurance companies. Insurance companies can compete with other private sector insurance companies, but there is no way they can compete with the government. This bill will drive every private health insurance company out of business.

3. This bill is nothing less than a complete government takeover of our health care system.

4. If you're an employer that has over a $500,000 payroll annually, you either have to provide health insurance under their proposal or you pay an 8 percent tax to the federal government.

5. This bill will add to the deficit. President BO said IT WOULD NOT, but he lied (as usual)...IT WILL!

6. There are $500 million worth of Medicare cuts over the next 10 years. The most significant is the $162 billion cut to Medicare Advantage. According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 80 percent of Medicare enrollees would lose their coverage under this proposal.

In my opinion, the time for conservatives to be nice people is over.

We need to inundate our representatives' offices with daily phone many that the switchboard is shut down. There should be so many calls from so many of us that our representatives will shout ENOUGH!! STOP CALLING!! WE GET THE MESSAGE!!

And then we should just keep on calling.

If you liberals think you're getting free health care out of this, or even some bit more health care out of this, you are sadly mistaken. You will wake up one day and cry, "WHAT HAPPENED?"

But don't you dare say you didn't know it would happen.

I just told you.

Thursday, October 29, 2009


This is really, really serious, folks.

Do we want our uniqueness as a nation to disappear?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009


President BO came to our town today.

Well, technically it wasn't our town, it was about 30 miles from here, a little country town called Arcadia.

Arcadia is known for its farming, ranching and really great rodeos.

Now it is also known for its first-of-a-kind photo-voltaic solar array.

The president came, I'm not really sure what he came to do, but whatever it was, he did it.

For one thing, he gave a speech. In it he said, "and now, for the very first time, a large-scale solar power plant -- the largest of its kind in the entire nation -- will deliver electricity produced by the sun to the citizens of the Sunshine State."

Sounds cool, doesn't it?

There in those hallowed fields of Southwest Florida were some 90,000 photo-voltaic cells, dutifully following the sun across the sky.

Ninety thousand cells!

And those 90,000 cells will generate enough electricity to power 3,000 homes.

That's 90,000 cells for 3,000 homes.

How much does one cell cost?

You can buy one for about $100.00.

Then you have to install it.

The closest figure I could come up with is about $150.00-200.00 each installed.

So, 90,000 times $200.00 equals about $18 million dollars for the entire deal.

Divide $18 million by 3,000 homes and you get about $6,000.00 per home, installed.

And on cloudy days...........

In his speech, the President also made note of the fact that "This plant will produce enough power to serve the entire city of Arcadia. Its construction was a boost to your local economy, creating nearly 400 jobs in this area."

I guess it slipped his mind that those jobs no longer exist and that it will take only about four workers to maintain this great solar array.

With his usual aplomb, he went on to say, "over the next three decades, the clean energy from this plant will save 575,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the equivalent of removing more than 4,500 cars from the road each year for the life of the project. Think about that, 45,000 [sic] cars from the road each year for the life of the project."

That wasn't a typo. First he said 4,500 cars, then 45,000.

I guess the teleprompter has a little trouble with figures.

"'s time to make the same kind of investment in the way our energy travels -- to build a clean energy superhighway..." said he, talking about what the government needs to do next.

Did you catch the euphanism? "Investment" equals "taxes." Here they come!

President BO told us all about "smart meters" being in every house in the nation. "Smart meters will allow you to actually monitor how much energy your family is using by the month, by the week, by the day, or even by the hour."

He said these meters can be monitored, "...allowing you to conserve electricity during times when prices are highest, like hot summer days."

That's right, when you need the A/C the most, you'll be able (read: forced) to turn it up. President BO doesn't want you to get too comfortable.

What do you suppose might be the consequences for those whose "smart meters" don't give the government the readings they're looking for?

Something else President BO accomplished while he was in Arcadia.

The streets were lined with both supporters and protesters.

Naturally, there were clashes.

The protesters carried posters opposing ObamaCare, Cap and Trade and a myriad of other presidential offenses, while the supporters proclaimed what a "wonderful president" Obama is.

When things got heated, guess which group started throwing around all kinds of nasty aspersions on the other.

The videos don't lie.

The least civilized group, far and away, were those who identified themselves as:


Is anyone surprised?

If anyone just feels the need, you can read the text of the speech HERE.

Monday, October 26, 2009


Some people have such rose colored glasses that they cannot see the truth about what is really happening.

That is the case with 98.34521% (by my actual count) of liberals who cannot, or will not, believe that President BO wishes to have despotic control over every American citizen.

One of the powers "given" to the President in certain dire times is the declaration of a national emergency. Along with that comes the authority to declare martial law in accordance with his interpretation of the severity of the events.

President BO has declared that the H1N1 "Swine Flu" virus constitutes a national emergency.

But most health officials believe that the H1N1 "Swine Flu" pandemic has peaked and will soon begin declining.

According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.

When the President declares such a national emergency, he receives the power to side-step the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976. It has been extended six times. In 2007, the declaration was strengthened with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) which gave the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary including everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution.

You can read more about this HERE, HERE and HERE.

From time to time I have predicted things just like this on this blog and have been ridiculed by liberals who have visited to discover what trouble they can cause. For the most part, I have been simply ignored or called insulting names.

Well, now it is happening.

Folks, President BO is NOT a benign, harmless politician who is only concerned with helping down-and-out Americans, rather he is a would be despot whose agenda is to relieve citizens of as much influence and of as many of their rights as he can in order to rule this land the way a Chicago mob boss rules his "family" and his "businesses."

Since he has taken the "oath of office," he has done absolutely NOTHING to support or enhance the rights of the people, but has done many things to diminish them.

I have never been a "doomsdayer," having always believed that the American people would be smart enough to recognize when a man like this strives for the highest office in the land and would reject him summarily.

But this man has managed to pull the proverbial wool over the eyes of far too many people and is moving in giant steps toward a national governmental take-over.

You have elected a man whose personal ambition and self-aggrandisement supersedes any thought of liberty and justice in this country.

Here's the thing: If you fall in the prescribed age group you can now be required to take the flu vaccine, no matter what, and if you refuse you may be forced to do so even at the barrel end of a National Guard, or police rifle.

Now explain to me how this is what you thought you were voting for when you liberals and many misguided moderate/conservatives elected him to office.

President BO is not a Harry Truman, a John Kennedy or a Jimmy Carter. They were on the wrong side of many policies, but they were pretty much committed to the Constitution.

This man is unlike any we have ever had in the Presidency.

May God help us!


Here is a video to watch:

Sunday, October 25, 2009


" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll

Member, 1774-1776 Constitutional Conventions,
Anne Arundel County Senate, Western Shore, 1777-1800
Senate President, 1782-1783
Delegate, Continental Congress, 1776, 1777-1778, 1780
Signer, Declaration of Independence, 1776
U.S. Senator, 1st, 2nd Congresses, 1789-1792

Friday, October 23, 2009


How many of you are old enough to remember the flack over George W. Bush's alleged ducking of military responsibility back during the 2000 presidential campaign?

At first almost all of the MainStream Media was reporting that he had not served in the military, had, in fact, avoided military service and was THEREFORE NOT SUITABLE TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

It took talk radio, in the person of Rush Limbaugh, to bring out the facts and to eventually force the MSM to drop the matter as they had to face the truth that GWB had NOT avoided military service.

As it turns out, Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27th of 1968.

So then the discussion turned to whether or not that "little bit of service in an insignificant military outfit" was deemed sufficient to allow him to become Commander in Chief.

In the end, he did become CiF, and excelled at the job!

But my question is, if MSM considered Bush's qualifications compromised because of his military history, why on earth do they support President BO's position as Commander in Chief when he has HAD ABSOLUTELY NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE OF ANY KIND, AT ANY TIME, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?

Why is he qualified to be the Commander in Chief? Why? Somebody tell me WHY!!!

Now, let me be quick to inform you (if you weren't about to inform me), that there is no Constitutional requirement that the President has to have had military service.

Sometimes I wish it did, but it does not.

That's not my beef.

It takes an enormous sense of false pride and ego to think for a nanosecond that if you have no military experience you therefore have ex-officio expertise in military matters.

(For those of you educated in recent government schools, "ex-officio" means "by virtue of office," and is used here to suppose some mystical transfer of knowledge into his brain just because he became President).

It happens that President BO's false pride and ego are perfectly up to the task, as he actually believes that he knows more than his military leaders how to fight a war as evidenced by his reluctance to accept the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal to send in more troops.

Seemingly, General McCrystal is not sufficiently trained, experienced or knowledgeable to know what is needed to prosecute this war in Afghanistan.

But in the theater of his own mind, President BO is.

A good President whose experience did not make him an expert in a particular field would surround himself with people whose experience and expertise had already been shown to have been exemplary, and would give them the responsibility of carrying out the war.

A good President.

A stupidly poor President would take the approach of, "I don't want people to think I don't know what I am doing, so I will pretend that I know what I am doing and I will make decisions about the war based on my sophomoric philosophies, rather than any empirical understanding of how to run a war and I will let them know that I'm in charge and don't need them to be sticking their noses into my decision making process."

Liberals, please explain to me why it is appropriate for President BO to have adopted the latter approach to the war in Afghanistan.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


The left has yelped and screamed at conservatives who have declared that they hope President BO fails.

Rush Limbaugh has been castigated, smeared and libeled for his statement that HE hopes the president fails.


You liberal people act as though if he fails, America fails. That is false logic, pig-headed and wrong.

If President BO wanted to sustain America, if President BO wanted to build on the principles on which America was founded, if President BO wanted to be honest with the people about his agenda, if President BO wanted to " the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity... (from the Constitution's preamble), then I might say, "I may not always agree with him about everything, but hes is OUR president and I will support him."

But that is not the case.

When President BO spoke of "hope and change" during the campaign, Americans thought he meant hope for more freedoms and change from the Bush administration.

That's not what he meant.

His actions have shown that he wants to FUNDAMENTALLY change the VERY FABRIC of America...what she was made of and her promise for the future.

Here are the reasons I WILL NOT support President BO, specifically BECAUSE I AM A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN:

1. President BO and I do not share a vision of how America was designed to function.

2. President BO and I do not share our values systems.

3. President BO and I do not share our personal, social, spiritual, moral or political beliefs.

4. President BO and I do not share our world-view. He is a Marxist and wishes to redistribute the wealth of Americans so that we are more nearly economic equals by mandate of the government. I believe you should have whatever you earn and nothing that you don't.

5. President BO and I do not share our views on taxes. I believe every body's fair share is determined as a percentage of earnings between the 9-12% level of every earned personal and corporate dollar. He believes the government should take what it thinks it needs regardless of the cost to the citizen.

6. President BO and I do not share our views that America has acted arrogantly toward the rest of the world. He believes we have throughout history. I believe we have acted with honor and altruism since 1776 and before.

7. President BO and I do not share our views on whether or not this is a Christian nation. He has said that we do not see ourselves as a Christian nation, I say that we do. He says that we have shared a history with Islam, I say that we have not. He says that we have subscribed to the beliefs of Ghandi (whose first name he thinks is "Mahatma) and that our history is closely tied to him. I believe we emanate from the Judeo/Christian ethic...period.

8. President BO and I do not share our views on reducing the military by any percentage, let alone by 25%.

9. President BO and I do not share our views on immigration. He believes we should grant amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally. He also believes that there is no particular advantage to being a citizen of the United States, because, citizen or not, everyone should have the same benefits of citizenship. I believe we are a nation built on people who have immigrated here through legal means. I believe it is unfair to those who follow the rules of entry to the U.S. to allow others to butt in line.

10. President BO and I do not share our definition of marriage. He believes he has the right to re-define it. I believe we are all better served by maintaining the time proven definition of marriage and the civil and spiritual union of a man with a woman.

11. President BO and I do not share our views of the inherent dangers of or how to handle radical Islamists who believe it is to their advantage to destroy everything America ever has stood for, stands for now or ever will stand for.

12. President BO and I do not share views on the importance (Biblical and political) of supporting the nation of Israel and their right to national sovereignty.

13. President BO and I do not share our spiritual beliefs. His actions and statements indicate that he is a universalist who supports a black liberation theology. I believe Jesus told the truth when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me."

14. President BO and I do not share our beliefs about what to do about health care in this country. He wants to federalize it. I think that will be an absolute disaster and will signal the beginning of the downfall of the country.

15. President BO and I do not share our beliefs about how to deal with terrorism around the world or how to deal with despotic regimes such as Iran, North Korea, China and others.

16. President BO and I do not share our view that the economic difficulty we are in was caused by President George W. Bush or that Obama "inherited" the present situation from Bush. Bush did some bad stuff. I was vocal about them. But the mess we're in now belongs to President BO, not to Bush. The buck now stops at BO's desk.

President BO has adopted an agenda that will bring down America.

Why should I support him on that?

President BO hates our history and is ashamed of what we have become.

Why should I support him on that?

President BO believes that the tactics of Chicago thugs, Chicago politicians, militant radicalists such as Bill Ayers, ACORN, radical leftist celebrities and Marxists are appropriate for our country's leadership.

Why should I support him on that?

The answers to the above are that I should not and I will not support President BO, and I surely hope his agenda for America fails, for it will be the agenda that destroys the country that I love as deeply as anything on earth.

Monday, October 19, 2009


I find it necessary to take a one day break from my usual brilliant posting, in order to accomplish some things I need to get done today.

In the mean time, here are some facts you will enjoy from my Copy and Paste department.

They have been unceremoniously stolen from Important Stuff--Or Not just in case you have never read them.

He has nailed the liberal mind-set/world-view

Truths About Liberals

1. Always expect the worst from a liberal and you will never be surprised.

2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

3. You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of doing.

4. Liberals don't debate, they argue.

5. The only standards liberals have are double standards.

6. Liberals feel, conservatives think.

7. Whenever you don't understand a liberal's motives, just look for the money.

8. Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

9. The Liberal creed is, "Do as I say, not as I do.

10. Liberals get older, but they never get smarter.

11. There are no honest liberals. If they were honest -- especially to themselves -- they would be conservatives.

12. A liberal's business is nobody's business, but everyone's business is a liberal's business.

13. Liberals have an inflated sense of self-worth. They are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter. (Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, ad infinitum are morons.)

14. Liberals lack a sixth sense that is standard equipment in conservatives -- common sense.

15. Liberals never stop hating.

Sunday, October 18, 2009


Josiah Bartlett:

Called on the people of New Hampshire ". . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord."

Friday, October 16, 2009


Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

In 1985 he wrote a great article about why we are in the mess we're in.

Or should I say "we were in."

Actually, we are still in the same mess for the same reasons.

You can read the original article HERE.

What I want to do is to ask some questions inspired by the article. I challenge our liberal and/or "moderate" friends to answer these questions.

1. In this country, who is responsible for proposing the federal budget, you and I or the President?

2. Who has the Constitutional authority to appropriate the money we spend, you and I or the members of the House of Representatives?

3. Who writes the tax code, you and I or the members of Congress?

4. Who sets fiscal policy, you and I or the members of Congress?

5. Who controls monetary policy, you and I or the Federal Reserve Bank?

6. Who created the Federal Reserve Bank, you and I or members of Congress?

7. If there is one President, nine Supreme Court justices and 435 members of congress, how many people are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country? (The Federal Reserve Bank, remember, was created by Congress in 1913, so we won't add its members into the count.)

8. Do members of Congress have to accept money from all of the special interest groups and lobbyists with whom they are involved?

9. Who is responsible for the way a Congressperson votes, the special interests and lobbyists, or he/she himself/herself?

10. What document reflects the thinking of the originators of the American Experiment and serves as the supreme law of the land?

11. To whom does the Constitution give authority for originating and approving appropriations and taxes, you and I or Congress?

12. What group can pass any budget they want, you and me or members of Congress?

13. Can the President force Congress to accept his budget proposal?

14. Can you think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people?

15. If Congress wants the tax codes to be fair, why do they continue to allow the tax code to be unfair?

16. If the budget is in the red, why does Congress continue to allow it to be in the red?

17. If Congress has an elite retirement plan that allows them retirement money no matter how long they serve and for the rest of their lives, while citizens receive only a dog biscuit called Social Security, why don't they change that?

18. If Congress thinks everybody should have health care, why aren't they talking about everybody having a plan just like theirs?

19 Why do they deserve a health plan that good anyway? Are they so important that they should receive elitist treatment? Did the original Congress persons receive that kind of treatment?

20. Why do we let these 545 people shift the blame for the nation's problems to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power?

21. Why do we let them con us into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do?

22. If both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

23. If all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

24. Who should be held accountable by the people for the various messes we are in as a country, you and I or members of Congress?

25. What are YOU going to do about it?

Thursday, October 15, 2009


There is a picture of Democrat leader Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who says she wants Rush Limbaugh banned from NFL.

Ah! Now there's a lady who screams "racist" every chance she gets, who says she has "worked hard" to correct the evils of the America of the past that prevented Blacks from having the freedoms they deserved.

There is a lady who claims to personify the hope and change offered by President BO.

But liberty is only for those who think like she does.

Liberty is for poor Blacks, but not for successful Americans.

See, I don't care whether Rush Limbaugh owns a football team or not. It just isn't important to me.

If RL has the money and the desire to own a team, and can find someone willing to sell one, then he should be able to own one.

That would be in a free country. (The most often used phrase to justify a liberal being able to do or say what he/she wants, when he/she wants, how he/she wants about whatever he/she wants is: "It's a free country"...a freedom not extended to Christians, by the way).

But what most of you liberals are too ignorant to see is that your political actions have eroded Liberty in America to such an extent that one day you will wake up and find that you no longer have the freedoms you once thought you deserved.

Then you will whine and whimper, cowering in the bunker you call home pining for the good old days when you actually enjoyed the freedoms your forefathers fought so hard for.

Why can't you wake up and see that Liberty and Justice are two of the precepts that make the Untied States of America the greatest country in the world (the United Nations' mindless evaluations notwithstanding)?

If we don't get back to the values that we have historically held that this is a republic that functions in unity of purpose, seeking to provide freedom for its citizens and justice for everyone withing its borders, we will lose what we have worked so hard to obtain.

Conservatives and freedom loving liberals (are there any left?), it is time to take a stand for Liberty, lest you squander what little of it we have left.

ADDENDUM: Rush Limbaugh has been dropped from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Liberty looses again.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009


Taliban execute 12 Muslim Brothers

You may be Taliban if:

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

So, which guys did President BO tell us we're against in Afghanistan? Was it Taliban or Al-Qaeda?


FROM: American Spectator

Health Care Snowe Job
By Robert M. Goldberg on 10.14.09 @ 6:07AM

The Senate Finance Committee has issued a set of "talking points" about why the so-called America's Health Future Act is good for you. Missing is any straight talk about how the bill drives up health care spending, rations care and will force people to wait longer for less time with fewer doctors. Call it the Senate Finance Committee's "Snowe Job."

Eight Things to Know about the America's Healthy Future Act (amended for honesty and accuracy):

1. Individuals and employers who are satisfied with their current health insurance coverage can keep it and would not be required to change health plans. (For five years. And then individuals and employers -- note, not employees -- would be forced to buy health plans through exchanges that cost up to three times as much as their previous coverage with benefits they may not want or use. Poor and working class people will have no choice but Medicaid, which will double in size even as physician pay is cut. Good luck trying to keep your own doctor in either case unless you pay cash.)

2. No American can be denied health insurance or charged more because of a pre-existing health condition. (But since Americans who are and stay healthy will subsidize those of us who get sick and enroll only when they are seriously ill, the costs of coverage will increase or care will be rationed. Probably both. And Americans with pre-existing conditions will be denied coverage of drugs or tests and be forced to wait to see specialists as health plans, under the threat of a public option trigger, will cut access to care that the Obama administration regards as unnecessary.)

3. Health insurance companies will not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender or health status -- so insurance companies can't charge more for women or Americans who are sick. (See above. This is pay for performance in reverse.)

4. Health insurance companies will no longer receive tax deductions if they give their executives excessive salaries and compensation. (And this improves health care access and quality how?)

5. Members of Congress will be required to buy their health insurance through the same exchanges that people in their own states will use, instead of having a separate Congressional health plan. (Yes, but Members of Congress will have their insurance deeply subsidized.)

6. Health insurance companies will no longer be able to limit how much coverage you can use over your lifetime or how many benefits you can use each year. (Sounds good. But remember the government will be making those decisions from here on in. What benefits you use and how much will be decided by a Quality Czar who will issue reimbursement and coverage decisions for health exchanges based on what bureaucrats believe is cost effective. That's rationing.)

7. The bill specifically says there will be no Medicare benefit cuts for individuals. In fact, it strengthens Medicare's finances so the program can continue to provide benefits for years to come. (Nice try. The bill specifically cuts Medicare Advantage, the fastest growing program for the most chronically ill seniors. Score a big one for AARP which, in exchange for shilling for
Obamacare, will reap billions as seniors dumped from Advantage have to buy supplemental coverage for what the shuttered program used to pay for. It specifically reduces what doctors will get under Medicare. It specifically seeks to reduce how much doctors do based not on how sick people are -- see the similar contradiction in point 6 -- but on the lowest amount of care given per person regardless of burden of disease. And it micromanages the decision of whether to pay for new technologies to assure that fewer people get innovations more slowly. Maybe it's not a cut, but it is denial of care.)

8. Low-and middle-income seniors will get 50 percent of their drug costs paid for when they reach the so-called doughnut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, where no coverage is provided today. (And what drugs they get will be determined by a government panel that will increasingly delay access to new drugs based on price alone and without regard to individual differences.)

As health care costs and premiums go up, as they will, government bureaucrats will pull the public option "trigger." Price controls and bigger government run health plans -- the public option -- will follow.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009


One of the ceremonial steps to becoming President of the United States of America is to take the Presidential Oath of Office.

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

To begin with, notice that it is written in the first person, singular.

"I" makes the oath personal.

There is no one who can take the oath for the President. There are no proxies. There are no substitutions.

The newly elected President must take the oath, himself.

"Do" is a word meaning to carry out or perform an action.

"Solemnly" signifies that the oath will be carried out in a dignified and somber manner by one of high moral character who is committed to keeping his promises.

The word "swear," as used here, means to declare or affirm formally as true.

"That" is a demonstrative pronoun indicating an action about to take place.

"A fixed and persistent intent or purpose" is the definition of "will."

"Faithfully" indicates an unending devotion to something.

To "execute" in this sense means to carry out the legalities of something.

The executive branch of government, of which the President is head, is an "office," a function assigned by the Constitution.

The "President" is the elected officer who presides over the executive branch of our government. His duties are defined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The prepositional phrase, "of President of the United States," defines the country to which his allegiance in office is to be committed.

"And" is the conjunction indicating that there is more to come in the oath.

Then there's "to the best of my ability."

This part is subject to variation, as some men or women are more able than others. Nevertheless, it indicates a determination to give 100% of oneself to the task ahead.

"Preserve" means to keep or maintain in unaltered condition.

This is a promise not to try to change the Constitution. The job of changing the Constitution lies with the people of the United States, at the recommendation of their legislators, not their President.

When he utters the word "protect," the President vows to shield the Constitution from danger, injury, destruction, or damage.

"Defend" means to act against a challenge or attack to the Constitution.

The "Constitution of the United States" is that magnificent document that lays out the jobs of the various branches of our government (the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch). It also establishes the restrictions placed upon the federal government with regard to its scope and powers.

It is this last part which President BO has most flagrantly ignored. Indeed, he has specifically stated that this is an inherent flaw in the Constitution, because it says what the federal government cannot do while not saying what the federal government must do.

That is the kind of rhetoric that could only be endorsed by a despot, one committed not to the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution, but to its overthrow.

Or by someone so ignorant that he/she misses the point of the Constitution completely.

President BO has been touted as the most intelligent President we have ever had, and thus could not possibly be ignorant of the point of the Constitution.

The only explanation for his belief in its short-comings is that he wishes to get it out of the government's way.

I ask you: does an oath mean anything in today's society?

If you make an oath and break it, does it matter?

If you can make an oath and break it, what is there about you I can trust?

In your opinion, is President BO keeping his promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?"

How is he doing that?

Monday, October 12, 2009


In a speech in Iowa, in December of 2007, Barack Obama stated, "I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill...the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed."

Actually, the bill was rejected because it was seen by the Illinois legislature as pandering to Exelon, a corporation which operates the largest nuclear fleet in the nation and the third largest fleet in the world.

At issue was the concern of citizens about unreported low-level radioactive leaks at nuclear plants. On the other side was Exelon, the largest nuclear plant operator in the nation and one of the largest campaign contributors to Obama.

Why do you suppose Obama felt it necessary to claim to have written and passed a bill that he did help write but that did not pass?

During his campaign for president, Barack Obama claimed, "...I am tough on terrorism."

So, did he or did he not miss the vote on terrorism that took place in the Senate in September of 2007?

Answer: He did, indeed, miss the vote.

In November, 2007, did Senator Obama introduce a Senate resolution that said that President Bush did not have authority to use military force against Iran?

Answer: Yes

Was Barack Obama good friends with co-founder of Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, who supports the destruction of Israel?

Answer: Yes.

Given those facts, how can Barack Obama claim to be tough on terrorism?

When questioned about his connection to TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Obama claimed no connection with them.

In fact, his wife, Michelle, received almost a quarter-million dollars from them. That may be no sin, but why lie about it?

When challenged, Barack Obama stated that TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was just a small company and of little significance.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc., whose roots trace back to Keebler elves, supplies Wal-Mart with soups, salad dressings, non-dairy creamer and marinated sauces. A number of the items are sold under the Bentonville, Arkansas-based chain’s Great Value brand.

According to THIS Bloombert report, TreeHouse, Inc. will reach $2 billion in sales in a consolidating private-label food industry.

President BO has shown a consistent tendency to avoid the truth about a number of issues, without any apparent reason to do so.

The only explanation for this behavior that I can think of is: He is a liberal who believes that he must say certain things to make himself look good, believes that when he says something it becomes true, even if it isn't true, and is, in fact, a pathological liar.

And he is our President.................

Sunday, October 11, 2009


"I flatter myself you will be what I wish, but don’t be so much flatterer as to relax of your application – don’t forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head, and I hope an indelible impression is made."

Jacob Broom


In a letter to his son, James, attending Princeton University

Friday, October 9, 2009


As you know, President BO has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, established the Peace Prize as a way to balance the evil he had exposed the world to as a result of his explosive invention.

I received an email from President Barack Obama.

Now, I know it was nothing personal, and was a mass Email sent out by the White House.

I wonder where they got my Email address? Could it have been from the many Emails I sent to the White House "snitch" site?

Anyway, here is what I received:

Joe --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama.

Here is my reply to him, which I sent today:

President Obama,

You are correct. You do not deserve the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize.

For one thing, you have done nothing to advance the cause of peace. We are in two active wars and we have troops in actions in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. That is war, not peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become nothing more than a tool of political persuasion administered by a committee that has an anti-liberty agenda and is used for political purposes.

I don't know whether you just have never learned that or simply are incapable of understanding that fact, but either way, you have been used as a pawn on the world stage.

The Nobel Peace Prize could not possibly be a call to action, because the Nobel Peace Committee has no authority to call the President of the United States of America to any kind of action.

It is sophomoric of you to think they have such power, and I know you have long since risen above the level of sophomorism, haven't you?

Honestly, sir, your every speech, your every press conference reeks of those "bull sessions" we used to have in college when we would gather around and discuss various world philosophies when we thought we were being expressive and original, but when we obviously were not.

President Obama, may I respectfully suggest that you stop allowing your personal aggrandisement get in the way of the job you were elected to do, defend and protect the
Constitution of the United States of America. Its mandate is stated in its preamble, which I encourage you to read, seemingly for the first time in your life.

Hoping that you soon change your approach to national leadership, I remain,

Joe Scoggins,
Well versed U.S. Citizen

Thursday, October 8, 2009


There are at least two opposing views of the United States of America: America is good and America has failed.

French political thinker and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in 1835: "I sought for the key to the greatness of America in her harbors; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America ceases to be great."

Contrary to the thinking of old Alexis, to the liberal mind, at least as manifested in the philosophy and policies of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), America has failed for over 230 years.

According to that mindset, America's domestic policies have failed, her foreign policies have failed, economic policies have failed, her spiritual policies have failed and her moral policies have failed.

America, according to "them," was conceived in error (with a flawed document: The Constitution), grew according to the wrong economic precepts (capitalism) and raised her children with the wrong goals (liberty and rugged individualism).

The other way of thinking of America, that she is good, finds its roots in the thinking of those we call "the founders."

The most accurate way of determining the historical veracity of something, whether it be an event, a writing or whatever, is to get as close to its happening or source as possible.

The theory is that the people closest to the event have the best recollection of what happened and that the further from the event one is, the more likely it is that accounts of the event have been distorted and/or altered.

It's like that old parlor game "gossip." By the time the whispered "secret" gets to the end of the line it is likely much different than what was said to the first person in line.

So, to determine what the founders' attitudes were toward this new country they were putting together, we do well to go back to as many of their original writings, records of their speeches and their own testimonies as to their expectations as we can.

Mondays on this blog are devoted to some of those original writings, speeches and testimonies. It will take me several years to cover the ones I have.

An honest reading of those posts will bring one to the conclusion that the United States of America was founded on certain moral, just and religious principles that occupied the minds and hearts of the founders.

Almost all of the founders believed in God and sought His guidance for the establishment of the rules and morals of the government they were forming, basing their system of laws on those laid out in the Old and New Testaments of the book they nearly all revered, the Bible...hence the concept of our Judeo/Christian heritage.

To be sure, they were practical men, who applied those principles to the government in ways that would be suitable for all of society, which they divided into believers and non-believers (referring to the latter as "pagans" or sometimes "infidels").

Did they have philosophical struggles? You betcha!

They struggled with slavery. They struggled with capital punishment. They struggled with changing technology. They struggled with attitudes toward those who were different from them, such as Native Americans.

Their greatest struggle, though, was against the powers of tyranny imposed upon them by the country that wished to rule them, Great Britain and her monarchy.

Funny thing: we struggle with the very same issues today.

We have come to equate this volatile word, "racism," with slavery. Capital punishment has become "state murder," abortion and euthanasia. Changing technology has outpaced the government's ability to keep up with it.

"Tolerance" has become the by-word of the leftists, although they are the least tolerant of all people.

They think letting people do what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want and to whom they want, regardless of the mores of the majority is tolerance. They think everybody should be tolerant of everybody else, regardless of their moral fiber unless, of course, they happen to subscribe to the values of traditional Christianity. Then they justify their own intolerance under the guise of "not wanting to offend."

But it is OK to offend Christians. In fact, it is encouraged.

Don't offend Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, witches or celebrities (some of whom fall into one of the preceding categories), but go out of your way to offend the very people who gave you this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave...the Christians.

Never mind that Christian hospitals serve more people around the world than all others combined. Never mind that the first responders to natural and man-made disasters around the world are Christians, and in greater numbers than all of the governments and secular organizations combined (check out this truth about Katrina: Southern Baptists provided 500,000 to victims every day! Many, many other Christian organizations were involved as well, while the government dragged its feet with unbridled bureaucracy).

Never mind any of that stuff, because the liberal mindset is to refuse to believe what is actually true, only what they want to be true.

The collective mindset of the founders was that of the Judeo/Christian ethic, which they saw as essential to the success of this great experiment.

The Judeo/Christian mindset was regarded as good.

America began moving away from her goodness when she began moving away from and rejecting the Judeo/Christian values of her founders.

And when America "...ceases to be good, America ceases to be great."

Which America will it be for you?

Wednesday, October 7, 2009


I have commenters on this blog who periodically tout the wonders and advantages of Medicare, using it to illustrate why we should favor government run health care. They love to point out that I use Medicare, and say that I am a hypocrit for opposing government run health care.

A chart showing the major carriers and how Medicare compared to them in the study follows (info source: HERE.):

Again from Tom Blumer at NewsBusters HERE:

"Well, well.

"The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69).

"You would think Medicare's sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims. But no, this is the government we're talking about.

"So who's the most "heartless" now? And why should Americans accept the idea of gradually being forced into a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied? "

Add to that the fact that Medicare is going broke, is over 100 times more expensive than was promised at its inception and excludes many procedures before they are even considered, and you have an illustration of a government program run amok.

Now, will one of you liberals please explain to me in plain, simple terms why the current health care reform proposals are a good thing?

I'm waiting.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009


I want to weigh in on President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) and the International Olympic Committee.

You know all of this, but I will include it for posterity's sake.

President BO, FLOTUS, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey tried to convince the IOC that the Olympics should be held in Chicago.

Their method was for President BO to tell the IOC how wonderful he is and for FLOTUS Michelle Obama to do the same.

To make certain the IOC knew who this was really all about, they used the personal pronoun "I" more than a hundred times between them in their speeches.

The IOC effectively threw them off of the international stage.

Obama said "it's always a worthwhile endeavor to promote and boost the United States of America and invite the world to come see what we're all about."

This from the guy who has managed all by himself to diminish the shine of America around the world.

While it is gratifying to see that the world does not hold nearly the exalted image of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) as he does of himself, be careful about making more of this striking failure than there is to make.

Around the blogosphere this phenomenally stupid loss to Rio de Janeiro is being heralded as a possible sign that the president's power is weakening, and that he may be in trouble on the domestic front.

It seems more likely that his Chicago thugism will rear its ugly head and that President BO's pressure on congress to pass health care legislation, cap-and-trade legislation and a host of other laws that will move us ever closer to socialism will increase geometrically.

He has lost face on the international stage.

He cannot afford to lose face on the domestic stage.

After all, the messiah, the gift of the gods to America, the poster boy for egocentricity, the personification of megalomania MUST be satiated with success.

More than ever, President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) will be determined to project and protect his own grandeur.

Conservatives must remain ever steadfast lest we end up with a country that is nothing more than Olympic fools gold.

Monday, October 5, 2009


For the next ten Mondays I am going to try to demonstrate a strong tendancy of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) to stretch the truth about himself and his policies. I'll be doing about three examples per Monday, if I can.

Did Barack Obama, or did he not, when addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Alabama try to connect his birth to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother?

Answer: He did. Check it out HERE.

Did the Kennedy family give $100,00.00 to the so-called "Kenyan Airlift" which is supposed to have led to bringing BO into existance?

Answer: Yes...but not until late September of 1960...a little late for the introductions of a Kenyan to a Kansan who gave birth to the president-to-be in 1961.

Why stretch that Truth (read: why lie about it)? make himself seem more "authentic?"

Did Obama, or did he not, claim at that speech in Selma, "Selma Got Me Born?"

Answer: He did.

But Obama was born in 1961...Selma "happened" in 1965.

Do the math.

Why would he make such a false claim?

Would it be because he wanted to "connect" with the people of Selma at any price...even at the expense of the truth.

When speaking at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, did, or did not, Barack Obama bring forth a claim he would later use repeatedly to drum up public support. “My father… grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack?”

Answer: He did.

But Obama’s sob story about being the son of a goat-herder is complete fabrication.

Obama’s father was actually born into a privileged life, not one of “tin-shack” poverty. His father, Obama's grandfather, was a prominent and wealthy farmer who emigrated from Kenya.

Why would Barack Obama make up the previous story?

Could it be that he wanted to make others think that he is one of them; that his rise to influence from the dregs of society would make him more impressive?

Now I can hear you saying, "So what?"

So what I am going to try to do on Mondays is to demonstrate a propensity for Barack Obama to make up stories and to misstate facts about himself and his history in order to convince people that he is not what he says he is, and that he is what he says he is not.

A pattern of this kind of continual deceit has a name: pathological liar.

Sunday, October 4, 2009


"I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace."

Samuel Adams


Saturday, October 3, 2009


While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to President Obama.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'" Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'"

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with."

I have no idea where this originated, but do want to thank Liz for forwarding it to Poison Pero, over at Right Is Right, from whom I stole it.

Friday, October 2, 2009


Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy