"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

Thursday, August 26, 2010

More "Transformation", The "Fun Stuff", About To Kick In

This will be my last post for a few days as I head off to Washington to participate in the Restoring Honor rally being held there this weekend. I won't be bringing my comp, so I'll have a lot of catching up to do when I return. Be well!

It looks like it never really was about jobs. Sure, the administration can tell us x-amount of jobs have been "saved" or created, but what the stimulus really was all about - and the reason it needed to be passed before America could decipher what was really contained within it's pages - was transforming America under the radar screen.

How the Stimulus Is Changing America

By Michael Grunwald

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - President Obama's $787 billion stimulus - has been marketed as a jobs bill, and that's how it's been judged. The White House says it has saved or created about 3 million jobs, helping avoid a depression and end a recession. Republicans mock it as a Big Government boondoggle that has failed to prevent rampant unemployment despite a massive expansion of the deficit. Liberals complain that it wasn't massive enough.

It's an interesting debate. Politically, it's awkward to argue that things would have been even worse without the stimulus, even though that's what most nonpartisan economists believe. But the battle over the Recovery Act's short-term rescue has obscured its more enduring mission: a long-term push to change the country. It was about jobs, sure, but also about fighting oil addiction and global warming, transforming health care and education, and building a competitive 21st century economy. Some Republicans have called it an under-the-radar scramble to advance Obama's agenda - and they've got a point. (See TIME's special report "After One Year, A Stimulus Report Card.")

Yes, the stimulus has cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more. But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's effusive Recovery Act point man, "Now the fun stuff starts!" The "fun stuff," about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.

For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet.

The only stimulus energy program that's gotten much attention so far - chiefly because it got off to a slow start - is a $5 billion effort to weatherize homes. But the Recovery Act's line items represent the first steps to a low-carbon economy. "It will leverage a very different energy future," says Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona's utility commission. "It really moves us toward a tipping point." (Watch a video "TIME Polls America: Spend or Cut?")

The stimulus is also stocked with nonenergy game changers, like a tenfold increase in funding to expand access to broadband and an effort to sequence more than 2,300 complete human genomes - when only 34 were sequenced with all previous aid. There's $8 billion for a high-speed passenger rail network, the boldest federal transportation initiative since the interstate highways. There's $4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants to promote accountability in public schools, perhaps the most significant federal education initiative ever - it's already prompted 35 states and the District of Columbia to adopt reforms to qualify for the cash. There's $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and errors caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls that initiative the foundation for Obama's health care reform and "maybe the single biggest component in improving quality and lowering costs."

Any of those programs would have been a revolution in its own right. "We've seen more reform in the last year than we've seen in decades, and we haven't spent a dime yet," says Education Secretary Arne Duncan. "It's staggering how the Recovery Act is driving change."

That was the point. Critics have complained that while the New Deal left behind iconic monuments - courthouses, parks, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Grand Coulee Dam - this New New Deal will leave a mundane legacy of sewage plants, repaved roads, bus repairs and caulked windows. In fact, it will create new icons too: solar arrays, zero-energy border stations, an eco-friendly Coast Guard headquarters, an "advanced synchrotron light source" in a New York lab. But its main legacy will be change. The stimulus passed just a month after Obama's inauguration, but it may be his signature effort to reshape America - as well as its government.

"Let's Just Go Build It!"

After Obama's election, Depression scholar Christina Romer delivered a freak-out briefing to his transition team, warning that to avoid a 1930s-style collapse, Washington needed to pump at least $800 billion into the frozen economy - and fast. "We were in a tailspin," recalls Romer, who is about to step down as chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. "I was completely sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't just dig ditches and fill them in. But saving the economy had to be paramount." Obama's economists argued for tax cuts and income transfers to get cash circulating quickly, emergency aid to states to prevent layoffs of cops and teachers and off-the-shelf highway projects to put people to work. They wanted a textbook Keynesian response to an economy in cardiac arrest: adding money to existing programs via existing formulas or handing it to governors, seniors and first-time home buyers. They weren't keen to reinvent the wheel.

But Obama and Biden also saw a golden opportunity to address priorities; they emphasized shovel-worthy as well as shovel-ready. Biden recalls brainstorming with Obama about an all-in push for a smarter electrical grid that would reduce blackouts, promote renewables and give families more control over their energy diet: "We said, 'God, wouldn't it be wonderful? Why don't we invest $100 billion? Let's just go build it!' "

It wasn't that easy. Utilities control the grid, and new wires create thorny not-in-my-backyard zoning issues; there wasn't $100 billion worth of remotely shovel-ready grid projects. It's hard to transform on a timeline, and some congressional Democrats were less interested in transforming government than growing it. For instance, after securing $100 billion for traditional education programs, House Appropriations Committee chairman Dave Obey tried to stop any of it from going to Race to the Top, which is unpopular with teachers' unions.

Ultimately, even Obama's speed focused economists agreed that stimulus spending shouldn't dry up in 2010. And some Democrats were serious about investing wisely, not just spending more. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted on $17 billion for research. House Education and Labor Committee chairman George Miller fought to save Race to the Top. And while the grid didn't get a $100 billion reinvention, it did get $11 billion after decades of neglect, which could shape trillions of dollars in future utility investments.
It takes time to set up new programs, but now money is flowing to deliver high-speed Internet to rural areas, spread successful quit-smoking programs and design the first high-speed rail link from Tampa to Orlando. And deep in the Energy Department's basement - in a room dubbed the dungeon - a former McKinsey & Co. partner named Matt Rogers has created a government version of Silicon Valley's Sand Hill Road, blasting billions of dollars into clean-energy projects through a slew of oversubscribed grant programs. "The idea is to transform the entire energy sector," Rogers says. "What's exciting is the way it fits all together."

"They Won't All Succeed"

The green industrial revolution begins with gee-whiz companies like A123 Systems of Watertown, Mass. Founded in 2001 by MIT nanotechnology geeks who landed a $100,000 federal grant, A123 grew into a global player in the lithium-ion battery market, with 1,800 employees and five factories in China. It has won $249 million to build two plants in Michigan, where it will help supply the first generation of mass-market electric cars. At least four of A123's suppliers received stimulus money too. The Administration is also financing three of the world's first electric-car plants, including a $529 million loan to help Fisker Automotive reopen a shuttered General Motors factory in Delaware (Biden's home state) to build sedans powered by A123 batteries. Another A123 customer, Navistar, got cash to build electric trucks in Indiana. And since electric vehicles need juice, the stimulus will also boost the number of U.S. battery-charging stations by 3,200%.

"Without government, there's no way we would've done this in the U.S.," A123 chief technology officer Bart Riley told TIME. "But now you're going to see the industry reach critical mass here."

The Recovery Act's clean-energy push is designed not only to reduce our old economy dependence on fossil fuels that broil the planet, blacken the Gulf and strengthen foreign petro-thugs but also to avoid replacing it with a new economy that is just as dependent on foreign countries for technology and manufacturing. Last year, exactly two U.S. factories made advanced batteries for electric vehicles. The stimulus will create 30 new ones, expanding U.S. production capacity from 1% of the global market to 20%, supporting half a million plug-ins and hybrids. The idea is as old as land-grant colleges: to use tax dollars as an engine of innovation. It rejects free-market purism but also the old industrial-policy approach of dumping cash into a few favored firms. Instead, the Recovery Act floods the zone, targeting a variety of energy problems and providing seed money for firms with a variety of potential solutions. The winners must attract private capital to match public dollars - A123 held an IPO to raise the required cash - and after competing for grants, they still must compete in the marketplace. "They won't all succeed," Rogers says. "But some will, and they'll change the world." (Watch TIME's video "Google's Energy Initiatives Director Talks Clean Power.")

The investments extend all along the food chain. A brave new world of electric cars powered by coal plants could be dirtier than the oil-soaked status quo, so the stimulus includes an unheard-of $3.4 billion for clean-coal projects aiming to sequester or reuse carbon. There are also lucrative loan guarantees for constructing the first American nuclear plants in three decades. And after the credit crunch froze financing for green energy, stimulus cash has fueled a comeback, putting the U.S. on track to exceed Obama's goal of doubling renewable power by 2012. The wind industry added a record 10,000 megawatts in 2009. The stimulus is also supporting the nation's largest photovoltaic solar plant, in Florida, and what will be the world's two largest solar thermal plants, in Arizona and California, plus thousands of solar installations on homes and buildings.

The stimulus is helping scores of manufacturers of wind turbines and solar products expand as well, but today's grid can only handle so much wind and solar. A key problem is connecting remote wind farms to population centers, so there are billions of dollars for new transmission lines. Then there is the need to find storage capacity for when it isn't windy or sunny outside. The current grid is like a phone system without voice mail, a just-in-time network where power is wasted if it doesn't reach a user the moment it's generated. That's why the Recovery Act is funding dozens of smart-grid approaches. For instance, A123 is providing truckloads of batteries for a grid-storage project in California and recycled electric-car batteries for a similar effort in Detroit. "If we can show the utilities this stuff works," says Riley, "it will take off on its own."

Today, grid-scale storage, solar energy and many other green technologies are too costly to compete without subsidies. That's why the stimulus launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a blue-sky fund inspired by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the incubator for GPS and the M-16 rifle as well as the Internet. Located in an office building a block from the rest of the Energy Department, ARPA-E will finance energy research too risky for private funders, focusing on speculative technologies that might dramatically cut the cost of, say, carbon capture - or not. "We're taking chances, because that's how you put a man on the moon," says director Arun Majumdar, a materials scientist from the University of California, Berkeley. "Our idea is it's O.K. to fail. You think America's pioneers never failed?"

ARPA-E is funding the new pioneers - mad scientists and engineers with ideas for wind turbines based on jet engines, bacteria to convert carbon dioxide into gasoline, and tiny molten-metal batteries to provide cheap high-voltage storage. That last idea is the brainchild of MIT's Donald Sadoway, who already has a prototype fuel cell the size of a shot glass. The stimulus will help him create a kind of reverse aluminum smelter to make prototypes the size of a hockey puck and a pizza box. The ultimate goal is a commercial scale battery the size of a tractor trailer that could power an entire neighborhood. "We need radical breakthroughs, so we need radical experiments," Sadoway says. "These projects send chills down the spine of the carbon world. If a few of them work, [Venezuela's Hugo] ChÁvez and [Iran's Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad are out of power."

Then again, the easiest way to blow up the energy world would be to stop wasting so much. That's the final link in the chain, a full-throttle push to make energy efficiency a national norm. The Recovery Act is weatherizing 250,000 homes this year. It gave homeowners rebates for energy-efficient appliances, much as the Cash for Clunkers program subsidized fuel-efficient cars. It's retrofitting juice-sucking server farms, factories and power plants; financing research into superefficient lighting, windows and machinery; and funneling billions into state and local efficiency efforts. (See TIME's special report "Obama's Agenda: Get America Back on Track.")

It will also retrofit 3 in 4 federal buildings. The U.S. government is the nation's largest energy consumer, so this will save big money while boosting demand for geothermal heat pumps, LED lighting and other energy-saving products. "We're so huge, we make markets," says Bob Peck, the General Services Administration's public-buildings commissioner. GSA's 93-year-old headquarters, now featuring clunky window air conditioners and wires duct-taped to ceilings, will get energy optimized heating, cooling and lighting systems, glass facades with solar membranes and a green roof; the makeover should cut its energy use 55%. It might even beta-test stimulus-funded windows that harvest sunlight. "We'll be the proving ground for innovation in the building industry," Peck says. "It all starts with renovating the government."

The New Venture Capitalists

The stimulus really is starting to change Washington - and not just the buildings. Every contract and lobbying contact is posted at Recovery.gov, with quarterly data detailing where the money went. A Recovery Board was created to scrutinize every dollar, with help from every major agency's independent watchdog. And Biden has promised state and local officials answers to all stimulus questions within 24 hours. It's a test-drive for a new approach to government: more transparent, more focused on results than compliance, not just bigger but better. Biden himself always saw the Recovery Act as a test - not only of the new Administration but of federal spending itself. He knew high-profile screwups could be fatal, stoking antigovernment anger about bureaucrats and two-car funerals. So he spends hours checking in, buttering up and banging heads to keep the stimulus on track, harassing Cabinet secretaries, governors and mayors about unspent broadband funds, weatherization delays and fishy projects. He has blocked some 260 skate parks, picnic tables and highway beautifications that flunked his what-would-your-mom-think test. "Imagine they could have proved we wasted a billion dollars," Biden says. "Gone, man. Gone!"

So far, despite furor over cash it supposedly funneled to contraception (deleted from the bill) and phantom congressional districts (simply typos), the earmark-free Recovery Act has produced surprisingly few scandals. Prosecutors are investigating a few fraud allegations, and critics have found some goofy expenditures, like $51,500 for water-safety-mascot costumes or a $50,000 arts grant to a kinky-film house. But those are minor warts, given that unprecedented scrutiny. Biden knows it's early - "I ain't saying mission accomplished!" - but he calls waste and fraud "the dogs that haven't barked."
The Recovery Act's deeper reform has been its focus on intense competition for grants instead of everybody-wins formulas, forcing public officials to consider not only whether applicants have submitted the required traffic studies and small-business hiring plans but also whether their projects make sense. Already staffed by top technologists from MIT, Duke and Intel, ARPA-E recruited 4,500 outside experts to winnow 3,700 applications down to 37 first-round grants. "We've taken the best and brightest from the tech world and created a venture fund - except we're looking for returns for the country," Majumdar says. These change agents didn't uproot their lives to fill out forms in triplicate and shovel money by formula. They want to reinvent the economy, not just stimulate it. Sadoway, the MIT battery scientist, is tired of reporting how many jobs he's created in his lab: "If this works, I'll create a million jobs!"

Obama has spent most of his first term trying to clean up messes - in the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan, on Wall Street and Main Street - but the details in the stimulus plan are his real down payment on change. The question is which changes will last. Will electric cars disappear after the subsidies disappear? Will advanced battery factories migrate back to China? Will bullet trains ever get built? The President wants to extend transformative programs like ARPA-E. But would they be substitutes for the status quo or just additions to tack onto the deficit? And would they survive a Republican Congress?

Polls suggest the actual contents of the Recovery Act are popular. But the idea of the stimulus itself remains toxic - and probably will as long as the recovery remains tepid. "Today, it's judged by jobs," Rogers says of the act. "But in 10 years, it'll be judged by whether it transformed our economy."

Get Ready, We've Already Been Told, Our Energy Costs Are Going To "Necessarily Skyrocket". Gee, Really?

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Why Didn't We Learn This In High School?

So much to write about today. I appologize for all the posts...

Why didn't we learn this in High School? Maybe the Muslims do! Maybe this is just one more reason why they hate America! What do you think?

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
From the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

I Wonder How Many Americans Even Know About This? The Disconnect Our Government Has Had With It's Citizens Over The Past 100 Years Is Mind Boggling.
Posted by Picasa

The Twelve Year Plan - The Progressive Genius?

Here's how I see things working out. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. But is it possible? The progressives are a slick bunch. They have sown their seeds well, and the crop is growing. In my opinion they have planned the harvest for 2020.

Barack Obama told us in January of 2008 that he was 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America. The destruction he has initiated - the divisiveness, the spending, the picking and choosing of laws to enforce, the suing of states, the pushing of the envelope in terms of how much power he can concentrate in the Executive Branch of the government through the use of czars (but not only czars, but socialists and communists, as well as full fledged progressives) - while being felt now in small ripples with growing concern over his agenda, will largely be felt only after he leaves office. Many things don't kick in until 2013, remember.

So why is that? He has mentioned that he won't be disappointed if he is a one-term president. He says he'd rather be a good (that's ambivalent) one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Even if he wanted to run for a second term, which I don't believe he wants, I doubt he could get re-elected. His disdain for the will of the American people is just too great and too evident. So, I believe he will be a one-term president by choice.

So what happens in the next election? I believe that Obama will continue to push his radical agenda for the next two years, he'll continue to thwart the will of the people at every possible turn, and he'll continue to divide the country. He will also continue to push his "ad campaign" that this is all the fault of the previous administration, and George Bush. Ah, those nasty Republicans, they must be branded, and branded, and branded. But he will also create so much disdain for the Democratic Party through his policies and agenda that there will be no obstacle to a Republican gaining office in 2012, despite his continued demonizing of them. It has to be that way for the 12-yr plan to actually work.

But as soon as Obama leaves office, the agenda he has pushed for and the policies and laws he's passed in his 4 years in office will take affect - very shrewd on his part (or the part of whomever created this plan). Those policies and legislation, if it has not already occurred will culminate in a depression - perhaps a second great depression. Hmmm, a republican will be in office, completely out of control of the events that will occur because of the policies and legislation that this administration has put in play. I imagine what occurs in the next two years of obama's reign will successfully prevent any action taken by the next administration from working. Thus that President will also be a one-term President. The hue and cry will be so loud relative to the ineptitude of that President, and spewed so willingly over the airwaves by the progressive media, that it will be lapped up willingly by the ignorant masses, and a new progressive democrat will be ushered into the oval office as the new savior of America in 2016. Along with him/her will be the second coming of the obama congress - democratically (progressively) controlled, both houses.

At that point, there will be nothing that the American people can do. Most will be demoralized by the depression they have lived through. many will be looking to the government to save them. Millions will allow any form of government that can help them, and the Republic will be over once and for all, finally, sadly.

I hope that I am wrong. But these guys have been planning for nearly 50 years to take over America and transform her. Do you think they got to 2008 and stopped planning? Don't you think there is more to the plan? These guys are not stupid. They are many things, but not stupid. They will not leave their golden opportunity to chance. They will have planned well enough to accomplish their goal once they made their move. They've made their move. Why do you think they are so open about what they are doing? Why do you think they are so disdainful towards the very people they have been elected to serve? Because the pretense is no longer needed. They already know the end game plan and they can see the results favor thei success of their plan.

So while we're all focused on 2010 and 2012, they are a few steps ahead of us. They have made the destruction of America possible with the election of 2008, and they will realize that goal in 2020...

There will be great misery in the coming 6 to 8 years. There will undoubtedly be great violence as well. I don't look forward to the coming years. I don't know how anyone survives unscathed. I pray to God that my assessment of the next 10 years is wrong, that it is so grossly miscalculated that it is looked back upon and scoffed at. Pray with me...

How Could This Possibly Have Happened In My Lifetime? It Is So Surreal.

Humor: Priceless!

The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in Yankee Stadium in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope leaned towards Mrs. Pelosi and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"

Pelosi replied, "I seriously doubt that with just one little wave of your hand? Show me!"

So the Pope backhanded her!


Kind of brings a tear to your eyes, doesn't it?


Think life's tough? Think the struggle you're in is too much to handle? Think you're too tired to do what you do all day AND then get involved in saving the Republic? Just don't feel like it today?

Maybe you need an Attitude Adjustment? Maybe this will help put some perspective into your life. See any "poor me" here? See any "can't do" here? Get your boots on, pull up your pants, start thinking "can do" and "I can help"! Get involved...

For anyone who stumbles upon this blog, and happens to read this post, who is not actively engaged in the battle to reclaim America, be sure to thank someone who is if your children and grandchildren still have their liberty 20 years from now.

Don't Tell Me You Don't Have The Time Or Energy; Would You Find The Time And Energy If You Were The Target Of An Armed Home Invasion? There's No Such Thing As "No Time, No Energy"; There's Just Choice - Engagement Or Apathy... And As In The Case Of An Armed Home Invasion, The Choice Of Apathy Isn't A Good One. Help Us Reclaim America; Stop The Spread Of Tyranny!

Posted by Picasa

If You Believe The Constitution Provides Us With Our Guiding Principles, You Are A Member of The Tea Party

Taken from the blog - Pedaling Fast & Trying To Keep Up

And If You Don't Believe The Constitution Is Our Country's Concrete Guidance, Find Somewhere Else To Spew Your Rhetoric And Hate

Obamacare On The Chopping Block - If Your Rep Isn't Listed, Call Them!!


4 dozen names would launch Obamacare repeal
House plan could undermine entire nationalization program
Posted: August 16, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Eight more members of the U.S. House have signed on to a plan that calls for a re-vote on Obamacare, enabling members to repeal the massive nationalization program estimated to cost Americans a trillion dollars or more.

The signature total now stands at 170, just four dozen shy of the 218 needed to advance the discharge petition sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa

The newest names are Reps. Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, Dean Heller of Nevada, Peter T. King of New York, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania and Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania.

Staffers with Kings's office said no more new names will be added while Congress is in recess now, but the campaign will ramp up again as soon as the members reassemble in September.

House members who previously endorsed King's plan are:

Steve King, Iowa
Connie Mack, Florida
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Tom Price, Georgia
Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Jerry Moran, Kansas
Tom Graves, Georgia
Rob Bishop, Utah
Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania
Mike Pence, Indiana
Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Jeb Hensarling, Texas
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Judy Biggert, Illinois
John Boozman, Arkansas
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Gary G. Miller, California
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Robert E. Latta, Ohio
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Trent Franks, Arizona
K. Michael Conaway, Texas
Jo Bonner, Alabama
Dan Burton, Indiana
J. Gresham Barrett, South Carolina
John Linder, Georgia
Bill Posey, Florida
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John Campbell, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Charles K. Djou, Hawaii
Pete Sessions, Texas
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Kevin Brady, Texas
Pete Olson, Texas
C.W. Bill Young, Florida
Tom McClintock, California
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Mac Thornberry, Texas
John R. Carter, Texas
John Shimkus, Illinois
Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
John Fleming, Louisiana
Jeff Flake, Arizona
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Donald A. Manzullo, Illinois
Eric Cantor, Virginia
Scott Garrett, New Jersey
John A. Boehner, Ohio
Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Kay Granger, Texas
Parker Griffith, Alabama
Ted Poe, Texas
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
Fred Upton, Michigan
Jean Schmidt, Ohio
John Sullivan, Oklahoma
Peter J. Roskam, Illinois
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Ken Calvert, California
Lee Terry, Nebraska
Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
Mary Bono Mack, California
Spencer Bachus, Alabama
Jeff Miller, Florida
John B. Shadegg, Arizona
Gregg Harper, Mississippi
John Abney Culberson, Texas
Dana Rohrabacher, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Denny Rehberg, Montana
Sue Wilkins Myrick, North Carolina
Tom Latham, Iowa
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
John Kline, Minnesota
Ron Paul, Texas
Thomas J. Rooney, Florida
Daniel E. Lungren, California
Darrell E. Issa, California
Harold Rogers, Kentucky
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Duncan Hunter, California
Sam Graves, Missouri
Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Edward R. Royce, California
Ralph M. Hall, Texas
Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Thaddeus G. McCotter, Michigan
Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lamar Smith, Texas
Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Wally Herger, California
Vern Buchanan, Florida
Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
Geoff Davis, Kentucky
Jack Kingston, Georgia
Brian P. Bilbray, California
Zach Wamp, Tennessee
Jerry Lewis, California
Erik Paulsen, Minnesota
Roy Blunt, Missouri
Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
Frank Wolf, Virginia
George Radanovich, California
Steve Austria, Ohio
Greg Walden, Oregon
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska
Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas
Paul Ryan, Wisconsin
John L. Mica, Florida
Michael R. Turner, Ohio
Aaron Schock, Illinois
Cliff Stearns, Florida
Devin Nunes, California
David Dreier, California
Christopher John Lee, New York
Kevin McCarthy, California
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Leonard Lance, New Jersey
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California
Ander Crenshaw, Florida
Elton Gallegly, California
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Doc Hastings, Washington
Don Young, Alaska
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio
Mike Rogers, Michigan
Joe Barton, Texas
Adam H. Putnam, Florida
Dave Camp, Michigan

King also has posted a list online divided by state delegations.

The effort in the House is quickly gaining momentum even though it has been reported but little in the media. Under House rules, King's discharge petition needs 218 signatures to advance. But with that number – a majority in the 435-member body – once it moves it virtually is assured of passing, even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vigorously opposes it.

Sign the petition opposing Obamacare.

All of the GOP representatives and 34 Democrats opposed Obamacare when it was passed on a narrow 219-212 vote earlier this year. King said 212 representatives, at least, should be in favor of overturning it, since they previously opposed it.

Then it will be up to the four Democrat votes that would be needed to turn from endorsement to rejection for it to advance.

He also said there are a number of Democrats who supported the nationalization plan who now are running for re-election in districts where residents oppose it.

The proposal states: "Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures."

Its target is the $940 billion, or greater, bill adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in March.

Advocates say constituents need to call their representatives to tell them to get on board right away so that the petition is positioned to move forward whether or not the GOP becomes the majority in the House after the 2010 fall elections.

On one website promoting repair of the current health care system – but not its demise – several forum participants encouraged members of the House to keeping working on it.

"Like everyone else, I am certainly not against health care reform – but we need to start over and address the people who really need the assistance in ways that make sense," wrote one. "The government's literal takeover of our physical lives and our children's lives is beyond anything imaginable."

Added a second, "We are witnessing the nationalization of the health care industry."

King said he expects the numbers "to swell."

"Once the discharge petition reaches 218 signatures, Speaker Pelosi will not be able to prevent the repeal legislation from receiving, and passing, a vote on the floor," King's announcement said.

The congressman said the process may be a little complicated to rid the nation of thousands of pages of laws that a majority of voters oppose, but it can be done.

The discharge petition is first, which then can be used as a litmus test against Democrats in November. The likelihood is that the GOP returns to a majority in the House in November, and while President Obama still could veto a complete repeal, the House simply could shut off funding for the program until a new president is elected in 2012, he explained.

In a related effort, more than 37,500 voices from across America are offering their encouragement to members of the House who have yet to sign the discharge petition offered by King.

The campaign is a petition drive that urges members of Congress to repeal Obamacare because of several problems:

Whereas, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, approved by a narrow vote of the House of Representatives earlier this year, threatens to transform the U.S. health-care system from its roots in free enterprise and personal choice;

Whereas, the act is unconstitutional because of its unprecedented requirement that Americans purchase a service;

Whereas, the system the law would create is financially unsustainable, places personal medical decisions in the hands of bureaucrats and is likely to lead to rationing of health-care options;

Whereas, the act is likely to result in forcing some 87 million Americans to drop their current health-care coverage;

Whereas, the costs involved in complying with the law are likely to cost more Americans their jobs, inhibit the creation of new employment opportunities and suppress wages ...

The petition drive was launched by Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily, who said the results are worthy of note already.

"This is a very impressive petition, but it will be much more impressive at 100,000 or 200,000 or 1 million," he said. "We need people signing and spreading the news about this effort – news that has not been reported anywhere else expect at WND."

"Who would have thought we might have a chance to repeal Obamacare – this term?" said Farah.

Now it's time for the public to turn up the pressure, he urged.

Farah's public petition drive is intended to coalesce support for King's measure.

Do Your Part, Act Responsibly, Call Your Representative!!

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

What's So Hard To Understand?

Keep the Free Market Alive

If we lose economic freedom, we lose all freedom. Ronald Reagan foreshadowed President Obama's assault against free enterprise—even before Reagan became president. On Nov. 10, 1977, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan traveled to one of conservatism's most celebrated intellectual wellsprings, Hillsdale College, to deliver a blistering assault against economic socialism. Specifically, Reagan attacked government planned economies as anathema to freedom. The policy prescriptions he advocated presaged his historic 1981 and 1984 tax relief bills, a rare example of political promises kept. In his speech, Reagan stressed the importance of communicating economics in ways that connect using visual illustrations. Conservatives would do well to heed his sage counsel and follow his example.

Hillsdale College, Nov. 10, 1977:
You know, I say I'm delighted to be here and yet I have an uncomfortable feeling that I'm saving souls in heaven. You don’t need the convincing that I usually try to do when I'm speaking on this subject. …

But, if I can’t save your souls, at least perhaps I might impart some information here that'll be helpful to you in the communication that has to take place. In the campaign last year, there was a great deal of talk about the seeming inability of an economic system that has provided more for more people than anything we've ever known to solve the problems of unemployment and inflation. Issues such as taxes and government power and cost were discussed. But always these things were discussed in the context of "What did government intend to do about them?" Well, may I suggest for your consideration that government has already done too much about them—that, indeed, by government going outside its proper province has caused many, if not most, the problems that vex us. …

At the economic conference in London  several months ago, one of our American representatives there was talking to the press. And he said, "You have to recognize that inflation doesn't have any single cause. It's caused by a number of things, and therefore there is no single answer." Well, if he believed that, he had no business being at an economic conference. Inflation is caused by one thing, and it has one answer. It's caused by government spending more than government takes in, and it will go away when government stops doing that, and not before. …

I know that this is called the "Ludwig von Mises Series." But do you know that before I knew that I had a line that I intended to give you? It's a quote of his, if you haven't heard it. Ludwig von Mises said, "Government is the only agency that can take a perfectly useful commodity like paper, smear it with some ink and render it absolutely useless." Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

There are 73 million of us working and earning in the private sector. We support ourselves and our dependents. We support, in addition, 81 million other Americans totally dependent on tax dollars for their year-round living. Now it's true that 15 million of those are public employees and they also pay taxes, but their taxes are simply a return to government of that first had to be taken from the 73 million. I say this to emphasize that the people working and earning in the private sector are the only resource that
government has. …

And yet even among us who perhaps believe that way, we have fallen into the habit of when something goes wrong—that saying, "There ought to be a law." Sometimes I think there ought to be a law against saying "there ought to be a law." A German statesman, Bismarck, said, "If you like sausages and laws, you should never watch either one of them being made."

It's difficult to understand the ever increasing number of intellectuals the goals of academia—present company excepted—who contend that our system could be improved by the adoption of some of the features of socialism. It isn't that these eminent scholars are ignorant; it's just that they know a number of things that aren't true. …

But we're so used to talking billions. Does anyone realize how much a single billion is? A billion minutes ago Christ was walking on this earth. A billion hours ago our ancestors lived in caves, and it's questionable as to whether they'd discovered the use of fire. A billion dollars ago was 19 hours in Washington, D.C. And it'll be another billion in the next 19 hours, and every 19 hours until they adopt a new budget at which time it'll be almost a billion and a half. But let me really paint the picture for you. If you gentlemen sent your wives out on a shopping spree and gave them each a billion dollars and told them not to spend more than a thousand dollars a day, they won’t be home for 3,000 years.

But, you know, if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom, all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on in the blood stream or genetically. And it's never more than on generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time. …

You know, it has been said that politics is the second-oldest profession, and I've come to realize over the last few years, it bears a great similarity to the first. … It's time we recognized that the system, no matter what our problems are, has never failed us once. Every time we have failed the system, usually by lacking faith in it, usually by saying we have to change and do something else. •  - Excerpted from TownHall Magazine, August Issue.
Wynton Hall is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the owner of Wynton Hall & Co., a celebrity ghostwriting and speechwriting agency.

Kinda Puts A Trillion Dollars Into Perspective, Doesn't It? Now What About 13 Trillion? Don't You Agree Government Is Out Of Control? Vote Them Out And Vote In Fiscally Responsible People From Today Forward! And For God's Sake Congress, Stop Making Laws Because You Think You're Supposed To...

Posted by Picasa

Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt?

How comfortable are you about who obama really is? And have you looked up TAQIYYA yet?

Don't discount this yet, he has two and a half more years to show his true colors...

If You Aren't At Least Concerned, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Monday, August 23, 2010

A Rino Chameleon The Voters Seem To Be Embracing

Shame on Arizona voters for not taking the opportunity to send McCain to the political scrap heap. A military hero? Yes! But good for America's future? A resounding NO!!! How is it possible the Arizonians have lost their political way so soon? Is this what awaits other states in America? Everyone in Congress is bad except the guy who represents my state or my district? McCain's cons far outweigh his pros. We aren't going to reclaim and restore the country with thinking like that. We need to be a bit more savvy as voters; the politicians sure are - and they'll tell you whatever the polls tell them to in order to get re-elected. Look at their voting history not their words. Look at past actions and statements when they weren't in a political fight for their lives. Come on people, stay awake and stay in the fight!!

GILBERT, Ariz. – The cast of "Survivor" has nothing on Sen. John McCain.

Once labeled a vulnerable incumbent, the four-term Arizona Republican is the clear front-runner against challenger J.D. Hayworth after spending some $20 million and casting his GOP opponent as a late-night infomercial huckster in a series of devastating ads. The primary is Tuesday.

McCain, who turns 74 on Aug. 29, has survived the deadly 1967 explosion on the USS Forrestal, 5 1/2 years in a Vietnam POW camp after being shot down near Hanoi and skin cancer. Politically, he has persisted through the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, and two failed bids for the White House.

"I have stood up and led the fight as a fiscal conservative and a leader on national defense and a strong supporter of the men and women who are fighting and sacrificing for this nation," McCain told a woman who questioned his record at a town-hall meeting last Thursday.

Long unpopular with some home-state conservatives, McCain immediately recognized the threat posed by Hayworth, a talk-radio host and former six-term congressman from Scottsdale. And he set out to neutralize it. McCain also realized that the anti-establishment fervor could cost him his seat in the primary; it already had claimed two other senators — Republican Bob Bennett of Utah and Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

McCain tossed aside his self-described "maverick" label and adopted a hard-line stand on immigration just a few years after working with Democrats on a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. "Complete the danged fence," he says in a campaign ad, three years after dismissing the effectiveness of building a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.

A series of McCain ads called Hayworth a "huckster," showing clips of him in an infomercial telling viewers they can get free government money. It was an embarrassment for a candidate running as a fiscal conservative, and it caught Hayworth flat-footed. At first he defended it, then apologized as the story lived on for weeks.

"I think McCain's truthful. J.D. Hayworth sure isn't. He's a liar," said Martha Moloney, a 72-year-old church worker from Mesa.

One poll last month showed McCain with a lead of as much as 45 percentage points.

"J.D. Hayworth is deader than Elvis," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Hayworth is undaunted. He has had an exhausting series of campaign events throughout Arizona, mostly in rural areas away from Phoenix. On a remote stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, he criticized McCain for not supporting a change in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

"In the final analysis, it ain't me, it's John McCain and his record that will be held to account," Hayworth told The Associated Press.

Hayworth aides argue that McCain is vulnerable on immigration in a state that has adopted the nation's toughest law cracking down on illegal immigrants. A Hayworth ad accused the incumbent of lying about his stand on the issue — a charge the McCain campaign denies, but which resonates with voters supporting the challenger.

"We need someone in the Senate who's going to think about Arizona. McCain just doesn't care about the constituents. He doesn't care about Arizona," said Judy Howard, a 51-year-old retired federal probation official who said she'll probably vote for Hayworth.

Hayworth has an enthusiastic crowd of supporters, but his challenge grows larger every day as the number of potential voters dwindles. In Maricopa County, where a majority of Arizonans live, more than half of 350,000 Republican early ballots had already been returned by Friday.

Jim Deakin, a contractor and Navy veteran, is pursuing the same tea party activists Hayworth is courting. Deakin's throw-the-bums-out message combined with an everyman charm and no elective office experience could siphon anti-McCain votes from Hayworth.

Despite polls showing a likely win, McCain isn't letting up. He spent $3.5 million on the race in July, most of it from the legal fund of his 2008 presidential campaign. By Aug. 4, McCain had spent $19.6 million to Hayworth's $2.6 million — a "lie and buy" strategy, Hayworth says.

But Hayworth hasn't helped his cause. He incorrectly said the United State never declared war on Nazi Germany in World War II, and suggested that a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage might allow a man to marry his horse.

"I don't think J.D.'s got the analytical ability to come up with the decisions that need to be made in this environment," said Al Sondergaard, a 79-year-old retired Caterpillar manufacturing supervisor.

The winner of the GOP primary will face one of four Democrats: retired investigative journalist John Dougherty, former state administrator Cathy Eden, former Tucson City Councilman Rodney Glassman or political activist Randy Parraz. Glassman, who has loaned his campaign $500,000 and raised as much from others, is the front-runner who would face a tough time trying to beat McCain.

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

Even Back Then They Were Followers, Not Leaders - They Didn't Know It Then, And They Don't Know It Today Either


August 11, 2010
A Rather Angry America
by Victor Davis Hanson
Pajamas Media

Unemployment is still high, growth low, deficits huge. States are cutting out everything from streetlights to paving. Public pensions are exploding everywhere.

A class war looms between retirees who want their sweet-heart obligations honored, and strapped, poorer taxpayers who feel about those bloated payouts as they do their underwater mortgages.

What Did You Expect?

In a progressive (liberal) culture, where ads blare hourly about skipping out on credit card debt, shorting the IRS, and walking away from mortgages, did the public employee unions really think they were exempt from a Chrysler-like renegotiation?

In the age of Obama, there is no real contractual obligation: everything from paying back bondholders to fixing a BP penalty is, well, “negotiable.” When the money runs out, the law will too. Law? There is no law other than a mandated equality of result.

The Talkative Crowd

On the Internet recently appeared the pictures of the JournoList [1] bunch, who at least between themselves gave up their usual pretense that the media was unbiased. With all due respect (confession: I was briefly mentioned by the list as someone that the racist card might work on in connection with the illegal immigration debate), they appear to the eye as a sort of nerdish group.

They remind me of what we used to call the “wimp table” at a pretty tough Selma High around 1970. It was there that the high school’s handful of geeks, toadies, and picked-upon used to eat, under the protective eye of yard-duty teachers. The assumption was that with a few steps further onto the grounds, the entire sorry bunch was fair game for every bully on campus. And that sad outfit filters, disseminates, and arbitrates our news? Most from their writing and appearance seemed either neurotic overachievers or twenty-something bloggers who confuse calling someone something with erudition.

Up Is Down

No wonder aristocratic golf became needed presidential relaxation, the old first lady hysteria over things like Nancy’s china cooled when Michelle hit the Costa del Sol, and Guantanamo became A-Okay. The news now for these guys is sort of like writing boilerplate race/class/gender oppression papers for a Yale undergrad gut class.

Populism Is Now Bad?

In contrast, the proverbial people seem angry. A book will have to be written explaining how in 19 months Obama blew a 70% approval rating and is headed for under 40% — something that took Bush six years. A handful of judges nullified what millions voted for in Arizona and California, apparently on the premise that wanting federal immigration law enforced, and seeing marriage as a traditional bond between a man and woman as it has been for 2,500 years in the West, was bigoted, analogous to the racism of the Jim Crow South, and thus in need of judicial intervention.

A guy in Bakersfield might think it prejudicial that a gay judge struck down an amendment to the Constitution passed by a majority of voters and opposed by the gay lobby; a guy in DC would think the guy in Bakersfield prejudicial for coming up with that preposterous conclusion.

Meanwhile, in our postracial age, race is everywhere: Charles Rangel, who won’t follow the tax laws he writes, whines about an “old-English, Anglo-Saxon procedure.” [2] Maxine Waters (under the cloud of insider bank influence peddling) and the Black Caucus (recipient of federalized GM donations) cite racism as the source of their ethical dilemmas (at least Larry Craig did not cite gay-bashing and Duke Cunningham reverse discrimination and Chris Dodd ageism and the late John Murtha girthism).

A mass murderer at a beer distribution center (so much for Van Jones’s assurances that such mayhem was a white thing) is portrayed on the airwaves as an aggrieved victim of racism lashing out. Not a word about the shattered lives of those gunned down and their families. Welcome to the post-racial Obama age — with much more to follow. (Nemesis gives no quarter: once Barack Obama years ago went down the patronize-and-use-Rev.-Wright path, the payback was only a matter of when, not if.)

History Is Negotiable

We sent our first delegation to the services marking the bombing of Hiroshima. Fine, but will we do the same with the Philippines, Manchuria, South Korea, and all the other places where the Imperial Japanese Army by early 1945 was killing on average well over 5,000 a day in its occupied co-prosperity sphere? To understand why Hiroshima, understand 50,000 American casualties, 100,000 Japanese dead, and 100,000 Okinawan dead at the conclusion of Okinawa ten weeks earlier, and then multiply it by a factor of 10 for the upcoming Japanese homeland invasion.

The Rising

At home, a huge mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan will rise up before the new World Trade Center (maybe Bruce Springsteen can do a sequel to “The Rising”?). To suggest this is bad taste is bigoted. To suggest that we don’t know the where, how, and why about the funding, or why a self-proclaimed ecumenical group of Muslims wants to build ties by picking this provocative spot, or who exactly is behind the idea (or where exactly the promoter now is [3]) is the worst sort of Neanderthal right prejudice.

No problem. We can assure the 3,000 dead that their passing was marked by the enlightened harmony of a mosque preempting a new tower. What we do know is that in about a year, all over the Middle East, al-Qaeda videos will have photo-shopped “strong horse” posters and CDs of the ruins of 9/11 in the shadow of a towering mosque, with the accustomed boilerplate about how Atta et al. knocked down the looming towers in order to have Islam’s shrine rise up in their place. It all sort of reminds one of the nasty reception the president’s envoy on Islamic outreach just got from a Muslim audience in India. He was “shocked” at his reception — or translated into Valley Girl parlance: “Like, I can’t believe this is happening to me.”

I don’t think the polls quite capture the present public anger, which in not abating. Everything seems to channel into a general furor: Michelle’s movable feast from Costa del Sol to Martha’s Vineyard; the president suing Arizona and counting on a judge to nullify the public will, as part of a larger effort either by judicial nod or administrative fiat to get amnesty for 15 million future voters who will reciprocate at the polls; politicians bragging about handing out another $100 billion of someone else’s money here, another $200 billion there; the constant assumption that popular expression is retarded, and those who go to a tea party rally, vote to enforce immigration law, want to see marriage as it has been for millennia, want to cut federal spending, or are tired of identity politics are Palinesque clingers.

The Best and the Brightest

The common denominator? If one were to survey the elite campuses around 1975 and talk to those in law school, political science, or the humanities, then imagine them 35 years later as our elite leaders in government, the media, the universities, the foundations, and the arts, one could pretty much expect what we now have.

The present symptoms that characterize both our popular culture and current governance — shrill self-righteousness; abstract communalism juxtaposed with concrete pursuit of the aristocratic good life; race/class/gender cosmic sermonizing with private school and Ivy League for the kids; crass and tasteless public expression; a serial inability to take responsibility for one’s actions; the bipartisan mega-deficits; the inability to cut pensions and social security for the baby boomers — from the trivial to the fundamental, all derive from a bankrupt cohort that came of age in the sixties and seventies.

We see the arrested adolescence and hypocrisy that come from that sermonizing generation, whether in Al Franken’s puerile face-making, the ideologically driven suicide at Newsweek, the steady destruction of the New York Times, John Kerry’s tax-avoiding yacht, the Great Gatsby Clinton wedding, Michelle on the Costa del Sol, Nancy Pelosi’s jet, Tim Geithner’s tax skipping, or the constant race-card playing of a Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters. Yes, one walk across the Yale or Stanford campus circa 1975, and one could see pretty clearly what sort of culture that bunch would create when it came of age and was handed power. If that is reductionism, so be it.

I Wonder Just How Often The Scent Of "Grass" Lingers In The Halls Of The Capitol - I'm Just Saying...

Sunday, August 22, 2010

A Culture Of Peace? A Religion Of Peace? Have You ALL Lost Your Minds?

And there are people in this country who want us to EMBRACE Islam and Shari'a Law. Shame on anyone who would do so. This is not a culture of religious peace, this is lawlessness. It is disgraceful!! It is disgusting!! I am not willing to accept this culture for the sake of "tolerance" in my country. Call me what you will, but this is pure evil as far as I'm concerned! I will fight against it every way I can.

This video is graphic, so be warned...


or go directly to the movie here.

Beware! Tolerance For One Group Is Intolerance For Another. Weigh Your Choices Well...