Sunday, October 31, 2010


Father, you have given us a great nation, a great land and a great responsibility.

As we prepare for Tuesday's elections, we ask for your guidance, your strength and your wisdom to select the people who will move this country in the direction intended by its founders, as revealed in their very writings.

Help us to seek Your will and Your way, to conduct ourselves with grace and aplomb so as to bear a great witness for you, even as we decide the direction our great land takes.

Whatever happens Tuesday, help us remember that You are in control, even when our finite minds cannot see You at work.

May we be submitted to You, grateful to You and committed to You without reservation.

It is Jesus' precious and wonderful Name that I pray.


Note: I realize that there are some of you who are not believers, and that's OK. This is America, and you have the right to be wrong if you want to be. But this is my blog. I am a believer, whether you approve or not. So, accept that this is my personal prayer and go on about your business in peace. I am not praying to you, nor do I care about your opinion of my prayer, for it is mine to pray. While I am at it, if you don't have a personal relationship with God through faith in the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary, and His resurrection, I pray that this day will not pass until you have realized God's magnificent claim on your will be the greatest day you have ever lived. But you do as you please.

Friday, October 29, 2010


See, the culprit isn't the Tea Party, as Betty McCollum (D-MN), says.

She is the culprit.

She either said the words "under God" or she did not.

The fact is, she did not.

Now she's mad that anybody noticed.

In an unbelievable display of arrogance, Rep. Betty McCollum blamed the tea party patriots and conservatives for having the audacity to post the controversial video.

You can read more about it at Gateway Pundit.

Let me point out that McCollum was leading the Pledge, and as a leader, has some responsibility for leading it correctly.

Perhaps she has strong feelings about whether or not "under God" should be included in the Pledge.

That's OK. Why, I even have strong feelings that it should be included.

Strong feelings are not the point.

Proper leadership is.

Suppose I decide to lead you in the singing of the refrain of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."

You've sung that refrain a thousand times, and you know how it's supposed to go.

I stand before you and begin the refrain: "Glory, glory Hialeah; Glory, glory Hialeah; Glory, glory Hialeah; His troops are marching on."

How are you going to react to my leadership?

I've been a song leader for over 50 years, and I can tell you most people in the audience would not respond well.

It's the same here.

It was not the Tea Partiers who omitted a part of the Pledge while leading it, it was Betty McCollum.

At least as it applies to the Pledge of Allegience, she is a poor leader...very poor.

I suspect she is a poor leader in other areas, too.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010


If you think voter fraud is relegated to third world countries, think again.

In North Carolina, the machine will choose your candidates for you. If you choose the straight party ticket option for Republicans, the machine might well cast your vote for Democrats. It happened in early voting over and over again.

In Boulder City, Nevada, the ballots might just be already marked for you in favor of, who else, Harry Reid.

How about Illinois? There the vote-by-mail system may disenfranchise thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of voters.

Absentee ballots are in peril in Bucks County Pennsylvania.

In Alaska, polling directors wanted to supply voters with a list of potential write-in candidates, something specifically prohibited by Alaska law. A judge has restrained them from providing such a list.

Some military absentee ballots are at issue in Leon County, Florida.

So here’s the point.

We can expect there to be slip-ups. Look, I’m from Florida. I know all about voting slip-ups.

But we must be vigilant about outright fraud and flaws designed into the system.

If you spot an issue when you vote, whether early voting, absentee ballot voting or voting on Tuesday at the polls, speak up…quickly, clearly and politely, but firmly.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010


It might rain!

If you're in Oregon, it might snow!

It might be windy.

It might be hot.

No matter!

Make your plans now to get to the polls Tuesday and vote.

Don't make excuses!

Don't let anything get in your way!

I'll not tell you how to vote in this post, but if you want to know, ask in the comments section and I'll tell you there.

When you get tto the polling place, vote like your country's future depends on it.

It does!

Monday, October 25, 2010

Sunday, October 24, 2010


In other words, wealthy people are not the enemy, did not "win life's lottery," and are not to be vilified.

What do you think most wealthy people do with their wealth? Sit on it and count it?

Most wealthy people buy stuff with it: Jaguars; LCD wide-screens; mansions, etc., thus adding to the economy.

They also build businesses and pay people to work for them.

In America, it is entirely economically possible for every person who is willing to do what it takes to become wealthy to do so.

You can be a Bill Gates, a Steve Jobs or even (Heaven forbid) a George Soros if you want to be.

It takes education, drive, ambition, risk and stick-to-it-iveness, but you can do it if you want to. There is absolutely nothing stopping you.

"At some point people have made enough money..." opined President BO.

Oh, yeah? And at what point is that? Who decides? You? Not if I can help it you won't.

Actually, that's for THEM to decide, not you and not the government.

Far from being penalized with high taxes for generating wealth, the wealthy should be rewarded for the immense extra productivity they contribute to the society as a whole.

It turns out that wealth is not a zero sum game.

If you haven't watched the video, take ten minutes now...go back and watch'll learn a lot (if you really have an opened mind).

Saturday, October 23, 2010

RANK-AND-FILE AMERICANS DO CARE!'s the League of Women Voters.

Voters are (supposed to be) citizens.

Real citizens understand the importance of pledging alegience to their nation.

There are those who are too blind to see that the Pledge of Alegience to the Flag is not about the cloth, thread color and tassels, but about the country the flag represents...our country.

They say things like, "I'm not going to commit to a FLAG! That's just a piece of cloth."


That flag represents something: "...the republic for which it stands..." united under God. It represents a nation that strives for liberty and justice for everyone.

In some school districts, the Pledge of Alegience is no longer said.

For the first 200 years of our existance, Americans were too stupid to know what those school districts know: The Pledge of Alegience is evil.


The Pledge of Alegience should open EVERY government meeting, reaffirming that its members support the nation they serve.

It should also open any public meeting whose attendees consider themselves to be proud citizens of the United States of America.

If they are not proud of the country left to us by our framers, I hereby invite them to go live in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Iran.

They'll love it there.

There they'll demonstrate their alegience or sit in jail...or worse.

As for me and my house, we will take the Pledge.

I pledge alegience to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Friday, October 22, 2010


Thanks and a tip of the old hat to Social Sense and LASUNSET.

Thursday, October 21, 2010


He has done it again.

Back on September 15th, President BO, in the middle of a speech, paused, winced and "quoted" from the Declaration of Independence: "...all men are created equal (pause---wince---)endowed with certain inalienable rights...," leaving out the words "by our creator."

So, maybe he just forgot.

This Harvard Law School graduate, Constitutional lecturer just couldn't remember those particular words in The Declaration.

Once is maybe (just maybe) excusable as a slip-up.

But twice?

Not on your sweet bippy!

On October 18 he again "quoted" from The Declaration:

"As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"

This was premeditated...deliberate...a reflection of his disdain for the country the framers intended.

He keeps on demonstrating that he does not like what the founding fathers founded and that he intends to change it fundamentaly.

In case you are a liberal, and therefore have never actually read the Declaration of Independence, I include it here in its entirety...original spellings and all. (I have underlined some significant phrases...including the one President BO mangled.)

It's a magnificent document explaining exactly why we broke with Great Britain...the explicit greviences we had with the king.

Read'll learn something.

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to
a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and
altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms:
our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. 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.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Wednesday, October 20, 2010


This is a very sad story about a bear. Everybody should heed the warning to not feed wildlife because they become dependent and cannot forage for themselves any longer. It is such a tragedy to see what has been done to our country's wildlife! The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect U.S. wildlife.

Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat, nicknamed ... Bearack Acorn Obearma. It is believed that he has become a campground organizer.

Sunday, October 17, 2010



Thursday, October 14, 2010


Larrey Anderson, writing for American Thinker, has one of the best explanations of why the government is the wrong entity to improve our economy.

It is called, "Three Things Government Cannot Do," and it clearly outlines why government does not belong in the business of business.

There are three things government cannot do, no matter how hard they try. They cannot: (1) produce products, (2) create wealth, or (3) provide jobs that pay for themselves.

In the government, there is no financial incentive for the inventor, the manufacturer, or the laborer to create commodities. As workers in the old Soviet Union used to say, "The government pretends to pay us -- and we pretend to work."

Therefore there is only one conclusion to draw: Government cannot produce anything substantive. No government ever has over the long haul...period. A few socialist regimes have tried...all have ultimately failed.

No wealth is created by the government.

Take a look around you in your home or office.

Whatever you see that is made of plastic (a petroleum product, by the way), steel or microchip was likely either made outside the U.S. or imported for assembly here. Certainly not a single one of them was made by the government.

Why are products made outside the U.S. or only assembled here?

For the most part it is due to: high taxes; overly stringent regulations and the high cost of labor in the United States, due in great part to union demands.

Finally, government cannot provide productive jobs.

"What? Joe, are you saying that the government does not employ people?"

(Sigh!) Of course not! I did not say government cannot provide jobs. I said government cannot provide PRODUCTIVE jobs. (Please try to pay attention!)

In order to benefit the economy, there must be enough jobs that produce something the people want to buy.

The government does not produce anything people want to buy (GM notwithstanding. There is great question whether even they are producing anything people want to buy).

Services? Yes. Product? No.

A business pays its employees on the basis of how the employee will help produce products or services to sell at a profit.

An employee must produce three to ten times the cost of his paycheck to keep the business afloat.

Whatever work a government employee does, it does not and cannot pay for itself (as a businesses' employee labor must).

You, dear reader, are no doubt brilliant enough to know that the government does not pay its employees out of its own money BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY OF ITS OWN. It must confiscate its money from the people at large in the form of taxes.

As Larrey Anderson wrote: "Every time a politician claims that the government is going to increase production, create wealth, or provide jobs...grab your wallet."

Government ownership of productivity is a very bad whose time has not, and will never, come.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010


They have been cajoled, ridiculed and aspersed.

They have been called "radical," wingnuts and racist.

They are the people of the Tea Party.

I've not said a lot about the Tea Party (except to show a few pictures and videos). I've done a lot of research about the Tea Party, though, and what follows is what I have found.

1. They are, for the most part, citizens of the United States (I qualify that because one can't tell just by looking.)

2. They are of every stripe: white, black. Latino, Asian and many others.

3. They are from every walk of life: doctors, farmers, the debonair and "hicks" (in the real sense of the word), old and young.

4. They are of all education levels: college educated, high school drop-outs, high school graduates, self-educated and uneducated.

5. They are sometimes articulate, sometimes not.

6. They have people who lead, but no specific leaders.

7. They are, for the most part, local people from locations not too far from where they are meeting, with almost nobody bussed in except by buses individual groups charter on their own for national events.

8. They are extremely polite to one another and to "outsiders..." far more polite than those who attend liberal/progressive gatherings.

9. They are clean. The grounds are cleaned by the participants themselves, leaving more than a few city/county crews with only sprucing up to do. (At the meeting I went to here in Ft. Myers, the garbage cans were filled and Centenial Park was almost pristine.)

10. They have an absolute right, indeed a responsibility, to be involved in local, state and national politics.

The Tea Party movement is a true grass roots movement because it is most often locally formed, locally organized and locally engaged.

The Tea Party is autonomous. Nobody tells them what to do, what to say, where to go, how to perform, or when to meet. They are not guided by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin or any other talk-show host or political leader.

In fact, it more often works the other way around. The Tea Party members express themselves and those in conservative talk media and conservative politicians take their cues from them.

The Tea Party members are dyed-in-the-wool, hard-core, main-stream Americans with a message to Washington DC:

We've had enough of your antics, indiscretions, and unethical behavior.

We've had enough of your lack of integrity and dishonesty.

We've had enough of you calling right wrong and wrong right.

We've had enough of your trying to redefine America.

We've had enough of your usurping of our freedoms and we've had enough of your pork.

Plus, we've had enough of your confiscating our money in the form of high taxes and your unending demonstration that you do not know how to spend it either frugaly or wisely.

Whether you like that message or not, that IS the message of the Tea Party movement.

In the current political and economic climate, it would do any politician, incumbent, newcomer or hopeful to pay attention and act accordingly.

If you are a politician just entering the Washington DC fray, you had beter get up there and do what you said you were going to do, or you will be a one termer.

If you are a fake conservative (also known as a RINO), you might or not be gone this November, but you will not last...we will weed you out if you don't change your ways.

This is your last chance; make the best of it...for the people, not for yourself.

Monday, October 11, 2010


For over two years and in many posts I have tried to point out to liberals in particular and my readers in general that President BO is just plain incompetent.

He is, in fact, a sophomore masquerading in PhD attire.

He does not like, nor does he understand the Constitution, he does not know what to do about the economy, his math skills are suspect such that he believes that if you spend more you'll have more (as in, "I have $100.00...I'll spend $150.00...therefore I'll end up with $200.00).

Now even the left is beginning to recognize his ineptitude.

Mark Halperin senior political analyst for Time has written a piece in which he says just what I've been saying all along. (I'm more observant than he is, of course, because I said it long ago.)

Here are some excerpts:

"With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

"...Obama has exacerbated his political problems not just by failing to enact policies that would have actually turned the economy around, but also by authorizing a series of tactical moves intended to demonize Republicans and distract from the problems at hand.

"...In the past few days, we have witnessed the spectacle of the President himself and his top advisers wading into allegations that Republicans are attempting to buy the election using foreign money laundered through the Chamber of Commerce, combining with Karl Rove and his wealthy backers to fund a flood of negative television commercials. Not only is this issue convoluted and far-fetched, but it also distracts from the issues voters care about, frustrating political insiders and alienating struggling citizens..."

It is time to recognize the truth about President BO: While he is intent on moving the country toward socialism (in spite of the left's denial of same), he really does not have the foggiest notion about what to do about the country's woes.

This past Friday, Obama said, "Putting the American people back to work, expanding opportunity, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class is the moral and national challenge of our time."

I've lost count of how many times he has made this and similar pronouncements, but pronouncements accomplish exactly nothing.

Yet he keeps pronouncing, and pronouncing and pronouncing.

People...listen up!

President BO does not know what he is doing!

He was ill prepared to be president when he ran, and he has just gotten more and more confused and confusing as he has struggled to figure out how to implement his insidious agenda.

That's not a bad thing.

Too much of his agenda has already been put in place and must now be reversed.

If we do not change course with the November elections, we are headed for societal collapse.

Author, Gore Vidal has said that he believes dictatorship is around the corner for America.

We are the only ones who can change that.

Let's do it!

For the sake of our posterity, let's do it!

ADDENDUM: Linda provides this link where Obama admits his lack of experience and knowledge to become president.

Friday, October 8, 2010


(The embedding for this video has been disabled. You can watch it HERE).

I just don't know what there is left to say. Anjem Choudary is a Muslim cleric and here he admits that Islam's fate is world domination.

Do you need more evidence?


What is wrong with you?

Note: I have posted a set of three videos for tomorrow. Watch one a day, or watch them all at once, and I'll see you on Monday. I have to go back in for atrial fibrillation ablation (different from the last procedure) tomorrow.

Thursday, October 7, 2010



The leftist/progressives like to deride conservatives for exposing President BO’s socialist leanings. We get called all sorts of names and are spoken to as though we are ignorant idiots (one of the names we’ve been called by those who claim to hate name calling).

I am not ignorant, and when a leftist/progressive calls me that (or whatever other names they may use), I am not affected by it because my self esteem is not determined by their opinion of me. Rather it comes from having learned to succeed in the endeavors of my life.

Recently, at a meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Harvard (note the school) economist Martin Feldstein pressed Obama to keep all the Bush-era tax cuts, not just the middle-class cuts the president wants to extend.

Here is how the exchange went (according to MARK S. SMITH Associated Press Writer):

WASHINGTON — Intending to talk about colleges and worker training, President Barack Obama on Monday suddenly found himself in a spirited, election-year debate with a business advisory group about whose tax cuts should be extended and for how long.
Feldstein pressed Obama to keep all the Bush-era tax cuts, not just the middle-class cuts the president wants to extend.
"That would give a boost to confidence," Feldstein declared. SEC Chairman William Donaldson added that an extension would allay business and consumer uncertainty.
Obama replied that his stand would benefit 98 percent of American taxpayers. "You'd think (that) would provide some level of certainty," he said.
Obama also reiterated his view that top-income tax brackets would do little to boost the recovery, since the wealthy aren't holding off buying flat-screen TVs and other big-ticket purchases for lack of a tax cut. Plus, he said, those tax cuts are unaffordable.
"If we were going to spend $700 billion, it seems it would be wiser having that $700 billion going to folks who would spend that money right away," he said.

At the American Thinker, Keith Riler has written:

The President basically said that not to increase taxes on small businesses and individuals making over $250,000 is equivalent to spending money on those businesses and individuals.

This is an extreme concept and one that is best understood by analyzing it personally. Everyone understands that when I "spend" money on a charity or at the grocery, the implication is that I am using my money to make a contribution or to buy chips and beer.

The President clearly believes differently, that my paycheck does not begin its life as mine, from which taxes are taken. Rather, he believes that my paycheck begins life as his, from which residual amounts are beneficently granted to me for living expenses. He clearly believes that the yet untaxed portion of my paycheck is still his, to be "spent" on me at his discretion.

This is revolutionary. This is Marx and Chavez, and it is a stunningly honest admission of President Obama's worldview.

It is also very like what is happening in Great Britain.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010


Now wait...liberals and progressives favor legalizing drugs.

If fast food hamburgers are equal to drugs, why aren't liberals and progressives fighting to legalize fast food hamburgers? (Oh, wait...the're already legal. Liberals and progressives are trying to make them illegal. Legal drugs, illegal hamburgers. See the paragraphs below for more).

Just think of the advertising potential: "Have your fix today...your way at Burger King" and "You deserve a fix today at McDonalds."

This ad was produced by (who else)the Ad Council, a private, not for profit corporation, but its precepts are distinctly liberal/progressive "take some more liberties away."

Liberals and progressives are doing everything they can to take away individual choice and freedoms.

For instance: Santa Clara County is banning toys in Happy Meals, because the food is unhealthy. San Francisco considering similar measures to those taken in Santa Clara Co. New York state considered a soft drink tax (and subsequently squashed it). In Los Angeles' there is a moratorium on building new, stand-alone fast food establishments (can you say, "Help the recession...kill business).

Is there an obesity problem in the U.S.A.?

There is.

Should something be done about it?

Undoubtedly...but not by the government (which is not the source of this ad, only my interpolation of same).

A generation of parents grew up on fast food and have chosen to visit fast food restaurants at their kid's insistance.

They can't say "No" to their kids, because liberal/progressives told them it would damage their self images and hurt their psychies.

Now those self-same liberal/progressives want parents to somehow develop the power to say "No" to certain things, which the liberal/progressives are pleased to list for them.

I wonder what it's going to be like when this generation of obese kids grow up and get elected to public office, local, state and federal?

The feds will then no doubt include fast food as an individual right and include eating there as part of the Medicare budget.

Should be very interesting.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010


It was touted as the rally that would demonstrate the unity of the country and would show Glenn Beck what was what.

It was the "One Nation" rally, held at the same location as Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz had bragged on his program that Beck's rally was " big deal..." and said that he could attract at least 300,000 people to a similar rally for the left.

So they held a "similar rally."

Expectations were for about 1,000,000 people, and if things went right, maybe 2,000,000.

One Mainstream Media organization had reported about 85,000 people had showed up at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.

So 2 million, 1 million, even 300 thousand would show the country how much more representative the political left is than the political right (never mind that Beck's rally was not conceived to be political).

Let's make a comparison, shall we?

Here is a photograph from the Huffington Post (an organization that would surely give the best possible light to the left...right?) of the "One Nation" rally:

Now here is a photo from about the same location of the Restoring Honor rally:

I submit that IF MSM was correct about there being 85,000 at the "Restoring Honor" rally, there must have been only 30 thousand at the "One Nation" rally.

I further submit that the truth is, according to the pictures, there were AT LEAST twice as many people at the "Restoring Honor" rally as there were at the "One Nation" rally...and I really think it was more like three times as many.

(For the record, judging from the number of heads counted in a given sized square and seeing how many of those squares would fit where the people are in the pictures, I really think there were more like 3-5 hundred thousand at the Beck rally...maybe more. But for the purposes of this post, let's just go with the interpolated figures given by the left...for the sake of discussion.)

My question is: can the left and progressives be honest enough to admit that compared to the "Restoring Honor" rally, the "One Nation" rally, in terms of attendance, was a total bust?

My answer: I doubt it. They will no doubt immerse themselves in rationalization, trying to explain the differences away.

The left and progressives have such a hard time being honest.

ADDENDUM: Here is the very brilliant Ed Schultz with his very brilliant assessment of the crowds at the two events. Thanks to Hot Air for this information.

Monday, October 4, 2010


Janice D. "Jan" Schakowsky (born May 26, 1944) American politician, has been a Democrat member of the United States House of Representatives since 1999, representing Illinois's 9th congressional district.

Illinois, you might remember, is the state from which President BO was elected to the Senate and then ascended to the presidency.

In this video, Schakowsky says that the Pledge for America is some kind of effort to make the Tea Party movement "think" they have some sort of revolutionary plan "...because they quote a lot from the constitution..." (The "they" is a reference to the Republican adherents to the Pledge for America).

So, quoting from the Constitution is some sort of revolutionary thought?

Who knew?

How the heck does Schakowsky think this country was formed? Does she think it happened as a result of King George's urgings?

This country is the result of revolutionary thinking.

No other country in history had been given birth in the same manner as this one.

No other country had ever been framed to give people the power to determine their own destiny through the construct of a Constitutional Republic.

Jan thinks that the idea that free people might govern themselves is (judging by her condescending tone) pretty far out.

Well, yes, it IS, and that's the point.

We were founded as a DIFFERENT sort of country; one whose government would be subject to the will of the people.

Schakowsky's tone denotes the "foolishness" of the thought that the government's power is derived from the consent of the people.

She says, continuing in her condescending tone, that the Pledge to America was an attempt " appeal to those people..." who are dumb enough to think that way.

She accuses Republicans and Tea Party members, as though it was some philosophical felony, of embracing the tenth amendment.

For those who may not know: the Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

She calls us "a bunch of tenthers." (Clever, you know...sort of like "birthers," or "9/11 truthers.")

How shocking is it that we should embrace this concept?

(The Supreme Court has done its part in trying to see that Schakowsky's idea that it is a stupid amendment has been codified...but it is still an integral part of the Constitution...even today.)

The interviewer says, "I don't think the pledge even addresses Medicare and Social Security, 'cause they want to end it."

That is a blatant lie propagated by liberals and progressives without remorse.

Schakowsky goes on to say that the "dominant theme of the Republicans is so extreme..."

Since when is adherence to the Constitution considered extreme?

Personally, I'm proud to count myself as a "tenther."

Do you liberals and progressives not get that the Constitution is the document that brought this country into existence? It is what constitutes this country. That's why it is called the Constitution.

Is that too much for you to understand?

In twenty-five words or less, tell me: what is wrong with you people?

Sunday, October 3, 2010


President BO claims to be a Christian. He has written about it often.

He doesn’t seem too clear on exactly what it means to actually be a Christian.

Wrote he: “…I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

What ever happened to understanding that the Biblical teaching: “…all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) includes him?

What became of President BO’s realization that the Biblical teaching in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death” applies to all of us, including him?

And what, pray tell, does he do with Romans 10:9 which tells us: “…if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”?

Finally, what does he do with the many, many Biblical passages that define a Christian as one who has repented of personal sin, trusted in, and only in, the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary, died to self and committed his life to serving Him?

Oh, and did I mention that “…being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper…” is not a teaching of Christ, but was Cain’s answer to God when asked where his brother, Abel, (having been murdered by Cain) was? It was Cain who answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with being our brothers’ keepers, or that we should not treat others as we would like to be treated, I’m just saying that these things, while good, are NOT what makes one a Christian.

It causes me to wonder whether President BO actually knows what it means to be a Christian.

Saturday, October 2, 2010


How hard can it be to check things out?

Movie makers employ people especially to check "continuity." Their job is to make certain that when they shoot a scene that is supposed to happen in the same place and at the same time as another scene, that all of the items in the scene are just where they were all the other scenes that were supposed to take place at that location and time frame.

Some common mistakes are differences in shadows direction and length, self replenishing glasses of water, crew members accidently shown in a scene or the mike boom reflected in a "store" window.

It seems the Obama administration could use someone to check "continuity."

At a meeting of leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations met Obama in New York on Friday, somebody in this "professional" administration forgot to check on just what the flag of the Philippines is supposed to look like when its up the flag pole.

As the picture shows, and as any 5th grade geography student knows, the Philippine flag behind President Benigno Aquino was upside down. The Philippine government flies the flag upside down when they are at war with some other nation.

In the words of one Obama administration official, "It was an honest mistake."

Well, it probably of hundreds that just keep coming and coming.

You can read more about it from the AP, HERE.

How many of these faux pas must take place before you begin to realize (and admit) that President BO and his administration are just a bunch of amateurs?

Friday, October 1, 2010


Vernon Baker was a special man. He was the last surviving black winner of the Medal of Honor from WWII.

After their commander deserted, Baker had rallied the black troops and captured a German stronghold in Italy.

It was more than 50 years before he received his Medal of Honor.

He was recently buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

By invitation, his widow, Heidy, and grandson, Vernon Pawlik, visited the White House for a special tour, what should have been a wonderful experience in their lives.

The grandson, Vernon Pawlik arrived wearing a T-shirt with a picture of his honored grandfather on it and a pair of shorts.

Citing the “inappropriateness” of the attire, the family was turned away by a White House staffer.

"This is an unfortunate misunderstanding," White House spokesman Adam Abrams said Thursday. "We would have loved to have hosted 10-year-old Vernon and his family at the White House and we have reached out to the Baker family and Lt. Norris to communicate our deep regret and invite them back to the White House."

These things happen when amateurs are in charge.