IN MEMORIUM

Stop.

Think for a moment what it must be like for those doing battle in our armed services overseas at this moment.

Do you wonder, as I wonder, whether they wonder whether future Memorial Days will be to remember them?

Whether or not you agree with a person's decision to serve in the U.S. Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the National Guard, the Merchant marines, or any of their respective Reserves, you must know that they serve in harm's way for us.

Those who have gone before them did the same.

Many of them, hundreds of thousands of them, gave their lives so you could have whatever lifestyle and/or opinions you have.

They firmly believed that freedom is worth dying for.

They were right.

Remember them this weekend, especially on Monday.

I hope this helps:

SOMEBODY GIVE ME A COHERENT ARGUMENT AGAINST WHAT THIS LADY SAYS---I DARE YOU!

I think it needs no further explanation...she says it all.

THE FACE OF "TOLERANCE"

Notice the rage and anger of the Tea Party members and the calm, politeness of the larger May Day protest crowd.

Notice the May Day protesters' intelligent spelling: "IMMAGRANT" as opposed to the vile and ignorant portrayals by the Tea Party members.

Notice the vulgarity of the Tea Party members up against the suave, sophisticated demeanor of the May Day protesters.

Notice the reasoned arguments put forth by the May Day protesters compared to the unintelligible rantings of the Tea Party members.

Notice the number of Tea Party members who had to be arrested for use of deadly weapons as opposed to the May Day protesters who were calm and civilized.

What? You didn't notice all of those things?

Maybe it's because the truth (what actually happened) shows exactly the opposite.

The May Day crowd typifies the way liberals behave when confronted with reason.

LITTLE KNOWN "UNINTENDED" CONSEQUENCES

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi admonished us to pass the Health Care bill so we could see what’s in it.

Well, we see.

Here’s what you people allowed the Democrats to pass:

For a year after giving birth, nursing mothers must be allowed breaks on the job to express breast milk as often as necessary, and a private place to do so that’s not a bathroom. Result to business: hours of paying for non-productivity.

A new 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning. Result to those businesses: decreased profit, therefore increased prices for consumers.

Employers will be required next year to spell out the value of health benefits on W-2 forms. Keeping track of and control over everything you do.

Starting in January, you will no longer be able to tap your Flexible Spending account to cover aspirin, vitamins and other over-the-counter medications, unless they are prescribed by a doctor. Result: You can’t do what you want with your own money>

The health reform law now requires that states must match any federal funding they receive for abstinence-only programs. Very expensive proposition for states. Those close to bankruptcy now would be pushed over the edge.

President BO’s health care legislation will rescind a federal regulation put into effect by the previous administration to protect workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable. Physicians will be even less free to choose what they do and don’t do.

ObamaCare requires drug and device companies to report all gifts and payments to doctors and teaching hospitals. It calls on the companies to post the information on their Web sites and report it to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will post the first round of data in 2013. It fines companies up to $10,000 if they fail to report information, and in cases of willful failures to report, the fines reach $100,000.

Section 9006 of the new health care law may not only dramatically increase paperwork for small businesses, but also put them at a disadvantage against their larger competitors. Result to small businesses: less profits, higher prices and some may actually be forced out of business.

Health care reform has allowed $7 billion in funding for Community Health Centers buried deep in Section 10503 of the 383-page amendment. Abortion businesses will not be subject to provisions like the Hyde Amendment that stops abortion funding.


Beginning after Sept. 23, 2010, health plans that cover dependent children must continue to cover adult kids until they turn age 26. This new requirement is a sure way to increase health insurance costs.

The new health care reform law will slap a 3.8% tax on payouts from annuities purchased by high-income earners outside their workplace. This, while President BO has said that he want more annuities sold.

Congress has repealed the anti-trust exemption for health insurance and the reform plan sets up the basics of a federal infrastructure for insurance regulation. Can you say, “Higher Health Insurance prices?”

In 2013 employers will be required to pay a tax of $2,000 for every worker who gets health insurance through the state exchanges. For millions of American workers earning $20,000 a years or less, there will be a tax of 10% or more or earnings. For millions more earning between $20,000 and $40,000, the health care bill creates an earnings tax of between 5% and 10%. “No taxes of any kind on people earning less than $250 thousand per year.” Right.

The 2010 Act repeals the Medicare Part D credit for businesses, raising corporate tax bills and lowering after-tax income. Can you say, “Higher unemployment?”

A national calorie labeling rule tucked into the legislation assures that within a couple of years, everyone who walks into a chain restaurant will see calories counts displayed alongside the price of a meal. Big brother is taking care of you.

A provision in the health care plan would strip billions of dollars out of privately run Medicare plans that emphasize wellness and are increasingly popular among retirees. “Let ‘em get sick first, then we’ll decide whether they’re worth treating.”

The new health care reform subjects investment income — dividends, interest, and the capital gains from buying and selling stock and other assets — to a 3.8 percent Medicare tax. Less for us, more for the government.

Now tell me again: For whom was this ObamaCare bill written?

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

I don't make this stuff up.

If you are smarter than a fifth grader, you know that there are 5 oceans in the world: The Pacific; the Atlantic; the Indian; the Southern and the Arctic.

For many years only (4) four oceans were officially recognized, and then in the spring of 2000, the International Hydrographic Organization established the Southern Ocean.

This giant of an intellectual, Janet Napolitano, thinks there are more than that. She thinks the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean. You can hear her call it that, not once, but twice in the videos on this page. In the one above it's at :10 seconds and :35 seconds.

One slip could be excusable, but two, back-to-back indicate that she thinks she is using the right nomenclature.

For a clearer audio, try this LINK.

She goes on to say that the federal government is going to "...do all it can" to see that BP is held responsible for the oil spill (in the Gulf of Mexico, not [as far as we know] in any ocean). The feds will force BP to clean up this "ocean."

Then Salazar gets into the act with a series of vagaries that leave one scratching one's head, asking, "What does that mean?"

So it goes with President BO's team of the most sophomoric, educated idiots ever assembled.

And they are our leaders.

As John Maxwell once pinned: "If you think you are a leader, look behind you. If nobody's there, you're not a leader...you're just out for a stroll."

A SUNDAY "HYMN" FROM RAY STEVENS

With thanks to (and my encouragement for you to visit) LR at Important Stuff--Or Not.

Here's another. Not Ray Stevens...even better!

"SCIENTISTS" "CREATE" ARTIFICIAL LIFE???

This (if it is true) did not happen by accident.

It took intelligence. And thousands of years.

God is much better at it.

Check out the real story HERE.

The fact is, they have not created anything, only rearranged what was already here.

To create life, they would have to take nothing, build a bunch of atoms, use them to build molecules, then combine them with other elements they have also created (minerals, etc.) to create living cells.

They have not done that, therefore they have created nothing.

WORDS OF WISDOM FROM ONE OF MY HEROS, THE LATE DR. ADRIAN ROGERS

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Dr. Rogers lived from 1931-2005. These quotes are from his book written in 1984 (Despite what the popular email says).

BLUMENTHAL ACTS LIKE A TYPICAL POLITICIAN AFTER ALL

I know this is a long video. It is worth watching.

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, I will suggest a few times to which you can fast forward for some poignant moments.

Politicians have a special way of speaking in which they say, without saying, declaring without declaring, and insinuate without being definitive.

Blumenthal's main point here is that he "misspoke," using the word "in" instead of "during."

Aside from the pure popycockedness of that claim, he went on during the press conference to prove that he did, indeed, mean "in," and that it was a deliberate lie intended to make himself look worthy of extra praise.

Lets look a a few features and statements made during the conference.

To begin with, notice that he was surrounded by "Marine" veterans, including one woman, whose reactions bear watching. She got pretty emotional, sometimes more emotional than the moment called for.

Let's also recall that at a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered..." (Note the use of the word "we," indicating that he was a part of the group receiving the taunts).

In this conference, he states that he is proud of having stood up for the members of all branches of the military. He tells us that he attends many military events throughout the year. And he always honors those who did far more than he did.

That might well be, for he has, indeed seemed to have worked for veterans' issues...at least on the surface. Now we know that there might be darker motives at play.

The implication of these statements is that doing something good in the past negates any lies you might have told or are telling.

Then he gets to the meat of the press conference.

At 3:40 into the video he stated: "On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service and I regret that, and I take full responsibility."

Politicians deliberately ignore the meaning of "responsibility." They think that by stating that they take responsibility they have done so. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton both did that at Waco.

If I drive a car over the speed limit at the urging of my passenger, am pulled over, to whom do you think the officer will hold responsible, my passenger or me? Me, of course, and I will pay the price of that responsibility. There is always a price to responsibility.

Not only that, but he did not misspeak once, not even twice, but multiple times on the same subject, in the same context and with the same words.

An accident? Not on your everlovin'-blue-eyed life. He was trying to enhance his role in Viet Nam in order to make himself look more authoritative and important...in order to make himself look impressive.

He goes on (4:55):"...I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country. "

Pardonez moi, sir, but you do not get to allow or disallow the results of your words.

You are free to choose your actions, but you are not free to choose the consequences of your actions.

Furthermore, that statement is a deflection. It attempt to cover his misstatements with things that are true, but not relevant to the misspoken words he uttered.

The floor was opened to questions from reporters. Here are some of the things that took place.

Question (6:37):"When you entered the us marine corps, did you know that you wouldn’t be deployed to Viet Nam, or was that still an open question?"

Blumenthal: "There was no knowing with certainty where anyone would be deployed at that time. It was during the Viet Nam period. As it happened…within a very few years, the U.S. made different decisions about Viet Nam."

Yeah. Key words: "with certainty."

Only a look at the process at the time reveals that for him there was some degree of "certainty," or at least some heavy probability.

Finally it became impossible for him to have been deployed there and he could relax.

Question (7:04): "…what does misspeaking mean?"

Blumenthal: "Absolutely unintentional. A few misplaced words…"In" instead of "during…"

Question (7:21): "…why wasn’t it clear then?" (This was a reference to the fact that these misspeakings had taken place over quite a long period of time.)

Blumenthal: "I was unaware of those misplaced words when they were spoken, in fact, I was unaware of anyone taking note of them..."

Translation: "I don't pay attention to what I say...I just say what seems most impressive at the time I'm saying it. "

And: "I didn't think anybody would challenge me on the actual facts."

Question (7:47): "There have been a number of articles written where the reporter said that you had served in Viet Nam…Why didn’t you correct the record until now?"

Blumenthal: "There were a few articles, not many. I am responsible for my own statements and for any of my misplaced words,… I can’t be responsible for all the articles. I may not even have seen them …sometimes journalists do make mistakes."

See, here's the thing: they weren’t the reporters' mistakes…they were reporting on what you said! The mistakes were yours, not theirs.

And so it goes.

The Bible says, "But let your communication be , Yea, yea; Nay, nay..." (Matthew 5:37), meaning tell the truth...period.

William Shakespeare said, "“Honesty is the best policy. If I lose mine honor, I lose myself.”

Could we find one or two politicians who subscribe to those statements?

Please!

HERE'S HOW THEY TEACH YOU TO RESPOND IN PO-SCI CLASSES:

"I have not reviewed it in detail..."

If not in detail, then how HAS she reviewed it?"

"I certainly know of it."

I know of the theory of relativity, too, but I haven't studied it in detail. I wouldn't caount on me being expert enough to either support or contradict said theory.

Senator McCain then observed that having not read the law, she must not feel qualified to take a stand on it.

WRONG! She is perfectly willing to take a stand on something she has not studied.

As reported in Real Clear Politics: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn't read the Arizona immigration law, but passed judgment on it anyway. "That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared.

So...if she hasn't read the law, how does she know that?

Oh, and what on earth is this "...as you know and are well aware..." stuff?

"I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. (Say what?) I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said.

"It mandates and requires local enforcement..." I have read that sentence with emphasis on every possible syllable, and it STILL makes no sense.

"...puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in." What position is that? Many what? What position do they WANT to be placed in?

"When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation," she claimed.

When did Janet Napolitana EVER deal with laws of that ilk? What laws were there of that ilk with which she allegedly dealt? What does, "...of that ilk..." mean, anyway? What does "...at that time..." mean? "...opposed to such legislation?" Such as what?

I think there is ample evidence that Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder are related somehow.

(If you don't get the reference, check it out HERE.)

Come on, people! If you're going to evade, at least evade in sentences that make sense.

How else will you be able to remember all the things you've said?

Or is that the point, after all?

IS SHE QUALIFIED? SORRY, WRONG QUESTION

Look, I am a hard core, dyed in the wool right wing conservative who happens to be registered as a Republican.

I am also a strict Constitutionalist...I mean strict.

I believe our framers were inspired to invent a country like no other country that had ever been in the history of the universe.

Their forsight and understanding of human nature and the nature of government was phenominal beyond words and beyond most peoples' imaginations.

It is with that perspective that I now address the issue of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Suprene Court of the United States.

My title asks the question, "Is she qualified?"

Well...what does the Constitution have to say about the qualifications of a Supreme Court member? You can read it below, or HERE.

Article. III Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State [Note: this section has been superseded or amended.];--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Notice that there is nothing in there about qualifications.

That is why, "Is she qualified?" is an irrelevant question.

The question should be: "Is she appropriate to serve a court whose job it is to uphold and defend the concepts that surround that which constitutes The United States of America.

The answer to that question is yet to be.

From what I have read of her works (which is not much...I haven't had the time, yet), she holds to the view that the Supreme Court should adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to the needs of the times.

If that is the case, then the answer to the afore posed question is an emphatic "NO!"

But I doubt that she's worried about that. Neither are politicians in general and liberals in particular.

SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU CAN BE SATISFIED WITH HOLDER'S RESPONSE!

Do you Honestly believe that he had any intention of answering the question.

In your opinion, did he answer it?

What other aspects of the English language are there about which you have no idea?

Come on...you can't be serious.

No one with one iota of intellect could miss that Holder was trying his best (which isn't saying that much) to be as evasive as possible and NEVER answer the question.

And you think that's OK?

I hope you are kidding.

We don't need a world full of people who think they're smart but who are not intelligent enough to recognize dancing around a question when they see it.

NEW GAME CALLED, "FIND THE VIOLENCE"

Washington DC Tea Party




St Louis Tea Party




Arizona "anti-immigration law" protest.




Tucson Tea Party




Arizona "anti-immigration law" protest.




HOW DID YOU DO? DID YOU FIND THE VIOLENCE.

IF YOU DID, CONGRATULATIONS! NOW YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL AMERICANS AND PRETENDERS.

WHICH EVENT DID PRESIDENT BO HANDLE MOST POORLY?

The Gulf oil rig explosion, after which it took 9 days to respond, even though a response law was already on the books?




The Arizona immigration law, which mirrors current federal law?




The Times Square attempted bombing suspect almost making it out of the country, and would have had not an accidental discovery taken place (no thanks to the current administration)




The Nashville flood, to which there has been alsmost no federal response. (Can you say, Katrina?)




Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, who has no judicial experience.

COULDN'T GET THE VID TO WORK, SO HERE'S THE LINK.

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3518

IS HE TOO STUPID TO KNOW HOW STUPID HE SOUNDS? (Maher, that is)

Bill Maher on This Week discusses the Arizona immigration law with George Will

GEORGE WILL: "To enter Mr. McDonnell's Capitol building or to enter the House office building where Connie Mack works, you have to show a government-issued ID. I mean, this is -- this is synthetic hysteria by a herd of independent minds called our political class right now that has decided to stand up and worry about the Constitution being shredded by measures that have ample history of being sustained against constitutional challenges. Now, Mr. Maher just said, if I heard him right, that conservatives basically are racists and they like government intrusion only against people who aren't white. I mean, that's the level...

MAHER: Let me defend myself, because I was -- just what he said about rephrasing my -- I would never say, and I have never said, because it's not true, that Republicans, all Republicans are racist. That would be silly and wrong. But nowadays, if you are racist, you're probably a Republican.

(Courtesy of Hot Air Pundit)

WHO HAS TO OBEY THE LAW?

So, let me see if I have this straight.

Even though EVERY (that's right: EVERY...do you get that? EVERY) element of Arizona's "new" immigration law has ALREADY (did you get that? ALREADY) been tested in the courts and found to be Constitutional, and even though well over 60% of U.S. citizens approve of the legislation, Hispanics STILL think they should be able to be in this country ILLEGALLY, just because they want to be.

There's a really good series of articles about this over at Blue Pitbull. I highly recommend them to you.

OK, you liberals, do you believe that EVERY person on earth should be afforded EVERY privilege that EVERY American citizen enjoys?

If that is so, why don't they ALL do what we did: revolt against their government and recognize those rights in their own countries?

"Well, Joe, old buddy, old pal, because many of them would be killed in the process. Even a dummy like you could figure that out."

Is that so?

Have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War?

I have never spoken to a single conservative who does not believe that we should welcome immigrants with open arms, afford them a path to citizenship if they want it, and honor their desire to have opportunities they cannot get elsewhere.

But if Hispanics can achieve ILLEGALLY, what others must achieve LEGALLY, where is the "fairness" in that?

I know, love, appreciate and respect dozens of Hispanics in our Southwest Florida communities. Every one of them has properly "gone though the process," many having become American citizens.

They are wonderful, earnest, freedom loving people who respect the opportunity afforded them by the United States.

Not one of those protesting the "plight" of ILLEGAL aliens in Arizona, or anyplace else, for that matter, has ANY business aiding and abetting those who deliberately entered this country ILLEGALLY.

In fact, they should hang their heads in utter SHAME!

Furthermore, they should be at the head of the deportation line...ALL of them.

"But Joe, think of the boon to the economy these people afford us."

Boon my hind leg!

They, in fact, present us with a net DRAIN on our economy as we are forced to feed them, clothe them, heal them, incarcerate and educate them, without an proportional benefit to society (only to a relatively few farmers and the like.

What...you think a person "earning" below minimum wage on some vegetable farm or someone earning a poverty wage in some other work environment is somehow an economic boost to the economy?

If you think that, I encourage you to go back to 4th grade and learn math all over again.

But this is much more than "just" an economic issue.

It is a matter of the integrity of our nation.

How many times have I heard liberals object about one topic or another, "We are a nation of laws!?"

Yeah, as long as they are laws they like.

Hopefully, Arizona is the first of MANY states (including my own state of Florida) that will wake up and do what SHOULD be done with respect to ILLEGAL immigrants...send them back where they came from.

"Racial profiling," I hear you scream.

Well, then so be it.

It is not fair skinned Norwegians ILLEGALLY crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. It is members of the Hispanic community.

If it WERE fair skinned Norwegians crossing the Atlantic to ILLEGALLY enter this country, I would say the same thing: round them up and send them back.

There is a process...work it!

Don't like the process?

Work to change it.

In the mean time, OBEY THE LAW!

How come I have to obey the law and they don't? Hmmmm?

Come on, Americans! Wake up!

LAST NIGHT IT HAPPENED!

We bought them when they first came out.

The stupid, lame-brained, half-witted, self-important, all-knowing, all-seeing, "we know what's best for you" environmental wackos told us we should.

"So," we thought, "Let's just give it a try and 'go green.'"

Thus, we bought a package of CFLs.

I put one in my office, and presto! I could not see as well as with the same wattage of incandescent bulb, and the color was really raunchy, so I took the CFL out and put the old bulb back in.

We stored the now unwanted CFLs in a cabinet in the laundry room, and thought no more about it.

At some point in the past, we put something in the self-same cabinet that was not pushed all the way back.

When the door closed, it pushed that something back into the package that contained the CFL. Unbeknownst to us, the CFL got broken.

Last night, my wife removed something from the cabinet and down fell the unremembered CFL package, already broken bulb and all.

It fell between the clothes dryer and the wall, breaking yet another CFL!

So, we had TWO broken CFL bulbs in a place we could not reach them.

My wife had not read the EPA instructions (found half-way down the page of the EPA link).

When I heard the commotion, I went to the laundry room and found her sweeping up the debris as though it were breakage from ordinary light bulbs.

I can't blame her.

For her entire life she and her parents have just swept up the remains of broken bulbs, no one had told her any differently, so she was just being a good little wife and cleaning up the mess.

"No, no, no!" I said, with all the earnestness of a man trying to hide his horror at the gravity of the situation. "You can't do it like that! Let me download the instructions for HAZMET cleanup of CFLs for you."

We have been up all night trying to clean up the mess, including the mess we spread around before following the EPA instructions.

We also no doubt have particles of glass and mercury laden powder UNDERNEATH the clothes dryer, which neither of us is able to move, me because of my heart, and she because of fibromyalgia.

So here we are...two sleepy people, by dawn's early light, and too much exposed to say, "Good night."

According to a study by Oklahoma State University, mercury, being a heavy metal, never leaves the body on its own. It affects the lots of body parts, including the brain, causing confusion, irritability and, yes, even death.

If you have bought, or continue to use CFLs in place of incandescent bulbs, thinking you are helping the environment, you are misguided, ignorant or just plain stupid.

If you say, "Well, I've been using them for years with no ill effects, so I'm going to keep on...," well hang in there...it's only a matter of time.

Get rid of your CFLs today and replace them with real light bulbs before what happened to us happens to you.

But how much damage could be done by two little lught bilbs?

I don't think I have hed ony brine domage to moiself. Averythong sooms nermul soooooooo for.

WE TRIED TO TELL YOU - BUT YOU WERE TOO BULL HEADED TO LISTEN

See the video showing their version of the Constitution