Wednesday, March 31, 2010


Honest Al Sharpton was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly when he was asked about the alleged use of the "N" word at the D.C. Tea Party rally.

Sharpton claimed that someone shouted it at Congressman John Lewis (D-GA).

When asked by O'Reilly how he knew it happened, Sharpton declared emphatically, "I've seen the tape!"

When challenged that there was no tape, did Mr. Sharpton say something like, "Well, no, I misspoke. I didn't see the tape, but I heard that it had happened?"

No, he looked at O'Reilly and asked, "So, everyone hallucinated the "N" word use..."

Look, he did not say he HEARD that the "N" word was used, he stated categorically that he had SEEN the "tape" when he knew very well he had NOT seen the tape.

"There are all kind of reporters that were there," continued Mr. Sharpton, as though that addressed the issue of his having seen the "tape."

So what?

He did not say he got the information from the reporters, he said he SAW THE TAPE!


Guess what. When you say you saw something you did not see, do you know what that's called?


The expression on Sharpton's face when he got called on his lie is priceless.

Have you ever seen a kid lie to his parents to avoid getting caught? Same expression.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that when you are trying to make people believe something, and you have to lie to get them to believe it, why should they trust you when you try to make them believe other things?

How do we now know which of the things the brother has said are true? Has he "seen the tape" on all of them?

Look, it COULD have happened (although there is NO evidence at this time that it did). If someone called Congressman Lewis the "N" word, that is despicable. It is wrong! Do you get that? I do not defend it! I oppose it!

That's not the point of this post.

My point is that politicians of every ilk, and others, think that they can convince you of something just by proclaiming it to be so, and by-and-large, they are successful! You fall for it.

Did you fall for Sharpton's declaration that he SAW the "tape?" Hmmm?

Just in case you think maybe there WAS a "tape," Andrew Breitbart has offered $10,000.00 to anyone who will come forward with a video verifiable as having been recorded at the Washington D.C. Tea Party event.

No takers, so far.

So, tell me: What did Al Sharpton gain by lying about seeing the "tape?" How was his credibility enhanced? Why did he think he had to lie about it?

Do liberals, especially black liberals, think that just making up something is convincing people that their cause is just?

(For those of you who think I just make things up [Tom], here is the video of the relevant portion of O'Reilly's interview with Sharpton):

Sunday, March 28, 2010



What company has President BO ever run?

Has President BO ever had to meet a payroll?

What, exactly, does he know about business?

Is his business sense based on some etherial philosophy, or on hard, earned business knowledge?

What military experience has President BO ever had?

Why does he think he is qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the greatest military power the world has ever known?

He is a Harvard graduate, is he not? How did he pay for his education?

What visible signs of support did President BO have? Did he hold any significant jobs?

Did President BO spend his formative years absorbed in American culture?

Has President BO ever aligned himself with radical extremists, that is: those who have resisted and/or argued or acted against the American way of life?

Is our president an humble servant of the people, or is he absorbed in himself, as evidenced by his incessant use of the word "I?"

Does President BO prefer a European style government to the historical Representative Republic that has been America?

Does the president understand the principles of true capitalism?

Does he support or oppose those principles?

Has President BO sought to have the government take over large lending institutions, automobile companies, and the finest health care system in the world?

Does our president understand the economic forces that made the United States the world's economic leader?

Does he know why we have historically had the highest standard of living in the entire universe?

Does President BO realize that we could become totally energy independent within seven to ten years if we just allowed drilling in our country in places where we know we have vast oil reserves, and that we could do it using current technology, while we allow time for "green" technologies to get up and running?

Does the president willingly and openly consider the opinions of those who are politically not aligned with him?

Does President BO understand the difference between controlling and governing?

Does he seek to silence those who disagree with him, politically...people like Rush Limbaugh and others whose talents have allowed them to have vibrant, viable radio shows?

Does President BO seek to give those who cannot garner a radio audience because they have no radio talent and don't even understand what it is some kind of preferential treatment, calling it "fair?"

Does our president give speeches that sound more like a college professor's lectures to the sophomore class?

When challenged on an issue, does President BO tend to make great use of "uh" as a stalling tactic while he tries to think of a way to couch his response in such a way as not to really answer the question asked?

Other than garnering the necessary votes, what, exactly, are the things about President BO that actually qualify him to be the leader of the free world?

Saturday, March 27, 2010


I first saw this on Social Sense. I recommend it to you.

We are loosing our freedoms.

One by one they are being taken away, always "for the good of society as a whole."

That is exactly the same reason Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussilini, Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez and dozens of other despots gave for ridding their citizens of their freedoms.

At no time in history has taking away a freedom resulted in a good to society.

"What freedoms have we lost?" you ask.

They are in the hundreds, so I will not list them all, but here are a few:

You cannot drive without a seatbelt. ("But wearing seatbelts saves lives. It is for the good of society as a whole! " Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless it is a freedom you have lost.)

You cannot call people certain things. ("But it is hurtful to call people names." Maybe, maybe not. [Whatever hapened to 'sticks and stones...?"] Nevertheless, except for besmirching Christians and conservatives, that is a freedom you have lost.)

You cannot hug a child who is not yours on school grounds (indeed, not in most places). ("But there are so many perverts out there! This is for the good of society as a whole." Newsflash! One of the reasons many kids have developed anti-social behavior is because they have NOT been hugged. Kids NEED hugging. Society has NOT been served by the loss of this freedom.)

You cannot spank your child. ("But spanking children teaches them violence. This is for the good of society as a whole!" BULLHONKEY! The reason we have so many maladapted kids is exactly because we have become permissive by peer pressure, if not by law.)

You have lost the freedom of association. You may now be the subject of a government investigation simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy groups you are involved in, or the statements you make within these groups. ("But we can't have people hanging around groups that may advocate the overthrow of the government. This is for the good of the whole." How on earth do you think this country came into being? Did you think it was from some benign academics who sat around trying to come up with some viable govenment that could properly control the people? We held a WAR, for pity's sake! A WAR enabled us to come into being!)

So tell me. Can you:

Know that if you are extradited to another country, this is done only after due legal process?

Get on an airplane with a can of Coca Cola, or with some contact lens solution?

Buy a car using cash? (I tried that a few years of the most difficult things I have ever done.)

Know that your communications are secret, unless a judge explicitly allows them to be intercepted?

Get an on airplane anonymously?

Walk along the street unobserved by the authorities?

Sell your house and take out all my cash?

Carry a Swiss Army Knife everywhere?

Buy an LP, and play it on as many record players as you like. Forever?

Know that your communications will not be kept on file for years?

Buy an LP, and make a tape copy of it?

Own a gun without having it registered?

Voice your opinion in support of some freedom fighter group or other, without the risk of going to prison for “glorifying terrorism”?

Know that anyone who is forced to provide the authorities information against you can tell you about this without fear of prison?

Open a bank account without identifying yourself?

Smoke in your own office?

Bring your toolkit on an airplane?

Rent an airplane in 5 minutes, by just paying a pilot the hourly fee. In cash?

Phone people without the number being tracked?

Travel from, say, Dallas to Amsterdam without your details being tracked, and kept on file for up to 40 years, by at least one government (without me having the right to check the data and correct errors)?

Choose whether or not to carry health insurance?

All for the good of society as a whole.


Friday, March 26, 2010


Under President BO's leadership and insistance, Congress has passed a bill written by a committee whose chairman says he can’t figure all of it out, who calls it "imperfect," and which he says must have "fixes."

They have passed a bill that was passed by a Congress that could not take the time to actually read it.

They have passed a bill from which that same Congress has exempted itself, as well as the upper echelon of its employees... probably because it is such a good bill that they, personally, want nothing to do with it.

They have passed a bill signed by President BO, who has not read the bill, either.

They have passed a bill about health signed by a president who leads the way by smoking.

They have passed a bill that is funded by a Secretary of the Treasury who does not think it important to pay his own taxes.

They have passed a bill to be administered by a Surgeon General who is overweight, Regina M. Benjamin, M.D.

They have passed a bill underwritten by a country on the verge of bankruptcy, that will saddle its progeny with massive debt and huge budget deficits.

What could possibly go wrong?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


President BO has both publicly expressed disdain for, and taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Seemingly, in his world, one can have it both ways.

His behavior since taking office has evidenced his continued disenchantment with the greatest document ever written by man.

I suggest that he consider re-writing the Constitution so that it is more to his liking.

Perhaps he could start it like this:

PREAMBLE: We the government over the people of the Disunited States, in order to force all people into a single mold, warp and pervert Justice, incite unrest and reactionary responses, defend and separate ourselves from the people, provide welfare for all citizens, and usurp and eliminate the blessings of liberty and economic stability for the people and their posterity, do alter and denigrate this Constitution for the Disunited States of AMarxista.

Article I, Section I: The President shall put himself at the fore of every issue and shall have the power to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants to whomever he wants.

Article II, Section I: Congress shall have the power to enact any law it wants to about any issue it wants to with a 1/3 vote of Democrats present at the time of passage.

Article III, Section I: The Supreme Court shall be composed of liberals only who will interpret laws in such a way as to move us toward a more totalitarian form of government.

Article IV, Section I: The states shall have no rights.

Article V, Section I: The people shall do as they are told, and any majority that makes its will known contrary to the Democrat Party line shall be ignored or ridiculed or both.

Coming soon to a government near you.

Monday, March 22, 2010


It was about, and only about, winning.

They won.

Sunday, March 21, 2010 will go down as the day President Barack H. Obama and his willing accomplices in congress and the MainStream Media made a fundamental change in America.

Far from representing the people, congress passed a health care reform bill that is a blow to freedom and a financial albatross around the necks of our yet-to-be-born posterity.

The cost of this legislation, conservatively, will be $940 billion. Since we do not have that kind of money and will have to borrow it, it will also add to the staggering national debt, which will now be over $12 trillion!

Who will ever know the extent of bribery and corruption, payoffs and promises thereof that allowed this travesty to take place?

The power of the federal government over our lives has been geometrically expanded and is the antithesis of what our forefathers intended for this Great Experiment.

The door has been opened for the further degradation of the free market, which the socialists among us have decried as responsible for our current economic woes, the Community Reinvestment Act notwithstanding.

It is not the greed of large corporations that has brought us here (although their willing participation must not be discounted), it is, rather, the general culture of entitlement and individual corruption in high places.

Opposing “free” health care will very difficult for conservative Republicans in November, and it is doubtful whether there are enough of them with the back bone for it.

All of this, and we have not yet been told the inevitable costs of shipping and handling for this boondoggle.

President BO's change has begun in earnest.

Sunday, March 21, 2010


James Madison


I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.



House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. , R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)

The guy sitting in the row in front of these two.... he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.

These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1, and are about to control your health care, cap and trade, and the list goes on....

Saturday, March 20, 2010


Let's hope we get the change (of votes) we need!

Friday, March 19, 2010


Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.”

If the House does not have a direct vote on a given piece of legislation, that would be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

But congress is poised to circumvent the Constitution.

At the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what's known as a "self-executing rule," also known as a "hereby rule."

The term "Slaughter Rule" has nothing to do with killing (although its use on the health care bill might well kill the way the constitution requires laws to be enacted). It is named after the afore mentioned House Rules Committee Chairwoman.

Under this horrible procedural ruse, the House would then vote once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill.

If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

This is called, "deem and pass."

Never before has Congress passed a comprehensive reform bill using this tactic.

You have heard or read: "Republicans have used similar tactics to get bills passed."

You are being lied to.

It is true that, according to the Congressional Research Service, "on August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of a bill made in order for consideration, a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration.” The legislation to prohibit smoking on domestic flights was made part of another bill, then that other bill received a vote.

This is very different, because the health care reconciliation measure will not be incorporated into the Senate passed version of Obamacare and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate for separate consideration.

The Slaughter solution would allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill.

But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form.

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

So what we have is "the most ethical congress in history" behaving in a most extraordinarily unethical manner to force upon citizens of the U.S. a health care program that they do not want.

Boys and girls, whether you know it or not, if congress succeeds in passing health care legislation in this manner, you will have allowed them to introduce into our legislative process by precedence a procedure that will break the back of liberty and will grant them a power you don't want them to have.

Maybe this congress is so benevolent that we need not fear their having this kind of power (which benevolence I sincerely doubt), but trust me, there will come a congress so committed to their own power that they will use this process to enslave you.

One more chip of your liberty is about to be ground into powder and blown away in the wind.

For more information, click HERE, from whence much of this post was assembled.

h/t to The Heritage Foundation.

Thursday, March 18, 2010


The most common answers to this question are: 1) taxation without representation and 2) to be a free nation.

Those answers are true, but they are only a small part of the reason.

King George III, who achieved the crown in 1760, after the death of George II, was a strong king and quite the warrior.

His long reign was marked by a series of military conflicts involving his kingdoms, much of the rest of Europe, and places farther afield in Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Early in his reign, Great Britain defeated France in the Seven Years War, becoming the dominant European power in North America and India.

King George III ruled his parliament with an iron fist. What he wanted he generally got.

The American colonies were considered to belong to the British, and King George III had his own ideas as to how they should be ruled, to the point that he was willing to whip them into shape if need be.

And be needed.

The colonies wanted self rule, or at least to be able to make laws appropriate for their unique situation.

Things got worse and worse for the Americans until at last they could stand it no more.

They declared their Independence from Great Britain…a costly action, both in finances and in lives.

They listed 28 reasons for their decision to break ties with King George III.

1. King George III refused to give his approval to the local laws the colonies wished for themselves.

2. He required that the governors of colonies be suspended from office until he ruled on their desires, which he refused to do.

3. He forced the colonies to relinquish their right to representation in the legislature (which the colonists thought they should keep and which King George III tyrannically refused)

4. He held secret legislative meetings in places “representatives” from the colonies could neither know nor find. (He did this in order to tire them of their struggle for representation and to force them into compliance with his wishes.)

5. Every time “representatives” from the colonies arrived to represent themselves, King George III would dissolve his parliament, thus making their long trip to England futile.

6. After dissolving parliament, he refused to allow members to be elected thereto.

7. He controlled every aspect of immigration to the colonies and made land ownership for the newly arrived almost impossible.

8. He would not allow the colonists to set up their own judiciary.

9. He made all judges from the colonies answerable to him, alone.

10. He established many new offices headed by British loyalists who were to harass the colonists into submission to the king. They consumed and/or stole the colonists’ food

11. He kept a standing army in America, against the will of the people.

12. He made his army superior to the civil leadership of the colonies.

13. He made arbitrary laws pertaining to the colonists that did not pertain to anybody else in Great Britain.

14. King George III forced colonists to take large numbers of army personnel into their home, to house and feed them.

15. He held mock trials for British Army soldiers who murdered colonists and invariably acquitted them.

16. He cut off the colonists’ trade with much of the world.

17. He imposed taxes without the consent of the colonists.

18. He disallowed trial by jury in the colonies.

19. He accused Americans of made up offences and forced them to travel to England for “trial.”

20. He established arbitrary governance in the colonies and attempted absolute rule over them.

21. He took away the colonists’ charters and altered their desired form of government.

22. King George III suspended the American legislature and declared himself to be the legislator of the colonies.

23. He refused to protect the colonists, waging war on them, instead.

24. He plundered the colonists’ ships, ravaged their coastlines, burned their towns and killed American.

25. He sent large armies trained in torture to inflict barbarous penalties upon the colonists.

26. He forced captured American seamen, under threat of death, to wage war against their friends, countrymen and families.

27. He incited Americans to insurrection against themselves and (these are Thomas Jefferson’s own words) “…endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

28. He ignored the petitions for redress from the colonists, responded to their requests with increased violence and behaved like a Tyrant.

After many appeals to King George III to cease his aggressions, and after many warnings that the colonist were tiring of his injustices, 56 men put their names to a Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Which, to a man, they did.

The Entire Text of the Declarationof Independence

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Andrew P. Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59 year old former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a graduate of Princeton University, and Notre Dame Law School . At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton along with Justice Samuel Alito. Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey.

Monday, March 15, 2010


If you are a liberal, you think differently from me.

You think that if somebody from your "side of the fence" espouses something it is true, whether it is actually true or not.

You think global warming is happening.

The science backed you up...until we found out the science was "cooked." Then it did not back you up any more.

Did that deter you?


You will not be influenced by what is true, because to you, truth is relative.

You know, the old "What's true for you may not be true for me" line, used mostly by people who never advanced intellectually beyond their sophomore year in college, even though they may have all sorts of degrees after their name.

If what is true may not be true then we need to find a new word to express that which actually happened or actually is. I also believe that the only people who deserve to have degrees after their names are those who deal in, and only in, truth.

Not having such a word, I'll stick to the word, "true" and will define it as that which actually happened and actually is.

You think Glenn Beck is a nut job and always wrong.

I think Glenn Beck is somewhat of a nut job, but mostly right.

You think Rachel Maddow is a clear thinking commentator.

I think Rachel Maddow is a raging, biased nut-job, angry at the world in general, men in particular and conservatives specifically.

You think government has a role in nearly every aspect of life.

I think government's role should be restricted to that which is outlined in the constitution.

You think I would be very unhappy if government really did get smaller and less intrusive.

I think I would be very happy if government got smaller and less intrusive.

You think health care is a right. You don't know when, how or why it became one, but you think it nonetheless.

I don't think health care is a right. Period.

You think rich people should have more of their money confiscated because "they can afford it."

I think rich people should be able to keep more of their money because THEY EARNED IT.

You think the "free speech" clause of the Constitution gives you the right to say anything you want to say about anything or anybody you want to say it. You think it gives you the right to be vulgar if you want to be. You also think it gives you the right to infringe on my right to free speech if I'm making references to God, Christ, prayer or religion in general.

I think that the "free speech" clause pertains to the federal government (specifically, congress) being restricted from curtailing your right to say what you want. But I think states, counties, municipalities, groups, people in their own homes and bloggers on their own blogs have every right to restrict your language if they want to.

You think the government has the right to control my possession of firearms.

I think the government is restricted from controlling my possession of firearms by the constitution.

You think government has done a good job with such "businesses" as Amtrack, the United States Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now General Motors and Chrysler.

I think that since every one of those entities is either bankrupt, near bankruptcy or struggling to keep their heads above water that the governemnt has NOT done a good job with them.

You think the government could do a good job with health care, even though they have not done well with those mentioned above.

I think government CANNOT do a good job with health care, SINCE they have not demonstrated the ability to do a good job with those mentioned above.

There are literally dozens of other areas where you would think one way and I would think another.

We cannot both be right.

One of us is wrong.

So, who is right and who is wrong?

I'll settle the matter once and for all.

I'm right.

Sunday, March 14, 2010


Francis Scott Key


[M]ay I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will lead you into all truth, leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and going on in your way to Him rejoicing.

Saturday, March 13, 2010


Historically, the word “climate” has been used to describe how weather behaves in a given area.

The tropic zones have a certain weather type, while the temperate zones have another.

For years, people who wriggled themselves to the fore of reporting global climate forces warned us of the coming “global warming,” caused by the activities of man and dooming the planet’s inhabitants to rising oceans, massive, monster hurricanes and melting ice caps. This warning was upheld by former Vice President Al Gore in his lectures, his book and his so-called documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

They based all of this on data from four major sources: The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia; the National Atmospheric and Space Administration (NASA) via their Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

NASA, according to emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, considered its own data to be lacking, and depended heavily on CRU’s data to support its assertion of what was then called “Global Warming.”

NCDC GHCN data had been judged by the scientific meteorological community as both lacking and faulty, so they, too, began to rely on data from CRU.

It turns out, as evidenced by thousands of emails and hundreds of actual documents, that CRU’s data was impure, to say the least.

In fact, by the admissions of the emails’ and documents’ authors, the data was manipulated, made up, parts of it ignored completely (because it did not fit the agenda of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”) and added deliberately to “fit the mold.”

To add to the mix, we had a totally unanticipated dearth of the predicted Atlantic hurricanes (which were supposed to increase dramatically due to “Global Warming”), and record cold and snow in places around the globe that were not supposed to have happened.

I just read a totally incredulous article about “Climate Change” causing the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. No other earthquakes in history have been attributed to atmospheric climate, but somehow these two were supposed to have been cause thereby.

Quickly the “scientific” community decided to take definitive action…they changed the name of the weather phenomenon known as “Global Warming” to “Climate Change,” which only drew attention to their dishonesty, since the climate has always changed…that’s what climates do for a living.
Part of what makes science science is attempting to explain unexplained phenomena.

Scientists grapple with issues, do experiments, and, yes, fight among themselves to arrive at viable conclusions about them.

The problem comes when people whose work should be honest and full of integrity become dishonest, secretive, evasive, accusatory, and manipulative with the data they put in their models, choose to leave pertinent data out and deliberately change data.

See, if you lie to me about one thing, then you are obligated to give me a list of the things you lie about and the things you tell the truth about so I can tell the difference. And you must not lie on your list unless your list is listed as one of the things you lie about.

When the data is truthfully plotted on a simple graph, it matters not how far back you look you discover that the earth’s climate has forever changed, that it is changing now and will change in the future.

You will also find no correlation (0) between the behavior of man and the global climate.

Ours is a carbon based planet, and carbon dioxide, far from being any kind of pollutant, turns out to be a rejuvenator of life and life forces on the planet. Plant life thrives on it and in return releases oxygen into the atmosphere, a necessary element for animal life.

The ozone layer, once the focus of all thing evil by humans, has “healed” itself and the huge increase of skin cancers and other tragedies predicted did not occur.

Global Warming, once the boogie man of rising seas, melting ice caps and dying polar bears, has been shown to be a myth. The seas have not risen, the ice caps are growing again and there are more polar bears in the wild than there have ever been.

If you fell prey to the Global Warming scam, think hard about what other follies you have succumbed to over the years and learn to stop letting fear-mongers control your thinking, your actions and your lives.

Of course, if you are a liberal that will be very hard for you, for your pride is almost unshakable. In fact, you probably are thinking, “See, we brought it to your attention, full of good intentions and that in itself is what fixed the problems.”

Thursday, March 11, 2010


Most people have never read, let alone understood, the Constitution of the United States of America. They find it boring and unnecessary in their lives.

What they don't understand is that it is the "rule book" for the government and for American life in general.

It is a unique document, in that it does not, for the most part, give us a list of things government can do but what it cannot do to us.

One very interesting section is Section 8 of Article 1, which gives a job description of congress (Congress means the House of Representatives and the Senate).

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

These days we have a congress (House and Senate) that try to use the "general welfare" clause to do anything it wants to do "for the good of the people."

"This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states..." (The Free Dictionary-Legal Dictionary).

There are two questions regarding congress' current attempt to impose health care on all U.S. citizens:

One: If health care is a "right," where did that right come from and why was it not recognized from the beginning of time and by the majority of countries until relatively recently?

Two: Where does congress get the idea that it has the power to force health care on the citizens?

Is any branch of government allowed to arbitrarily establish "rights?"

Is not the Constitution itself adequate to guarantee our freedoms? Do we need congress to busy themselves modifying, usurping and denying our liberties?

If you would like "nutshell" explanations of the Constitution, there is a great place to read them. It's: U.S. Constitution Online. Check it out, it's very interesting.

Monday, March 8, 2010


As you know, going green is all the rage these days.

From we read: Buy or switch to energy efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs.

The bulbs they are recommending are those twisty fluorescent thingies...the ones with the mercury in them so if you break one you have to call in a HazMat team.

Before you purchase more, trusting that your government only wants the best for you, maybe you should watch this:

Now repeat with me: "We're your government and we only want to help you."

Again: "We're your government and we only want to help you."

Once more, with feeling: "We're your government and we only want to help you."


Here is the actual sequence to follow if you break a CFL bulb:

And you think that is OK?

Sunday, March 7, 2010


James Kent


My children, I wish to talk to you. During my early and middle life I was, perhaps, rather skeptical with regard to some of the truths of Christianity. Not that I did not have the utmost respect for religion and always read my Bible, but the doctrine of the atonement was one I never could understand, and I felt inclined to consider as impossible to be received in the way Divines taught it.

I believe I was rather inclined to Unitarianism; but of late years my views have altered.

I believe in the doctrines of the prayer books as I understand them, and hope to be saved through the merits of Jesus Christ. . . .

My object in telling you this is that if anything happens to me, you might know, and perhaps it would console you to remember, that on this point my mind is clear: I rest my hopes of salvation on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Saturday, March 6, 2010


He's so reasonable.

He's so suave.

He's so .... I can't go on.

He's a frothy, fen-sucked, bugbear.

Friday, March 5, 2010


The following was Posted June 06, 2009 in World Net Daily (HERE ). I have seen it before, but thought it was worth re-reading.

"We're no longer a Christian nation." – President Barack Obama, June 2007

"America has been arrogant." – President Barack Obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals." – President Barack Obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."– President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president … I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels – under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom – now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore – never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

Is Shariah law coming to a court near you? Get "Stealth Jihad" – Robert Spencer's expose about efforts to quietly establish the Muslim system in Amerca

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president – a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white – I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"

You surely can't be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers – and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation – to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious
expression – contrary to Jefferson's intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute … were your ideas about America's Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that "America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that "America has been arrogant"?

Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?*

Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution – and the success of our Revolution and founding – owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" – you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?

*Stealth Jihad" – Robert Spencer

Thursday, March 4, 2010


Bill Gates is rich.

No one would deny that.

How did he get rich?

Like most rich people, he earned his money.

He did not "win life's lottery. " He did not receive a great inheritance. He worked hard, took risks, was very innovative and it paid off for him.

While earning his money, he gainfully employed a great number of people in his business and helped support a great many others who sold his product(s) in their retail outlets at a profit.

Question: Why should I get one whit of what Bill Gates worked for and earned via the government?

Question: Why should Bill Gates pay any more for the roads I use, the firemen who protect my home or the police who protect me?

Question: If Bill Gates should pay more for some things, why not all things? Should Bill Gates pay $15.00 for a gallon of milk while I pay only $3.00? Should Bill Gates pay more for a given make and model of car than I do?

Just because he can?

That makes absolutely no sense in any way, shape or form.

It is pure class envy, nothing else.

Some people think, "He has a lot, so should I. "

That, my friends, is the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

You want more? Go earn more!

It is the government's job to provide you with the opportunity, not the things.

And it is wrong for the government to take a greater percentage of somebody's earned money just because they can.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010


Do we adopt a label because of what we believe, or do we choose to believe what we do because we want to wear a certain label?

"Joseph," I hear you asking, "Where on earth did THAT come from and what's it got to do with anything?"

It's actually a question that any person of integrity has to ask him or herself in order to think of him/herself a a person of honor.

Some people seem to go about this "liberal/conservative" thing all wrong.

Here's what I mean.

One person grows up seeing influential people around him/her, decides that he/she want to be like them, discovers that those people are "liberals" and therefore call him/herself "liberal."

Others have certain beliefs and ideas, discover that they are "liberal" ideas and adopt them, thus becoming "liberals."

Still others see that there are two choices, "liberal" and "conservative," have no real idea what either of the terms mean, but hear more good things about "liberals" so they decide they want to be one. They therefore adopt the ideas that will identify themselves as "liberals."

One can take each of those instances and apply them to "conservative" and come up with the same ending.

"So?" you ask.

So there are a lot of liberals in the world who aren't really liberals but have adopted liberal characteristics so they can fit the label.

There a lot of conservatives, on the other hand, who aren't really conservatives but have adopted conservative characteristics so they can fit that label.

When I was in college (a sophomore, as a matter of fact...about intellectually where President BO is today), I thought putting labels on people was undesirable. I thought that because I thought it was undesirable to label people that I was somehow more humane than my friends who DID put labels on people. I also thought, therefore, that I was more intellectual than my college mates.

Boy was I wrong!

It turns out that we NEED labels in order to know how to relate to each other.

A boss is labeled "boss" because that's the way we identify the status of the person in charge of us as we work at our jobs. If we don't have a boss, or don't know which of those around us IS the boss, we lose the context in which to do our work.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" are supposed to be descriptive of a set of principles to which we hold, or do not hold in our lives.

The confusion comes when people screw up the principles until they are either unrecognizable, inconsistent with their actual beliefs and ideas or the just pretend to be something they are not.

For instance, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) pretend to be Republicans, but exhibit many of the characteristics of Democrats, thus diminishing the meaning of the word "Republican."

The same can be said for DINOs (Democrats In Name Only).

Personally, I think there is no room in the Republican Party for RINOs, and I am sure there are Democrats who have no room in their hearts (or their Party) for DINOs.

If each person would just be intellectually and philosophically honest he/she would be who he/she is without regard to label and let the labels be assigned to them in relation to their beliefs and ideas.

There are too many Republicans who live in districts in which they could not get elected as a Democrat, therefore run as a Republican and act like a Democrat when they get in office.

Vice Versa, I'm sure.

If this trend continues much longer, the lines between "Democrats" and "Republicans" will become so blurred that there won't be a dime's difference between them and it won't matter which one gets elected.

Right now, though, it DOES matter.

In fact, we are reaping the devastation brought on by people who were elected to office as one thing who turned out to be another.

Both George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama fall into this category.

I am appalled at some of the decisions made by the Bush administration, especially in the last eight or nine months of his presidency. I am equally appalled at much of what has been proposed by the Obama administration in the first year of HIS presidency.

I hold to certain beliefs, ideas and, yes, ideals that properly identify me as a conservative.

I held most of those ideals long before I even knew what a conservative was.

As I grew older, I began to fine tune what I believed until I got to where I am today.

I believe in the Constitution as the "rule book" for the federal government, and I believe that it provides that the federal government be restricted to certain activities carefully and properly defined in its pages.

I believe in a respect for human life, before birth, after birth, during life and at the end of life.

I believe that deep in the heart of every human being is a yearning to act as a free man/woman, and to be able to make reasonable and informed choices about his/her life.

I believe that a person is responsible for his/her own actions, decisions and for the consequences of those actions.

I believe that every person should have an equal opportunity to be what he/she wants to be within his/her abilities and willingness to work.

I do not believe that you have any responsibility for my life unless I am physically and/or mentally incapable of living it on my own.

I believe that any person should be able to rise as high (or remain as low) as he/she wishes, without penalty, so long as he/she works to get there and does not cause harm to others while on the trip up.

I believe that the federal government should stay out of peoples lives, stay out of corporations' business and stay out of states' affairs.

There are a lot more beliefs to which I subscribe, but you get the idea.

The result of my beliefs is that I am labeled "conservative," vilified by some, ridiculed by others, threatened by a few and hated by those who profess tolerance and love for all.

In my life, and I hope in yours as well, my beliefs came before my label.

That's as it should be.

As to which label you should wear to be a "good" American...well, that's a topic for another post.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010


Government produces nothing (unless you count government owned GM and Chrysler...and we know how well THAT'S worked.

Government gets its money from one

If government wants (or thinks it needs) more money, it just takes it from you, under threat of fines or jail time.

If government wants to give you some money, let's say in the form of a bonus or bailout, it must first take it from you.

If you don't make enough money, government thinks it should take some more from those who do have enough and give you a "rebate" or a "refund" on that which you have not paid in. (Absolutely impossible, by the way, without ignoring the meanings of "rebate" and "refund"...something the government is very good at.)

Some people (we'll call them liberals) think this is a very good idea. They seem to believe that there is no limit on what the government should be able to take from citizens to cover whatever "needs" it sees. If they DO think there is a limit, they don't know what that limit is. They sort of "feel like" such-and-such is the right amount.

Others (we'll call them conservatives), believe that the government has certain tasks it is to accomplish and that it should take from the citizens not a whit more than is needed to get those tasks done. Trouble is, they can't decide objectively how much is needed, either.

I, of course, have the ultimate solution to this issue.

Michael Savage is a strong proponent of what is called the "fair tax." It's a point of purchase tax, like a sales tax. You only pay tax when you purchase something.

That would become an accounting nightmare...not much improvement over what we have now.

Without going into the details, and having carefully studied the proposals surrounding the "fair tax," I'll just tell you that it is neither "fair" nor workable.

The only way to insure that citizens yield to the government an amount on which it can do what it MUST do (which is all any government should ever do) is to enact a flat income tax.

This is not the first time I have suggested such a thing, but now I have a strong ally, none other than Glenn Beck!

Some people will react in horror at having him as an ally. I see it as a good thing.

Here's how the flat tax works:

A minimum livable wage is established, let's for the sake of discussion say $20,000.00 per year (a $5,000.00 increase from the 1955 figure on which the minimum poverty is currently resting).

In a flat tax, the first $20,000.00 would not be taxed at all. Everything over that would be taxed at a set percentage of income, let's just say 10% for the purposes of this post, since it is an easy percentage to work with.

Using that standard, everything over $20,000.00 would be taxed at 10%.

If you earned $20,100.oo, your income tax would be 10% of $100.00, or $10.00.

If you earned $200,000.00, the first $20,000.00 would be exempt leaving you with a taxable income of $180,000.00, making your income 10% of $180,000.00 or $18,000.00.

This income tax would apply to ALL income, both corporate and individual, with companies being treated as though they were individuals. Self employed people would not incorporate, thus paying only their individual income.

There would be no deductions, no exemptions and no need for either the government manipulating people or people manipulating government.

Think of this: with this system there would be no need for an individual (think Charlie Rangel) or a corporation (Think Exxon) to seek tax loopholes, because there would be none. This system's only opportunity for fraud would be falsely reporting income, which could easily managed with a simple bookkeeping procedure.

Under a flat income tax system, a single, five line sheet of paper would be sufficient, making it possible for even a person educated in a government school to fill it out.

The income generated from this system would be 10% of corporate income plus 10% of all personal income. In today's economy that would amount to over $6 Trillion per year of "income" for the government.

Establishing a flat income tax would require a constitutional amendment (not an easy thing to accomplish) which would set the rate, which could only be changed by another amendment.

There is one more drawback to a flat income tax: it will take politicians with backbone and resolve, with a real sense of fair play and with enough self-sacrifice to make it happen, therefore it will probably never happen.

On the other hand (besides there being five more fingers) it could happen if enough people caught the vision and pressured congress to reach for it.

With the backing of national spokespersons with audience the size of Becks, who knows?

Income tax is here to stay. Right now it is an undecipherable mess. Both a "fair tax" and a "flat tax" would be infinitely easier to deal with.

In my humble, but correct, opinion, the flat income tax is the better of the two.

Monday, March 1, 2010


I wrote one of my really brilliant posts for today and when I went to save it, it disappeared.

It just disappeared!



I will re-write it for tomorrow.

If I can remember all of it.