Sunday, January 31, 2010


James Iredell


"For my part, I am free and ready enough to declare that I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice."

Saturday, January 30, 2010


President BO is supposedly a Harvard graduate (although there is much discussion about whether he has ever produced any documentation of that).

Now, I think you have to be pretty smart to actually graduate from Harvard, or Yale (such as George Bush did) or UCLA or most schools of "higher learning."

Not only is President BO referred to as one of our most intelligent presidents, he is also reputed to have been a professor of Constitutional law.

So, why, then, did he make the following statement in his State of the Union address: "...drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."

Does he have a different copy of the Constitution than I have? I do not find the notion "...that we are all created equal..." in the Constitution. I DO find it in the Declaration of Independence, however.

Maybe this "constitutional professor" thinks they are the same thing. Or maybe he just didn't proof read his speech before he gave it. Or maybe his speech writer did not know the difference.

Or, most troubling of all, maybe he thinks I (and you) are too stupid to notice.

Early in the speech he said, "So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new."

That was a true statement, we face the same anxieties we always face and more, especially since this unprepared, sophomoric, inexperienced buffoon is in the presidency. But it was his use of this phrase to somehow set the stage for his coming lies and "obamateurisms" (with appropriate H/T to Hot Air . Com), that distinguished it from an intelligent speech.

In the entire speech, President BO failed to connect with the actual human beings who make up the citizenry of this country.

He went on to say: "For these Americans...change has not come fast enough. ... They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness."

He continues to call out for bi-partisanship, while promoting an agenda that is immensely partisan, to the point of excluding members of the opposite Party (Republicans) from being a part of the deliberation process, most recently as it relates to health care "reform."

Not only that, but he continually chastised the House and Senate Republicans for not being bi-partisan, by which he means, according to his own definition, dropping their principles and following his dictates.

And instead of illustrating bipartisanship, he went on to blame everything on George Bush. He also condemned congressional bickering. I guess he does not realize that the majority of congress is Democrat.


What a brilliant man!

He said we Americans wonder "...why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."

He is not smart enough to realize that Washington DC IS the problem.

President BO stated: "And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics."

By that he means once again: "Republicans should agree with us, and help us shove this country toward socialism, thus placating the about 7-9% of those who want it."


In one particularly revealing statement, President BO said, "But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular-- I would do what was necessary..."

Translation (verified by his actions and stated philosophies): "I don't care what the American people want, they're getting what I want to give them, like it or not."

President BO spoke of Americans "shar(ing) a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity," (presumably not a reference to our resilience in having to endure this negative, uninspiring speech).

Fact is, he demonstrates great strength in ignoring the wishes of the people, you know, the wishes they expressed, for instances, in sending Scott Brown to the senate, and Republican victories in governorships and future pending Republican victories.

The president vowed: "We do not give up. We do not quit."

In other words, no matter the wishes of the people, he is going to push through his agenda.

He said, "...Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

"I thought I'd get some applause on that one."

I wonder if this Harvard graduate is smart enough to know why he "got no applause on that one?"

Can he figure out that it is because EVERYBODY present knew beyond any doubt that the statement was patently FALSE?

"Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis."

For an allegedly smart man, this was a very stupid statement. Why on earth would he reward the entities he believed caused the problem in the first place? How dumb would that be.

But it was a good deflection from the actual cause of our economic woes: the congress, itself.

It was congress which, in 1977, passed the Community Redevelopment Act, the descendants of which FORCED banks to make loans to people who could not pay them back, with the guarantee that they would lose no money because the government would guarantee the loans.

Banks did NOT make those loans because they were "happy to comply" with the government's requirements (they have never been in the business of making bad loans...only good ones). They made those loans because they HAD to.

When those loans began to default, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suddenly found that they were unable to keep up with the government's guarantees and started to fail.

This Constitutional professor made this statement: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..."

Judge Alito has been vilified for mouthing the words, "That's not true," at which point the cameras were conveniently focused on him and the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, what he mouthed was true.

Our brilliant, constitutional professor who is now president, seemingly did not know that the SCOTUS did NOT reverse a century of law, but an anti-First Amendment act called McCain/Feingold.

Then he had the audacity to instruct the Supreme Court do as he tells them and Congress to override what the SCOTUS decided by the force of law!

What does this brilliant man think has happened to the concept of the "separation of powers?" Has it just been pushed aside to satisfy his whim?

I have heard people say, "Just because you have a college education does not mean your have good sense or are smart."

This much is certain: You and I are smarter than Barack Obama will ever be as smartness regards the Constitution.

Unlike him, we have not set out to destroy it, and the country in the process.

Thursday, January 28, 2010


Did you see it?

Were you titillated?

Did you see evidence that President BO has learned his lessons from recent elections?

Did you catch his boyish countenance? Did you catch his childish responses?

Here are some highlights from the hall:

My favorite: On live TV, Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

I also liked Janet Napolitano seeming to fall asleep during the speech.

Harry Reid could not contain a really big yawn during the speech.

Neither could I.

There were a few other things that caught my attention:

President BO said "we import more oil today than ever before." That’s untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today. TRY THIS CHART

He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That’s at least double the true figure. THE ACTUAL HARVARD STUDY

President BO iterated: "I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

Pardon me, but the automobile was invented (according to the Library of Congress) in Germany.

Another OOPS!: "In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry."

Hmmm. Actually construction on the railroad didn’t begin until after the Civil War.

Obama said that "there are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make."

Truth: Mayor R.T. Rybak's 57-cop figure is hypothetical. No layoffs were actually proposed.

Then there was this assertion by President BO: "This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit."

Look, it is absolutely, positively impossible to know anything at all about "saved" jobs. Among economists, there is limited data, and even less agreement about what the available data actually mean.

Obama said about health care: "Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform."

Actually, Harry Truman was the first sitting president to call for national health insurance, in 1948, although TR did propose a system of social insurance.

Obama: "When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full time."

Mary Kahn, spokeswoman at the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services, said: “The CHIP program is targeted primarily to children of low-income working families. But there is no requirement that the families be working full time or part time..."

President BO continues to believe either: (1) that if he says something it is true simply because he said it; (2) actual facts don't really matter, because people (like me) are too stupid to know the difference; or (3) his current agenda is what those who voted for him thought he was going to implement, therefore it must be right.

He should now stand before us and say, "My name is Barack Obama, and I am NOT smarter than a fifth grader."

Tuesday, January 26, 2010



You might think that by now President BO would have gotten the message.

Let me tell you something about narcissism: those who have it can't help themselves.

Everything they do or say is about them and them only.

And President BO is a textbook case of narcissism.

In his speech in Ohio on January 22, 2010, the president referenced United States citizens exactly 2 times.

He referenced himself more than that.

Would you like to know how much more?

Take a guess: five times? Twelve times? Fifty times?

No, my friend, President BO referred to himself exactly ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO times!

(For those of you educated in government schools, that's 132!)

I'm not going to list them all, but here's a sample:

"I've got a very short commute;"

"I can't always visit people directly;"

"I break out;"

"I saw;"

"I knew it would be unpopular;"

"I ran for this office;"

"I had no illusions;"

"I had a whole bunch of political advisors"...

It just wouldn't stop!!

If you can stand to watch it, check it out HERE.

Somebody on his staff, someone with guts like you wouldn't believe, just HAS to dare to tell him that being president is not about the president, it is ABOUT THE PEOPLE!!

He is the most unpresidential president EVER!!

An egotistical maniac, and not one whit smarter than the dumbest college Sophomore.

Monday, January 25, 2010


SCIENTISTS SAY THE SEARCH FOR ALIEN LIFE FORMS should be conducted here on Earth rather than in outer space. That's according to THIS.

Let's think about that for a moment.

If a life form is on the planet it's supposed to be on, it's not an alien, is it? It only becomes an alien when it goes to a planet of which it is not native.

Here you can see our highly skilled, professional, well trained, honest, benevolent dictator, as he speaks at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Va., Tuesday.

We don't know what he actually said to the students, as reporters were not allowed in the classroom while he spoke to them.

That, in and of itself, is kind of spooky.

At the pictured press conference, he talked about the Race to the Top initiative.

He always has to bring race into the picture.

(For those of you educated at a government school, that was kind of a pun...a play on words...a little word joke...OK?)


James Carville, leftist wild man and quasi spokesperson for liberals, thinks the good citizens of Massachusetts would have put Coakley in the senate seat formerly held by murderer/drunk, Ted Kennedy, if the Democrates had just had sense enough to blame Bush.

"Democrats were blamed for the recession and 10 per cent unemployment, while Mr Bush raised millions for his presidential library in Texas.

"In the end, blaming Mr Bush might not have been enough to win in Massachusetts, or to deflect anger from the governing party, or to get a health care bill signed."

Carville has become a drooling idiot.

FORMER SLUM LORD AND SENIOR WHITEHOUSE ADVISOR, VALERIE JARRETT lets us know that "...(President BO) is going to fight for trying to get absolutely as much as he can to reduce the cost of health care, to provide insurance, provide security and safety for those folks who have insurance now..."

She indicated that he has no intention of abandoning his effort to get health care reform passed in a form as close to his desires as he can, regardless of what the peonic people prefer.

In other words, President BO does not care one whit what you want. You are not in charge...he is.

After all, as he so blithely puts it, "I won."


Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

I know we have "freedom of religion" in America, but this global warming, aka: climate change, faith is beyond the pale.

Dishonesty on the part of the "scientists" at Copenhagen is one thing, stupid dishonesty on their part is something else again.


This video illustrates the point

A different kind of tea party.

Sunday, January 24, 2010


Benjamin Franklin


"I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.

"That he governs by his providence.

"That he ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.

"That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see. "

Friday, January 22, 2010


On the strength of his strong personality, deep knowledge of things political, and radio-audience savvy, Rush Limbaugh has garnered a listenership of twenty million people.

Preceded by Glenn Beck and followed by Sean Hannity, Limbaugh has an ideal position and time slot.

Add all of this up and no matter what you think of his politics or personality, you have to admit that he is very successful at his chosen profession.

He got where he is through hard work and an understanding of what his potential audience is and how best to touch the nerves of his listeners in such a was as to captivate them.

In an effort to reach the more liberal element of our society, Air America was born in 2004.

You know Air America, of course.

What? You never listened to an Air America program?

Neither did anybody else.

In fact, with nothing but whiny, nasty, vile-languaged hosts, listeners stayed away in massive droves.

Al Frankin, one of the self-enamored but stupidist people in congress, once graced the airwaves from Air America.

As he spewed his vicious form of liberalism, the audience fell.

Even that lovable Rachael Maddow could not gain a significant following.

They filed bankruptcy in 2006, and changed management in an attempt to revitalize itself.

Now, Air America has announced that it will cease operations on Monday.

"The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a `perfect storm' in the media industry generally," the company said in a statement on its Web site.

Balder-ever-lovin'-blue-eyed dash!

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck operate in THE VERY SAME ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, and they are doing VERY well, thank you very much.

What has made the difference?

Understanding the pulse of the radio audience.

In media, audience is everything (except for PBS, which uses your tax dollars to subsidize its operations, thus does not care one whit about whether it has any audience at all). If you have the audience, you succeed. If you don't have the audience, you don't succeed.

It's really that simple.

Argue with me if you will, I know whereof I speak.

I have worked in radio for over 27 years.

When our station was taken over by a person who thought he knew what he wanted, people stopped listening in Air America styled droves and the station rushed to the very bottom of the audience barrel in just a few years.

In radio, you just absolutely have to give the people what they want to hear or you are dead in the water.

So it was with Air America.

Weasels for hosts, stupid format, constant dumb statements, political spin that left listeners heads twisting the the Air America air, and failing to meet the needs and wants of its audience did them in.

Nobody listened.

Can't make money that way.

Can't make money, can't exist.

And now they don't.

Good riddance.

Thursday, January 21, 2010


Warning to those educated in government schools: This is a long post.

What is it about lies that seems to attract people, especially politicians?

It seems to be difficult to find a politician who does no lie at one time or another.

Maybe that's true of all people, but it seems to be more overt among those in the political realm.

Once a person lies to you, how do you know when he/she is lying to you again?

Is there some sort of list people can give you that says "Here are the things you can trust me on and here are some other things I will lie to yo about?"

When a person lies to you, what is the appropriate thing to call him/her? Would it be proper to call a person who lies to you a "liar?"

A person who farms is a farmer. A person who builds is a builder. A person who lies is a liar.

President BO has consistently lied to you and to me about who he is, what he is planning to do and how he plans to do it.

The following is adapted from an article by John Ellis in The Lies of Obama:

* During his campaign for the presidency and since, did or did not President BO repeatedly assure us that he would protect Medicare against cuts?

Is he now pressing for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare?

* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, did President BO assure us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector?

Of the jobs supposedly created so far, are not most of them in the public sector?

* Early in the health care debate, did President BO assure us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system?

Is he not on record as having also said that he does?

* Did President BO give primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding?

As soon as he became the party’s nominee, did he reneged on that pledge?

* During the presidential campaign did President BO criticize the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration?

Once elected, did he proceed to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors?

* Did President BO criticize the size of George Bush’s deficit, calling it what we inherited? Did he promise to stop deficit spending if elected?

Has he, in fact, already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and continued new federal spending in the trillions?

* When campaigning, did President BO criticize bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that?

Haven't the bills he has been backing throughout his first year been much longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized?

*Did candidate Obama promise an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork in new legislation?

In the bills he has supported this year have there been more and bigger earmarks than ever before?

* Did candidate Obama promise us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted?

Has administration been doing exactly that?

*Did President BO assure a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions?

Does not the congressional health care bill include language that does exactly that?

*Did candidate Obama promise that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted?

Hasn't he done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills?

*Did candidate Obama meet fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $250,000 would see no (let me repeat...NO) increase in their taxes of any kind?

Does he now urge the passage of a health care bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways? Do not his unrestrained increase in federal spending make more tax increases inevitable?

*Did candidate Obama promise bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering?

In a display of especially ruthless partisanship, have not his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate?

Consider these facts:

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid health care benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

* Obama had promised that he would not sign a health care bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.

* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.

* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.

* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.

* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.

In fact, because of profit loss on Medicare, the Mayo clinic has already ceased dealing with Medicare patients. (See A Doctor's View of the Health Care Bill)

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)

* Obama claimed that John Deere’s CEO had told him that Deere would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Deere would in fact be laying off more workers.

* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.

* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of ObamaCare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.

* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.

* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.

* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.

* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.

* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.

* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.

Given all of this, is it a stretch to say that President BO has lied about each one of these issues?

If a person who lies is a liar, does it follow then that we can be more than safe in calling President BO a liar?

How about a bald-faced, unrepentant liar?

Is that one of the things that endears him to you liberals?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010


President BO promised us hope and change.

Inadvertently, he has delivered on that promise as Republican Scott Brown has won the senate seat vacated by Democrat the late Ted Kennedy, giving us hope that we can change the future of that demonic health care legislation.

President BO was instrumental in providing this particular change by having gone to Massachusetts and making weird, unrelated remarks while attempting to prop up the efforts of Democrat, Martha Coakley.

He told us he was there to support Martha, even though he knew very little about Brown, other than that he drove a Government Motors truck.

Why would he think not knowing his (Martha's) opponent would help Coakley win?

When he was campaigning, President BO presented a confident and certain visage almost all of the time.

Lately, he has seemed harsh, grim and sullen. His eyes have lost their spark and he looks very burdened, as well he should.

I really think he believes that whatever sophomoric philosophies he has brought with him from his liberal university days would just be welcomed with opened arms, regardless of how anti-liberty they might be.

It is time for him to wake up, to begin doing some presidential work, to feel the pulse of the citizens and to find out what the United States of America is really all about down in the trenches where real people live.

Let's hope this Massachusetts experience helps to get the job done.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010


Scott Brown (R) 1,161,586 52%
Martha Coakley (D) 1,055,409 47%
Joseph Kennedy (I) 22,165 1%


jANUARY 19, 2010, 9:25 pm.

So. Today is the day we discover whether or not the people of Massachusetts have come to their senses and stopped the reign of the left-wingers in the senate.

Having flunked fortune telling in high school, I cannot predict whether the winner will be Scott Brown or Martha Coakley to fill the people's seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy.

If Massachusetts wants to continue to be thought of as left-wing, wild-eyed, mind-numbed liberals, then Coakley will be the winner.

On the other hand, if the people want to be seen as having awakened, as having learned from their own experience and as having decided that the America put in place by the founders (many of who hailed from right there)was set up right after all, then Scott Brown will win.

It is now out of our hands. But it is not out of our thoughts.

The United States' future hangs in the balance.

The future of our kids and grand kids hangs in the balance.

The future of this administration gone wild and wacko hangs in the balance.

Let us pray for a Brown victory.


Have you been watching the events in Haiti? (Who hasn't?)

How many fingers does it take to count the number of doctors and other relief workers rescuing people who are from countries represented by "The Religion of Peace?"

Keep your fingers to yourself, lest the members of "The Religion of Peace" cut them off.

I watched today as a wife, trapped since the quake, was rescued by a group of California firefighters...right in front of her husband. It was an emotional thing to watch and it brought tears of pride and relief to my eyes.

For all of our faults, political and otherwise, I tell you without fear of contradiction that the United States of America is the greatest, most compassionate, most wonderful country in existence today, that ever has been in existence or ever will be in existence, because of, and only because of, the principles of the Judaeo/Christian ethic laid down by our founders.

If you disagree with that, you need to stand up for your beliefs by going to live in one of those countries you think is better.

Maybe the Michael Moore praised Cuba, with its "much better health care system," where the recent cold snap took the lives of eight or more people WHILE THEY WERE IN THE COTTON-PICKIN' GOVERNMENT RUN, SOCIALISTIC, HOSPITAL, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!

Yeah...that's what we need here.

Just go on! Git!


Monday, January 18, 2010


All his life the young Texan had wanted to be in law enforcement.

He grew up big, 6’2” and strong as a longhorn and fast as a mustang.

He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces.

When he finally became old enough, he applied to where he had only dreamed of working: the West Texas Sheriff’s Department.

After a big mess of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.

The Chief Deputy said, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good.

“We have what you call an “attitude suitability test” that you must take before you can be accepted, ‘cause we don’t let just anyone carry our badge, Son.”

He slid a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk and said, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot SIX ILLEGAL ALIENS, SIX LAWYERS, SIX METH DEALERS, SIX MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND A RABBIT.”

The young man asked, “Why the rabbit?”

“Great attitude,” said the Chief Deputy. “When can you start?”

ADDENDUM: That was not real. It was supposed to be a humorous story. A joke. Not true. (But not a bad commentary on clear thinking.)

Sunday, January 17, 2010


Samuel Huntington


"It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Saturday, January 16, 2010


As you know, back when the President had his snitch email program up and running, I snitched on myself many times daily.

One of the results of this peculiar behavior on my part was that I was involuntarily enrolled in "Organizing for America," the propaganda arm of this vile administration.

It is an interesting source of information about how the presently powerful spin and twirl events in our society.

Today I got the following email from OFA.

Joe --

Each day, millions of Americans turn to talk radio as a trusted source of news and opinions on the big issues of the day.

Getting thousands of OFA supporters to call in to these shows in support of health reform and President Obama's agenda will have a dramatic impact -- and will help shape public opinion.

But we need you to make it happen. Along with thousands of other active volunteers like you, you'll help identify which radio shows talk about politics and accept calls.

Please take just three minutes and answer three simple questions about a radio show in your area. Together, you'll build a massive, nationwide list in no time...

Mitch Stewart
DirectorOrganizing for America

Well newsflash!

I am not going to "help them build their list," as I suspect they have a motive other than just letting peoples' voices be heard.

It is my strong suspicion that they intend to engage in what Rush Limbaugh refers to as "Seminar callers."

Seminar callers are plants. They have been schooled in what questions to ask to try to get the talk show host to respond in a certain way, to slip up or to change his/her mind on a subject, usually having to do with current legislation.

It is patently dishonest to stack the deck like that, but if President BO and his cohorts have no scruples about doing it at the polls, why should we expect otherwise of them with regard to talk radio?

I'm sure there are some of you who think this is a perfectly proper way to behave.

Well, this is (temporarily) still America and you have the right to be wrong.

And you are.

Why are you so afraid of allowing talk show hosts to be who they are?

Take "Air America," the network that was beset by a raft of off-air problems almost from its inception: a charity-loan scandal, contract disputes with affiliates and employees, continual changes in ownership and management, and a 2006 bankruptcy. Please.

All Air America has to do to crush the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity is to garner more listeners than they have.

Only people aren't listening to Air America in droves.

Why is that?

Turns out that the stupidity espoused by Air America is seen through by the majority of Americans and they just don't like the constant stream of same.

Americans are smart. They listen to smart radio shows. Why, even smart liberals listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. They must. They frequently call to try to trip him up. Usually they just end up like most mindless liberals and just start calling him names...that's really all they know how to do.

So, I will not be helping the Obama administration with it's attempt to use conservative talk radio to further its health care debacle.

I hope you don't either.

Friday, January 15, 2010


Time after time President BO has confirmed his commitment to the redistribution of wealth in the United States.

From his proclamation to Joe the Plumber that spreading the wealth around is a good thing, to his vision of health care legislation, he has been remarkably consistent about this.

Now we have word of another example.

With the prodding of Congressmen George Miller and Jim McDermott, the move to end the tax break on 401(K) plans and “redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.”

As we know, nobody in the U.S. making less than $250,000.00 will never face any kind of tax increase. We got this promise from Taxer-In-Chief, Barack Obama, himself, and we all know from which bodily orifice he makes promises and how much we can count on them.

Does not this “redirecting those [401(K)] tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute” sound a lot like the provision in both health care bills to tax anyone who does not purchase health insurance?

If you have a 401(K), keep an eye on this proposal by the fed.

According to Business Week, in an article by Theo Francis, “The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.”

Phyllis Borzi (assistant secretary of labor) and Mark Iwry (deputy assistant treasury secretary) proposing the idea of “the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.”

This kind of annuity is a bad deal for everybody except the person selling them. Consumer experts have been warning against them for years. They are little more than a pure, unadulterated rip-off.

Karl Denninger, of The Market Ticker, believes this is really a scheme to prop up the market for Treasury bonds by forcing citizens to “invest” in them.

Some 401(K) owners initially thought this might be a good idea, that is, until the stock market made its inevitable rebound.

We’ve been told to stop trying to convince people that President BO is moving us toward socialism.

Well, here’s another example of his desire to have complete control over every dollar exchanged in America and to enable the government to “discover” new ways to tax you in order to swell its coffers.

How much more of this despotic administration and congress are you willing to put up with?

Thursday, January 14, 2010


I am a born-again, practicing Christian who has the distinct and awesome honor of having a relationship with the very Creator of the Universe.

Yeah, that's a bold statement, but it is my statement and I'm sticking with it.

One-time presidential candidate and TV "evangelist," Pat Robertson has spoken out on the earthquake that struck Haiti.

Pat Robertson has long been a thorn in my theological side, ever since he proclaimed in his 1988 run for the presidency that God had told him he would be the next president of the United States.

Trust me. Pat Robertson is not a reliable source of theological dogma.

In 1998, Robertson warned after Orlando city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during an annual Gay Day event at Disney World, “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. . . . [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”

He also said that: "... on 9/11 God lifted the “curtain” and allowed the enemies of America to give us “probably what we deserve."

Now he has come out with his explanation of why Haiti experienced this horrible earthquake.

Here is what he said: "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French . . . and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French." True story. And so the devil said, "OK, it's a deal." . . . Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is, is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island."

Make no mistake, we live in a sinful, fallen world. Since the fall of mankind we have had exactly what God promised we would have: agony, pain, suffering, hatred, sickness and natural calamity, to name a few. These are not "acts of God," as the insurance industry likes to call them, but a result of our willing failure to follow His principles in every walk of life.

And so we have a general condition of sinfulness and fallenness in the universe, and bad things happen.

To infer from that that all disasters, or some disasters are the direct result of some "curse" placed by God is both logically and theologically untenable.

I am not saying that God never has or never will curse a particular people, but that it is a mistake to attribute every unsavory event to Him. Some of them just happen as a result of this being the kind of world it is.

As it turns out, Haiti sits at the east end of the Ganave fault plate, which runs south of Cuba and north of Jamaica. The east end runs through Haiti and only a couple of miles into the largely uninhabited portion of The Dominican Republic.

The Ganave fault place tends to move in small portions and that is why the quake was largely localized.

Two places you can see information about it are:

In 1948 the Dominican Republic was rocked by a magnitude 8 quake which was barely noticed in Haiti.

The current quake was caused by a shifting of the eastern edge of the Ganave plate.

The devastation caused by the fact of plate tectonics is a result of the general fall of man which brought the world into a condition of perpetual sin, not by some curse.

The result of Haiti's choice to reject the principles of God's Word has brought about the poverty, the lack of stability in government and the peculiar mix of voodoo and Christianity that is practiced there, not by curse, but by making stupid choices.

It would be a good thing for our country to acquaint itself with the principles God has put before us to avoid becoming what Haiti has become as a nation...or what Germany became as a nation prior to WWII...or what Cuba has become as a nation.

We have the opportunity to prevent our demise, if we will take it.

And let's all pray that we don't choose a really stupid response.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010


I left the following comment over at one of my favorite blogs, Economic Swim.

I got so passionate about it that I thought I would share it with you here.

The subject is the recent hullabaloo over Harry Reid's racist remarks, which became non-racist the moment he apologized and which would have remained racist forever had they been spoken by a Republican in the same context.

The group of pseudo-leaders in Washington DC are not smart enough to recognize their own double standard, and if they did, they are not honest enough to admit that they have one.

As one who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, let me say that I am sick and tired of liberals (black, white, or whatever) categorizing people without regard to the content of their character but purely ON the color of their skin.

This bunch talks, acts and legislates like a bunch of college sophomores "trying to find themselves."

They cannot face the reality of the greatness of the principles upon which this country was founded, have zero understanding of simple economics and only get their daily dose of adrenaline when they can push others around like school yard bullies.

They lie to each other, to the opposition and to the American people and call their lies "truth," all the while staring truth right in the face without one iota of recognition of what they are looking at.

They try to justify every action by saying "so-and-so did it, too" (usually referring to Bush), thinking that somehow that makes it OK to do. That's a four year old's mentality and unbecoming of grownups.

I say the sooner we rid ourselves of them (whether they be liberal Democrat or Republican) by whatever means the the ballot box if we can, but by whatever other means may be necessary if that doesn't work.

There are far fewer years left for me than I have already lived, and before I die,


Monday, January 11, 2010


UPPER MANAGEMENT PERSON AT TSA (UMPATSA): Hmmm. Let's see. What can we do to prevent another person with hot underwear from getting on a plane?

SUBORDINATE (SUB): Sir, we could keep everyone in his/her seat for the final hour of the flight!

UMPATSA: What a great idea! Of course! Let's do that.

SUB-SUBORDINATE (SS): Uh, Sir, excuse me, but how would that keep people with hot BVDs from getting on the plane?

UMPATSA: Look, SS, we're trying to deal with a public perception problem here. Try not to muddy the waters, if you don't mind.

SS: Yes, Sir. Sorry.

UMPASTA: Come on! Come on! We need some more ideas, here!

SUB: Here's one. Let's ban the use of laptops on flights entering the USA.

UMPATSA: You know, SUB, I just don't know how you're able to come up with so many great ideas so often. Yessss! Let's ban laptops on incoming flights.

SS: Pardon me, Sir, but what did laptops have to do with Mr. Hot Pantywaist being able to bring explosives on board Flight 251?

UMPATSA: SS, stop being so negative. We are charged with keeping Americans safe in the air. Banning laptops on inbound flights will do that...can't you see?

SS: If you say so, Sir.

SUB: Another thing we can do is shift the blame. After all, it was not us who allowed Mr. Abdulmutallab to board the plane. That was the Dutch in Amsterdam.

UMPATSA: Quite right. But we must still inconvenience as many people as we can in THIS country so that they will perceive that we are doing something about terro...excuse me, man-caused disaster.

SS: A thousand pardons, Sir, but since we know that man-caused disaster is not perpetrated by little kids and kindly grandmas, couldn't we focus our attention on people who look and behave like the man-caused disasterers of 9/11 or Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood?

UMPATSA: SS, I've had about enough from you. Pick up your things and get out. You're fired!


Sunday, January 10, 2010


Patrick Henry


"Being a Christian… is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast. "

Friday, January 8, 2010


You know almost all there is to know about Umar Abdulmutallab, the BVD Bomber who tried to bring down Northwest flight 251 on Christmas day.

In fact, you know more than the Obama administration knew about him.

In their initial report to the media about the incident, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, wrote: “That Mr. Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Flight 153 for Detroit was a failure of the counter terrorism system,”

Admiral Blair seemingly did not know that the actual flight was Northwest 253, not 153.

He further said, "The Intelligence Community analysts who were working hard on immediate threats to Americans in Yemen did not understand the fragments of intelligence on what turned out later to be Mr. Abdulmutallab, so they did not push him onto the 'no fly' list."

It turns out that the misspelling of Umar Abdulmutallab’s name kept the intelligence analysts from initially "connecting the dots" on his attack.

But we can consider Blair competent, can't we?

So, how about John Brennan, assistant to the president for counter terrorism and homeland security, when asked, "What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review?..." said, "...The fact that they had moved forward to try to execute this attack against the homeland I think demonstrated to us — and this is what the review sort of uncovered — that we had a strategic sense of sort of where they were going, but we didn’t know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here. And we have taken that lesson, and so now we’re full on top of it."

Perhaps someone should explain to Mr. Brennan that his job was to understand the implications of the "dots" BEFORE the attack took place.

Nevertheless, we can consider Brennen competent to do his job, can't we?

Then there's the venerable Janet Napolitano, the third United States Secretary of Homeland Security, who was asked the same question and responded, "...not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence."

She was shocked that al Qaeda would resort to using an individual to format an attack?

Let me ask you, were YOU shocked that al Qaeda would resort to using an individual to format an attack?

Well, if you, an ordinary citizen are not surprised by it, what possible excuse is there for the DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY to be surprised by it, for Pete's sake?

Where was she following the 9/11 attacks? Where was she during the Ft. Hood attack?

Where in the universe has her head been all this time?

To quote Charlie Brown, "Good Grief!"

But we can consider Janet Napolitano competent, can't we?

Only if you are totally stupid.

What, Ducky, et. al., you think I'm making this stuff up?

Refute this if you can:

The question asked was, "What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well."

MR. BRENNAN: "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is an extension of al Qaeda core coming out of Pakistan. And, in my view, it is one of the most lethal and one of the most concerning of it. The fact that they had moved forward to try to execute this attack against the homeland I think demonstrated to us — and this is what the review sort of uncovered — that we had a strategic sense of sort of where they were going, but we didn’t know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here. And we have taken that lesson, and so now we’re full on top of it."

SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: "I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence. It really emphasizes now the renewed importance on how different intelligence is integrated and analyzed, and threat streams are followed through. And, again, it will impact how we continue to review the need to improve airport security around the world."

How long will it be until you liberals out there wake up and realize that you have elected an incompetent man to lead the country and that he has selected incompetent people to carry out his incompetence?

Are you brain numbed?

What is WRONG with you?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010


Responding to the prodding of Tapline, who does not post as often as he used to, or as often as I'd like him to, I looked into an interesting Executive Order, written by President Reagan and quietly amended by President BO.

The International Criminal Police Organization, known as Interpol, the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries.

Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.

The United States' involvement with Interpol was defined by a Reagan era document known as Executive Order 12425.

President BO has signed the following Executive Order amending the original Order:

For Immediate Release
December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, December 16, 2009.

These changes - "immune from search," "archives...inviolable" - seem to clearly place Interpol above the reach of American law and immune from the reach of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), Congressional oversight and media inquiry.

Since Interpol performs various investigative duties including those related to the International Criminal Court, the changes in 12425 seem to clear the way as a first step to placing the United States under the jurisdiction of the ICC [as noted by Threats Watch] allowing Interpol to, without restriction, conduct investigations of U.S. citizens, organizations, etc.

According to the White House, this amendment was simply a "house keeping" detail correcting an alleged "error" in the original document, an error that went unnoticed by four administrations.

The MainStream Media has largely ignored this E.O., except for ABC's, Jake Tapper, who repeatedly ask for, but was refused, an explanation of the need for this amendment.

After many requests, Tapper was given the "house keeping" explanation.

But it is not "house keeping." It is an insidious, back door way of insuring that Interpol's authority in the United States supersedes that of American law.

Does that bother you at all?

It should.

Cooperating in world affairs is one thing.

Taking steps to mitigate our nation's sovereignty is quite another.

Read More HERE.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010


It takes ten minutes and is worth every second of it. (Clicking on the picture won't work...use the link.

I'm going to set some rules for this one:

1. If you disagree with Bill Whittle, enumerate specific points.

2. If you just call him names, or castigate his concepts without specific facts, your comment will be deleted. Don't bother commenting if you cannot back your comment up with facts related to the video content.

3. If you are an American citizen, write your congress person and say, "No More!"

4. If you are an American citizen, send the above link to your congressperson.

5. If you are a liberal, demonstrate that you are open minded by seriously considering the thoughts put forth in the video.

We sing, "...the land of the FREE and the home of the brave," while watching our freedom eroded, no, exploded away by an out-of-control government that believes it has the power to do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants, to whomever it wants and that it has no responsibility to answer to the people.

I say ENOUGH!!!

You and I must stop them or we will rue the day when we didn't.

Saturday, January 2, 2010


Two weeks ago my wife developed a bad cough...bad enough that she wanted to see her doctor.

She called the doctor's office and was told she could not be seen until 3:00 PM THAT VERY SAME DAY!

Now, we don't have health insurance...haven't had for a bunch of years. She's not old enough for Medicare.

Yet some years ago my wife's carpel tunnel was taken care of on our promise to make regular payments until it was paid off...payments far less than an insurance policy would have cost us monthly.

Anyway, the doctor saw her and diagnosed a bad case of bronchitis, for which he prescribed some antibiotics.

He also wanted her to get a chest X-ray and a complete blood work-up.

We walked into the local medical lab, got the blood work done for about $140.00 within 30 minutes.

We went to the radiology center, walked in and she had a chest X-ray and we were out the door within 30 minutes...for about $45.00.

Now add up the doctor's visit, the blood work the X-ray and Walmart's $4.00 generic antibiotic and we got through the day for far less than one month's health insurance would be.

We experienced no excessive waiting, no paucity of service, got exactly what we needed and were back home in time to do the things that needed done that day.

One more visit to the doctor and one more $4.00 prescription and she is much better...just about her old self again.

Raise your hand if you think this is what it will be like under any form of the health care legislations being considered.

If you raised your hand, I have a bridge...

To what country or model can you point where citizens can get that kind of care that quickly under socialized or government run health care: Canada? Great Britain? Sweden? Cuba (in your dreams).

Yet she will be forced to pay a premium for health care or face a fine for failing to do so.

Do some simple math and tell me: will paying a premium every month be cheaper than our recent experience?

(For those of you educated recently in government school, the answer is, "No.")

We don't need any form of the kind of health care reform currently being considered.

Call or write your congress persons and senators and tell them so.

Do it today! (OK, Monday)