ERROR! ERROR!

I accidentally pushed the "Publish" button before the post that used to be here was supposed to go up. It's not finished yet. I have saved the comments and will add them in when I finish the post. Don't go away...there is more to come.

WHO DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS?

I found this over at PoliticalPistachio.

Is there anybody out there who thinks this is OK?

This pretend officer must have gone to government schools and learned First Amendment 1A: "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech unless some stupid, hair-brained, uneducated, moron thinks it is inappropriate."

This is outrageous, and if you don't think so, you have absolutely no understanding of what this country is about and should not be pretending to be an American.

That big, dumb cop, if he really was one, should be sitting in jail somewhere charged with treason.

Guy with the sign: "This is America..."

Big dumb, idiotic, Commie cop: "It ain't no more, OK?"

Does that mean that what we "right-wing blogger types" have been saying all along has come to pass while nobody noticed?

I cannot begin to find the words to express my personal angst with this guy.

If he is correct, our nation is gone.

BLOG NO MORE?

I love blogging.

Blogging has given me an opportunity to express myself in way that I was never able to before its inception.

Sometimes my posts are really good...sometimes they are really bad, but good or bad, they represent what I am thinking at any given moment.

Blogging has been hailed by some as the ultimate method of spreading information around the world.

I'm not so sure about that.

I polled my Sunday School class a couple of Sundays ago and most of them (ages 20ish through 80ish) do not know what blogging is. Only a couple have read blogs and none of them (as far as I know) engage in blogging.

President BO is fond of blaming us "right-wing bloggers" for the troubles liberal representatives have had at town hall meetings.

There's no word on what mischief the "left-wing bloggers" have caused.

All of that may become moot, however, if legislation making its way through the Senate becomes law.

Senate bill S773, being revised and updated by West Virginia Democrat, Senator Jay Rockefeller, would give the president "emergency" power to interrupt and to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

You can read an excerpt of the bill and see for yourself what mischief IT proposes.

Its purpose is to give the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

According to CNET NEWS, "When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. 'We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,' Rockefeller said."

At ALL costs?

That is chilling.

Has it ever occurred to them that when one of the "ALL COSTS" is liberty, that it is not worth ANY price?

Do they not get that?

Why not?

Do we Americans take this business of LIBERTY so lightly that we are willing to disregard the blood, sweat and tears that it took to establish and keep it?

Did the founders make a mistake in believing that the beat of freedom rages in the hearts of all people and has since the beginning of time?

When I kept a personal journal, nobody objected...even back in the days when my thinking was corroded by the rust of liberalism.

Why, when I put my thoughts online in a blog, has my freedom of expression suddenly become a matter of concern for the government?

Folks, there is a despotic, dangerous, diabolical thought process clouding the collective thinking of liberals in general and our present government in particular.

If a bill like S773 is not stopped in its tracks, we will soon blog no more.

RANGEL THE WRANGLER

He is one of the sleaziest, greasiest representatives in congress.

Charles Rangel.

"Joe," you object, "That just isn't a very nice thing to say."

Well, I'm sorry, Charles Rangel just isn't a very nice man, and there are no good things to say about him.

"Joe!" You're kinda upset with me, I know, "You just can't go around making statements like that about our fine upstanding government leaders."

Yes I can...I just did.

Oh, and did I by any chance mention that he is a Democrat?

The New York Post has an article you can read about him here.

Says the Post: Rangel’s “corrections” to his financial-disclosure statements from 2002 through 2007 are stunning, even by the low standards of this “error”-prone paperwork-filer — who, by the way, happens to be in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws.

Seems old Charlie sort of forgot to mention millions of dollars in income and business deals during that period of time.

One of the things he forgot to mention was $1 million he got from the sale of a 132nd street building.

Just another Democrat slip-up, like all of the other mistakes made by so many Democrats on their income taxes...just one more.

What's weird is that New York city record indicate that Charles Rangel is still the owner of the building.

But wait...he sold the building...but wait...he still owns the building.

I think my head is starting to hurt.

As the Post points out, that's not all:

There are adjustments -- as much as $780,000 -- in the value of his assets:
* An "omitted" checking account valued between $250,000 to $500,000.
* Another fund worth up to $100,000.
* Unreported investment portfolios said to be between $15,000 and $50,000.
The unreported business deals total a jaw-dropping $3 million.

Oh, and did I mention that Charles Rangel is "the nation's tax-writer-in-chief?"

The Post also reminds us of: his failure to disclose -- and pay tax on -- some $75,000 in rental income from his Caribbean villa.

Then followed revelations about his:

* Four rent-stabilized apartments.

* Apparent quid pro quo in preserving a tax loophole for an oil company that donated $1 million to a planned "public service" center named for Rangel.

Last May, the Sunday Post disclosed yet another Rangel scandal, involving corporate junkets to the Caribbean.

I wonder how long it will be before Eric Holder will demonstrate his devotion to justice and complete the investigation into this idiot.

Well, the House has already started investigations, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to take action against one of their heroes.

Democrat heroes are allowed to break the law if they want to without reprisals.

Seems that the late Ted Kennedy is not the only one who gets (got) away with murder.

You might take a look at one of my favorite scenes in one of my favorite movies.

Think of the Walrus as Charles Rangel.

BETTER PREDICTIONS THAN NOSTRADAMUS

His name was Robert Welch.

In 1958 he gave a speech in which he made some startling predictions about where the government of the United States of America was heading.

You can watch a video of the speech here at The Clay Tablet.

He laid out his predictions in 10 points and repeated them in a 1974 conference.

I'm going to give you his points one at a time, and ask you a question about each one.

He predicted:

1. Greatly expanded government spending for every conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of American money as wastefully as possible.

Question: Since 1958 has the government been spending more or less money? Has it been spent more fiscally responsibly or more wastefully?

2. Higher and then much higher taxes.

Question: Since 1958 has our total tax bill remained static or has it gone up?

3. An increasingly unbalanced budget despite the higher taxes.

Question: How many years since 1958 have we had a balanced budget?

4. Wild inflation of our currency.

Question: Will our dollars buy more or less than in 1958?

5. Government controls of prices, wages and materials supposedly to combat inflation.

Question: Since 1958, has the government controlled more or less of prices, wages and materials?

6. Greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity
of our daily lives. This is to be accompanied naturally and automatically by a correspondingly huge increase in the size of our bureaucracy and the cost and reach of our domestic government.

Question: Does the government control more or less of our businesses today than in 1958? Has there or has there not been an increase in the federal bureaucracy since 1958?

7. Far more centralization of power in Washington and the practical elimination of our state lines. There is a many faceted drive at work to have our state lines to mean no more within our nation as our county lines do now within the states.

Question: Has there or has there not been a fuzzying of state lines, with more and more of our lives controlled by the federal government, rather than individual states?

8. The steady advance of federal aid to and control over our educational system leading to complete federalization of our public education.

Question: Has the public education system in The United States of America moved closer to a government system or further away from it? Has federal aid to education increased or decreased since 1958?

9. A constant hammering into the American consciousness of the horror of modern warfare. The beauties and the absolute necessities of peace, peace always on communist terms of course.

Question: Is our government approaching war with an attitude of, "let's get this done, done correctly and done now," or is it more of a "let's piddle around at this, and do lots of diplomacy and maybe everybody will just learn to love us?"

10. The constant willingness of the American people to allow the steps of appeasement by our government that amount to a piece meal surrender of the rest of the free world and the United States itself.

Question: Does our government spend more or less time seeking to appease other countries, apologizing for our past behavior and moving toward a One World Government system?

Putting aside whether or not you think we're moving in the right direction, was Robert Welch correct in his predictions or not?

Answer: His predictions were correct.

Not only were they correct, President BO has greatly accelerated our march toward the "S" word, socialism, which is defined as: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry; an economic system based on state ownership of capital.

The move toward Socialism is not new to America, it has been going on in earnest since before Roosevelt.

Think: Government take over of Chrysler and General Motors, government assistance of private businesses (car dealerships), much of the financial services sector, and now attempting to usurp the health care industry.

And that is supposed to be in the spirit of the American Dream of self sufficiency, achievement and personal responsibility?

THE ANTI-HERO OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK DIES

I do not mean to diminish the significance of his death, but it is really difficult to deal with this in a compassionate manner.

If I were to make a list of the things I liked about Senator Ted Kennedy and place it next to the list of things I did not like about him, the latter list would be exhaustive, while the former almost non-existent.

Nevertheless, he was a flesh and blood person with a family that loved him in that certain way families of this type love each other.

I'm sure they are devastated, and I pray that they find the Peace of God in this trying time.

Ted Kennedy accomplished a lot...almost all of it bad.

Kennedy is credited with helping to pass a lot of "civil rights" legislation, some of it good, most of it serving to solidify the entitlement attitude of minorities. He consistently argued for the increased minimum wage in 1981, helped to fund "Meals on Wheels," helped reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, supported "Title IX," which gave women's athletics much better funding and helped use tax payer dollars to "access to health care" for poor people.

With the possible exception of Meals on Wheels, most of his legislative life was spent making people more dependent on the government, rather than leading them to become independent, self-helping, liberty-loving individuals.

At least four times, while at law school, Kennedy was stopped by police for reckless driving, yet he never had his license suspended.

I remember another president who was severely castigated by the Main Stream Media when some of his youthful activities came to light, but not Ted Kennedy. Somehow, with "help" from the family, he got off and it was never heard of again.

On Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts, in 1969, he attended a party from which he offered to give Mary Jo Kopechne a ride home.

Some say he had been drinking. At any rate, he missed the ramp to a bridge and flipped the borrowed limousine into Poucha Pond.

He left Mary Jo behind to drown and did not even report the incident until the next day.

For contributing to the death of another human being, Ted Kennedy was given a two month sentence and it was suspended.

It is often helpful to have a powerful family who can pull the appropriate strings.

When it was discovered that he had brain cancer, the subconscious mind of almost everybody knew his days were numbered.

And now, his number has come up.

No longer will we get to hear his sometimes muddled, often incoherent rambling rages on this that or the other.

His accusatory pontifications will be no more.

He will, for a short time, replace Michael Jackson as the only newsworthy subject for the talking heads and gossip-mongers of TV.

My honest condolences go out to his family, as they are no doubt saddened by his death.

LET'S JUST TRUST HIM, SHALL WE?

President BO held one of his "famous" conference calls the other day. This one was with the National Council of Churches.

In it he said: "We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been and that's why we're seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You've heard some of them. Uh, ludicrous ideas for, ehh... Let me just give you one example. This notion that somehow we are setting up "death panels," uh, that would decide whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie."

Let's be clear. President BO, in the above remarks, is saying that "death panels" don't exist in his plan or the proposed legislation.

A woman with a 105 year old mother who had needed a pace maker when she was 100 years old, asked President BO whether that would be possible under his plan, given that her mother was very "spunky."

President BO's response at the time was: "I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's "spirit." Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."

OK. Under the health care plans being considered by the Congress, the Senate and the president, there would be a "commission" to decide whether a particular procedure conforms with the balance between cost and benefit.

So it's a "commission," not a "death panel."

A rose by any other name.

Another point that President BO is fond of making is: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. Reform's about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job."

Notice the figure he uses (as does most of the Mainstream Media): 47 million.

That 47 million figure includes illegal aliens (undocumented workers). There are about 12 million of them.

Obama has said we're not going to insure them. He said: "We've heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens, and that's not true."

What he fails to remind you of in this statement is that the Supreme Court's already ruled that illegal aliens have all citizen rights.

President BO has said: "You've heard that this is all going to, uh, to mean government funding of abortion. Not true."

Try to square that with his words to Bryan Howard, the CEO of Planned Parenthood : "In my mind, uh, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."

Another point the President insists on making is that you can keep your present health insurance coverage if you like it, even if it is employer paid.

OK. Try this quote on for size: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out."

Now in my county automobile dealers are getting pretty upset. They've made a bunch of deals involving "Clunkers," which they have taken in trade on new cars, allowing up to $4,500.00 on them, for which they have yet to be reimbursed as promised by the "Cash for Clunkers" program put forth by President BO.

Several dealerships are sitting on the verge of closing down if they don't get their money pretty soon.

Of course the dealers can't take back the deal, because the "clunkers" have been destroyed, thus reducing global warming and decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

If you believe that, I have a proverbial bridge in...oh, never mind.

Now President BO wants us to go along with his health care bill the same way we went along with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Post Office.

He's so honest, straightforward and integrity-filled.

Just trust him. OK?


PERSONAL NOTE (NOT USUALLY DONE ON A BLOG'S POST, BUT DONE HERE BECAUSE THIS IS MY BLOG AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT) TO Douglas V. Gibbs OVER AT "Political Pistachio ": I read your blog almost every day and enjoy it a lot. I am have a hard time commenting and the comments I have left are not showing up. Is there something I'm doing wrong?