"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Amnesty? Hmmm...

This occurred in California. And we want to allow Amnesty to these people?The protestors, obviously Mexican, at Montebello High School took the American flag off the school’s flag pole and hung it upside down while putting up the Mexican flag over it. Is this "acceptable" to you? Is the concept of the American Flag being subsumed by another something you are willing to tolerate?

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!

Posted by Picasa

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Just A Thought...

If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
If You Aren't Outraged By What Washington Has Done To You Over The Past Four Decades, You Just Aren't Paying Attention

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Obama Should Watch This

The "New" Axis Of Evil

You may recall that President Bush called North Korea, Iran and Iraq the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. He referred to them as the Axis of Evil because of the philosophy of the regimes in charge of those countries. While this post is not about his description of those countries, you have to admit he was pretty much dead-on. What I want to talk about here is the 'new" axis of evil - the new group of "three" that is bent on systematically attacking America. The "new" axis of evil is not a group of foreign countries, nor is it the Taliban, Al-Queda or the Mexican drug lords. It is not illegal immigration, uncontrolled spending, or bigger government. All those things are just consequences of our lack of acknowledgement that the "new" axis of evil even exists. But it does, and it's in control of our lives - until November at least. For the "new" axis of evil, for all liberty and freedom loving Americans is the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Trio.

These three will stop at nothing to destroy liberty - though they would argue that they aren't destroying liberty; they are empowering the "little" guy. They are redistributing wealth so "everyone" can share in it. Hmmm, doesn't it follow that if you are "empowering" or "helping" one group, you are by extension eroding the liberty of the other? So how is a "dependent" class better for liberty? Wouldn't you love to hear any one (or all three) of the members of the new axis of evil answer that question. That would be quite funny, I would imagine, as they hemmed and hawed, and stammered to come up with some ridiculous explanation that they thought was plausible enough for the American people to swallow.

Somehow, I think most of us are way past that phase. But unfortunately, there isn't a member of any media outlet that would ask that question, so, for now, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Trio is safe from scrutiny. But things are beginning to unravel. You may have heard that Lt. Col. Lakin - an Army doctor, and the only active Medal of Honor winner - is facing a court martial proceeding because he refused to follow orders to deploy until he was certain Obama truly was the Commander-In-Chief. The only way to definitively ascertain that conclusion, in Lt. Col. Lakin's, is for his lawyer to request, and the Obama Administration provide, the original Obama birth certificate to prove, or disprove, his actions as being proper or illegal. Obama has stonewalled the American public on this issue for a couple years now. But he will not be able to stonewall in this case - a decorated war hero's career is in the balance. So soon, once and for all, we will know the truth. And in November, I suspect, Reid will no longer be in the Senate, and Pelosi will no longer be the Speaker. And thus we will have lessened the destructive power of the "new" axis of evil!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Exceptioanlism vs. Irrelevancy - You Decide...

In April 2009 in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama was asked at a press conference [2] if he “subscribe[d], as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?” President Obama then responded: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, the President does not see anything unique about America’s role in history or the world. Some of our past Presidents have seen it differently, including President Ronald Reagan who once explained [3] to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev:

When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.

So strongly did Reagan believe in American exceptionalism that he often described our country as “this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.” [4] But President Obama disagrees. He sees the United States as just another declining power like Britain or Greece. These were telling examples for President Obama to choose since both countries are facing crushing government debt crises [5] due to profligate welfare state spending. And President Obama’s budget [6] puts us on the exact same path. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020; and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.

All of President Obama’s aggressive welfare state spending leaves little left over for national defense. Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes, Ph.D., writes [7]:

We are headed down a European path. … According to the President’s budget, defense spending over the next few years will continue to fall relative to the economy, from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of GDP by 2015. Indeed, defense was the target of roughly half of the Administration’s $17 billion in spending cuts in 2010. Some 50 defense programs were truncated or eliminated, compromising not only our future air and naval superiority, but also our defense against ballistic missiles.

Are Americans really ready to abandon President Reagan’s “peace through strength” [4] doctrine and replace it with President Obama’s strength through apology tour [8]? We think not. That is why starting today The Heritage Foundation is promoting Protect America Month [9], starting with a speech this morning at 10 a.m. by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). You can watch the event live, here [9].

And then for the next four weeks, join The Heritage Foundation as we examine defense spending and foreign policy in our nation, by releasing special publications and hosting events that showcase why we must commit to protecting America in an increasingly dangerous world. Events and products will include speeches by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as special commentaries from Members of Congress and Heritage scholars regarding the need for a strong national defense.

Dr. Holmes concludes [7]: “Freedom and prosperity at home and abroad depend on America’s continued projection of power around the world. But that will depend on our commitment to national defense, which is the first obligation of the federal government listed in the U.S. Constitution. We have been here before. We have seen darker days … We may well be at that moment again. After Jimmy Carter, we elected Ronald Reagan. He restored not only our belief in America, but our commitment to defense. Conservative principles and traditional American values prevailed then. They can prevail again.”

Quick Hits:

•Customs and Border Patrol agents arrested [10] Pakistan native and U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad on a plane about to take off for Dubai in connection with Saturday’s failed Times Square bombing.

•Citing inadequate federal funding, eighteen states [11] have already told the Obama administration they will not work with the federal government to set up Obamacare-created health insurance pools.

•Heritage’s Rob Bluey details [12] how the American Hospital Association used Obamacare to kill off physician-owned hospitals.

•According to Gallup [13], the Obama administration is hiring new federal workers faster than the private sector can create jobs to support them.

•Also according to Gallup, [14] 68% of Americans say it is very important to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, 80% are concerned that illegal immigrants burden schools, hospitals and other government services, 77% worry that illegal immigrants drive down wages, and 80% believe that allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States will encourage others to move here illegally. - The above from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News
Where is the Patriotic Inspiration that the majority of Americans are looking for? The only thing I see (or hear) is the inspiration to destroy America as a free and prosperous, and yes, exceptional nation.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Remember This Well, For Our Government Has Lost Sight Of It

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

If You Are Not Outraged, You Are Not Paying Attention!

Tea Party is Racist and Violent: Massive Sloppy Propaganda Fail From Ma...

Clinging to "guns and religion"; what's wrong with that? Isn't that "American? "...what we fear is loss of Liberty, loss of rights"!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

U.S. Reverses Stance On Treaty To Regulate Arms Trade

This should worry each and every one of you. this was an article from October 14th, 2009. This action is nearly 7 months old, but have you heard anything about it? Can you imagine any treaty that would override our Constitution? A year ago I'd have said you were out of your mind. Now? I think we better pay attention!

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.



On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.


As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary [and it was], so will gun control. The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Obama, Are You Listening? This DIRECTLY Contradicts Your Message That The Constitution Is A Document Of Negative Liberties!!!

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mesrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith, 1801

Wow! From Someplace Other Than Fox News! It's About Time

"So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they've got Washington's attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so, 'Hey, maybe we better do something, too.' And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress. President Obama called the Arizona law 'misguided.' What's misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored. Now we'll hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There'll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling -- all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we're going to get this freak show. Washington's position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security, just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that's being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the president says that's misguided. What a shame." --CNN commentator Jack Cafferty

Resist, With Every Fiber Of Your Being, Obama's Push To Unionize America!!

So you think there's no problem with unions? You think that Obama's push for Card Check and to unionize new industries/companies is about fairness for the workers? Guess again, it's all power. And it's all about destroying free enterprise, regardless of the spin they put on it. Here's where we're headed today, what happens down the road if increased unionization is forced upon us? Take a look a Greece lately? Read on...

Union roadblocks add to state pension woes
4/12/2010 11:05:00 AM by Jo-Lynn Brown, The Free Enterprise Nation
Colorado may not be the first state that comes to mind when you think “fiscal crisis”. Relatively speaking, it’s not in the worst shape at the moment with only a $1 billion budget gap. But the recent legislative moves and the response to those moves, is a classic example of what has happened, in some shape or form, in every state.

Back in November, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter was proposing cuts across the state spectrum. Specifically $28 million from Medicaid and $260 million from public school funding. Later that month, while breaking down the cuts Ritter asked for the school system to return $110 million in frozen funds and suggested cutting the 2010-11 school budget by $150 million.

What happened next is the typical response, the teachers union began a campaign for an amendment that not only would block the proposed cuts but would actually increase what they would receive. They asked for inflation plus 1 percent annually, and a guaranteed raise with inflation for EVERY year following 2011. At the time, The Daily Camera also noted that they would block any cuts with a lawsuit.

Months later, Ritter signed a Senate bill, approved by the Senate Finance Committee, that would change the way retirement and pensions would be calculated for workers in the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). According to the most recent numbers from The PEW Charitable Trusts, Colorado currently has an unfunded liability for its pension fund of $16,813,048,000, and the state will be required to pay $1,141,081,000 annually into the fund to keep it solvent.

Again, a lawsuit was filed, attempting to block any cuts. More than likely, retirees were mostly concerned about the cost of living increases, which would be eliminated this year, and would reach no higher than 2 percent any year after, under the new bill. Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction) commented on the suit in The Denver Post, saying that, “If we don’t reduce these automatic pension increases, the entire fund is poised to go bankrupt. Think United. Think GM. That didn’t work out well for the company or the retirees. These reforms are tough but they’re necessary.”

In fact, The Associated Press reported two days earlier, that the budget officials estimated that without reform the fund would be completely gone in 20 years.

This is the obstacle lawmakers must face in every state and every city. What will lawmakers do when cuts and reform are needed, but every move is blocked with a lawsuit? I’ll tell you what they are going to do, raise taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Government programs don’t have to worry about efficiency, cost-cutting and profits, because they have a bailout all their own—your wallet

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention