Oh, I forgot, he can't be racist, he's black!
Obama: Black lawmakers must rally voters back home
AP – President Barack Obama speaks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Inc.’s Annual Legislative …
By Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored black voters on Saturday to restoke the passion they felt for his groundbreaking campaign two years ago and turn out in force this fall to repel Republicans who are ready to "turn back the clock."
In a fiery speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama warned that Republicans hoping to seize control of Congress want "to do what's right politically, instead of what's right — period."
"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to the churches, and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we've got more work to do," Obama said to cheers from a black-tie audience at the Washington Convention Center. "Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now."
His speech acknowledged what pollsters have been warning Democrats for months — that blacks are among the key Democratic groups who right now seem unlikely to turn out in large numbers in November.
"It's not surprising given the hardships that we're seeing across the land that a lot of people may not be feeling very energized, very engaged right now," Obama said. "A lot of folks may be feeling like politics is something that they get involved with every four years when there's a presidential election, but they don't see why they should bother the rest of the time."
But he said he's just begun rolling back a devastating recession that's come down "with a vengeance" on African-American neighborhoods that were already suffering.
"We have to finish the plan you elected me to put in place," Obama said.
Summoning the joy many blacks felt at the election of the first African-American president, and recalling the words of actor and activist Ossie Davis, he declared, "It's not the man, it's the plan."
Obama was treated to several standing ovations in the darkened cavernous Convention Center. Joining the applause: first lady Michelle Obama, dressed in a floor-length burgundy cocktail dress.
But the hall grew quiet as Obama warned, "Remember, the other side has a plan too. It's a plan to turn back the clock on every bit of progress we've made."
Obama never spoke the name of the Republican party, but repeatedly invoked its policies — and did name its House leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a favorite Obama target in recent days.
Members of "the other side," Obama said, "want to take us backward. We want to move America forward."
With polls showing his party facing a wide "enthusiasm gap" with the GOP, Obama sought to rally an important constituency in his speech.
"What made the civil rights movement possible were foot soldiers like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters and standing up for freedom. What made it possible for me to be here today are Americans throughout our history making our union more equal, making our union more just, making our union more perfect," Obama said. "That's what we need again."
The caucus is a group reeling from ethics charges against two leading members, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California. Republicans are preparing TV ads spotlighting the cases, even though House trials are now not expected until after the November election.
Obama mentioned neither case in his 27-minute speech.
For Obama, the caucus dinner at the Washington Convention Center capped a week of concerted outreach to minority supporters, a traditional wellspring of Democratic strength.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What Is It With Establishment Candidates Who Either Can't Win Their Primaries, Or Don't Win Them
It's gotta tell you something when establishment candidates just won't go away when the voters say they aren't wanted? Is it just the power? Or is it more than that? The perks, the money, the prestige? Or do they just know there is so much graft in Washington that they think they deserve their slice of the pie? First there was Arlen Spectre, then Charlie Crist - both of whom changed parties after years of shamming Americans by claiming they were Republicans. Really? Then why'd they change their party affiliation? They are just another species of chameleon. And here's one more example of a Republican who won't go away...
Sen. Murkowski mounting write-in bid for Senate
By Becky Bohrer, Associated Press Writer – Sat Sep 18
JUNEAU, Alaska – In the weeks following her defeat in the GOP primary, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski went back and forth over whether to re-enter the race as a write-in candidate or accept life outside Washington and a role other than Alaska's senior senator.
On Friday, Alaskans learned her decision: She's in. And, this time, she said: "The gloves are off."
Murkowski faces tough odds with her write-in candidacy. She has lost support from members within the Republican establishment who have reiterated their support for the Republican nominee, Joe Miller. She also has just more than six weeks to gear up a campaign, motivate her staff and turn out the vote.
But she told supporters — who greeted her at an Anchorage convention center with chants of "Run, Lisa, Run!" — that she couldn't walk away and ignore the pleas of Alaskans who urged her to get back in and offer them a choice between the "extremist" views of Miller, a self-described constitutional conservative and tea party favorite, and the "inexperience" of Democrat Scott McAdams, a small-town mayor.
"So I am here to tell you, you are disenfranchised no more," she said.
No sooner did Murkowski announce her intentions than Republican leaders — Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, Sens. John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell — weighed in with their displeasure — and their reiterated support for Miller.
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said he'd told Murkowski that if she ran as a write-in, she no longer had his support for any leadership roles. Murkowski resigned her position as vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican conference, her campaign spokesman confirmed.
"Lisa has served her state and our party with distinction," McConnell said in a statement, "but Republicans acknowledge the decision Alaskans made and join them in support of the Republican nominee, Joe Miller, the next senator for Alaska."
Murkowski acknowledged making mistakes during the primary but promised to be more aggressive this time.
During the primary, she touted the benefits of her seniority for Alaska and ran largely on her record. Miller, meanwhile, cast her as part of the problem in a big-spending, out-of-control Washington. And the California-based Tea Party Express, which reported spending more than $550,000 in support of Miller, labeled her a liberal Republican and repeatedly claimed she opposed repeal of the federal health care overhaul — claims she called false but didn't challenge until late.
The group said it would work twice as hard as it did during the primary to beat her if she stayed in the race.
Murkowski has positives going for her: She enjoys widespread name recognition and her campaign estimates she has about $1 million in the bank. Plus, the race features a "kind of perfect storm of the things you need for a write-in to be successful," pollster Ivan Moore said.
"I've been saying from the beginning she can win this thing," Moore said. "So people have got to write the name. So what? It's not rocket science."
The largest bloc of registered voters in Alaska are nonpartisan and undeclared. Miller beat Murkowski in the party primary by just over 2,000 votes.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed Miller and through her PAC gave $5,000 to his campaign, urged Murkowski recognize the results of the primary.
"Listen to the people, respect their will," Palin said via Twitter. "Voters chose Joe instead."
Murkowski, who got off a plane from Washington not long before the rally, took aim at the Republicans, pundits and others who'd labeled a run a "futile effort."
"Well, perhaps it's time they met one Republican woman who won't quit on Alaska," she said, taking a swipe at Palin, who resigned last year in the middle of her first term as governor.
Miller said Murkowski's re-entry won't change his strategy, which is to continue calling for the need to rein in government spending and for Alaska to be weaned from its dependency on the federal government and given greater control over its resource base.
Miller told The Associated Press Friday night that voters chose to support him because they wanted to move away from Murkowski's agenda. "Liberals don't relinquish power easily, that would be my first observation," he said.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Sen. Murkowski mounting write-in bid for Senate
By Becky Bohrer, Associated Press Writer – Sat Sep 18
JUNEAU, Alaska – In the weeks following her defeat in the GOP primary, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski went back and forth over whether to re-enter the race as a write-in candidate or accept life outside Washington and a role other than Alaska's senior senator.
On Friday, Alaskans learned her decision: She's in. And, this time, she said: "The gloves are off."
Murkowski faces tough odds with her write-in candidacy. She has lost support from members within the Republican establishment who have reiterated their support for the Republican nominee, Joe Miller. She also has just more than six weeks to gear up a campaign, motivate her staff and turn out the vote.
But she told supporters — who greeted her at an Anchorage convention center with chants of "Run, Lisa, Run!" — that she couldn't walk away and ignore the pleas of Alaskans who urged her to get back in and offer them a choice between the "extremist" views of Miller, a self-described constitutional conservative and tea party favorite, and the "inexperience" of Democrat Scott McAdams, a small-town mayor.
"So I am here to tell you, you are disenfranchised no more," she said.
No sooner did Murkowski announce her intentions than Republican leaders — Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, Sens. John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell — weighed in with their displeasure — and their reiterated support for Miller.
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said he'd told Murkowski that if she ran as a write-in, she no longer had his support for any leadership roles. Murkowski resigned her position as vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican conference, her campaign spokesman confirmed.
"Lisa has served her state and our party with distinction," McConnell said in a statement, "but Republicans acknowledge the decision Alaskans made and join them in support of the Republican nominee, Joe Miller, the next senator for Alaska."
Murkowski acknowledged making mistakes during the primary but promised to be more aggressive this time.
During the primary, she touted the benefits of her seniority for Alaska and ran largely on her record. Miller, meanwhile, cast her as part of the problem in a big-spending, out-of-control Washington. And the California-based Tea Party Express, which reported spending more than $550,000 in support of Miller, labeled her a liberal Republican and repeatedly claimed she opposed repeal of the federal health care overhaul — claims she called false but didn't challenge until late.
The group said it would work twice as hard as it did during the primary to beat her if she stayed in the race.
Murkowski has positives going for her: She enjoys widespread name recognition and her campaign estimates she has about $1 million in the bank. Plus, the race features a "kind of perfect storm of the things you need for a write-in to be successful," pollster Ivan Moore said.
"I've been saying from the beginning she can win this thing," Moore said. "So people have got to write the name. So what? It's not rocket science."
The largest bloc of registered voters in Alaska are nonpartisan and undeclared. Miller beat Murkowski in the party primary by just over 2,000 votes.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed Miller and through her PAC gave $5,000 to his campaign, urged Murkowski recognize the results of the primary.
"Listen to the people, respect their will," Palin said via Twitter. "Voters chose Joe instead."
Murkowski, who got off a plane from Washington not long before the rally, took aim at the Republicans, pundits and others who'd labeled a run a "futile effort."
"Well, perhaps it's time they met one Republican woman who won't quit on Alaska," she said, taking a swipe at Palin, who resigned last year in the middle of her first term as governor.
Miller said Murkowski's re-entry won't change his strategy, which is to continue calling for the need to rein in government spending and for Alaska to be weaned from its dependency on the federal government and given greater control over its resource base.
Miller told The Associated Press Friday night that voters chose to support him because they wanted to move away from Murkowski's agenda. "Liberals don't relinquish power easily, that would be my first observation," he said.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Friday, September 17, 2010
This Is Why Christine O'Donnell, Little Known Until This Week, May Well Win The Senate Seat In Deleware
Let's see, there was Sarah Palin and then Michelle Bachmann. Then Jan Brewer entrered the fray. And now we have Christine O'Donnell. These women are road warriors; they are the role models for all our children. Their voices will be heard above everyone else's because their message(s) is not cloaked in political correctness, or political expediance. It is cloaked only in truth and sincerity and honor and principle. Americans identify with those particular characteristcs far more than the sleazy feel-good verbiage of political speak. I wish these women well and say good for them, it's about time someone had the intrstinal fortitude to act this way. Interesting that it just so happens, with the exception of Beck, it's mostly the women who are leading the charge to restore America. And like O'Donnell says, we are America!
Christine O'Donnell: 'We're not trying to take back our country, we are our country'
By Felicia Sonmez, The Fix
Three days after she toppled long-time Rep. Mike Castle (R) in Delaware's Senate primary, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell made her debut on the national stage, delivering a defiant speech on the stage of the Family Research Council's annual meeting of social conservatives in Washington, D.C.
O'Donnell was greeted with a standing ovation Friday afternoon as she took to the same stage that had been graced earlier in the day by a cadre of potential White House 2012 hopefuls including former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R).
O'Donnell spent the bulk of her 18-minute speech taking aim at critics of conservatism and of the "tea party" movement. She kicked off her remarks by asking the crowd to remember back to a year-and-a-half ago when the conservative movement was "told to curl up into fetal position and just stay there the next eight years, thank you very much."
"How things have changed," O'Donnell said, to loud applause.
O'Donnell, whose long-shot bid against Castle received the heavy support of national tea party groups, spoke of a "grassroots groundswell, this revolution of reason, this love affair with liberty" and warned the group to gear up against those who would oppose them.
"Will they attack us? Yes. Will they smear our backgrounds and distort our records? Undoubtedly. Will they lie about us, harass our families, name-call and try to intimidate us? They will. There's nothing safe about it. But is it worth it?" O'Donnell asked.
"I say yes, yes, a thousand times yes," she continued. "This is no moment for the faint of heart."
She went on to challenge her critics, telling the several hundred attendees at the summit that opponents are "trying to marginalize us and put us in a box."
"They're trying to say we're taking over this party or that campaign," O'Donnell said. "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country, we are our country."
As she did during her bid against Castle, O'Donnell emphasized the need for limited government and railed against taxes, the Obama administration and health care. On the latter, she hinted at the notion of "death panels," a discredited claim that took root during the town hall debates on health care reform last summer.
Washington bureaucrats, O'Donnell said, "even want unelected panels of bureaucrats to decide who gets what life-saving medical care."
And she denounced those who would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire, saying that "the tax hikes coming in January are just another bailout, only this time, the government is bailing out itself."
O'Donnell made no mention in her speech of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), both of whom gave the candidate a much-needed boost in her race against Castle by endorsing her earlier this month.
She closed by calling the crowd to action, telling them "there are more of us than there are of them."
"We will be resisted, and we must resist as well," she added.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Christine O'Donnell: 'We're not trying to take back our country, we are our country'
By Felicia Sonmez, The Fix
Three days after she toppled long-time Rep. Mike Castle (R) in Delaware's Senate primary, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell made her debut on the national stage, delivering a defiant speech on the stage of the Family Research Council's annual meeting of social conservatives in Washington, D.C.
O'Donnell was greeted with a standing ovation Friday afternoon as she took to the same stage that had been graced earlier in the day by a cadre of potential White House 2012 hopefuls including former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R).
O'Donnell spent the bulk of her 18-minute speech taking aim at critics of conservatism and of the "tea party" movement. She kicked off her remarks by asking the crowd to remember back to a year-and-a-half ago when the conservative movement was "told to curl up into fetal position and just stay there the next eight years, thank you very much."
"How things have changed," O'Donnell said, to loud applause.
O'Donnell, whose long-shot bid against Castle received the heavy support of national tea party groups, spoke of a "grassroots groundswell, this revolution of reason, this love affair with liberty" and warned the group to gear up against those who would oppose them.
"Will they attack us? Yes. Will they smear our backgrounds and distort our records? Undoubtedly. Will they lie about us, harass our families, name-call and try to intimidate us? They will. There's nothing safe about it. But is it worth it?" O'Donnell asked.
"I say yes, yes, a thousand times yes," she continued. "This is no moment for the faint of heart."
She went on to challenge her critics, telling the several hundred attendees at the summit that opponents are "trying to marginalize us and put us in a box."
"They're trying to say we're taking over this party or that campaign," O'Donnell said. "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country, we are our country."
As she did during her bid against Castle, O'Donnell emphasized the need for limited government and railed against taxes, the Obama administration and health care. On the latter, she hinted at the notion of "death panels," a discredited claim that took root during the town hall debates on health care reform last summer.
Washington bureaucrats, O'Donnell said, "even want unelected panels of bureaucrats to decide who gets what life-saving medical care."
And she denounced those who would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire, saying that "the tax hikes coming in January are just another bailout, only this time, the government is bailing out itself."
O'Donnell made no mention in her speech of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), both of whom gave the candidate a much-needed boost in her race against Castle by endorsing her earlier this month.
She closed by calling the crowd to action, telling them "there are more of us than there are of them."
"We will be resisted, and we must resist as well," she added.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Constitution Day: To Which Side Are You Committed? Or Are You Just A Fence-Sitter?
We are faced today with two different roads, one of which follows the path of liberty set by our Founders in the Constitution, and one of which diverges from that path and leads us down the road to tyranny...
Do you believe this yet? How much more will it take to persuade you? If you're still on the fence, get off - choose a side. Right or wrong, don't be just an apathetic malcontent whining about the government, and claiming there's nothing you can do about it! Here's the whole article.
Morning Bell: Constitution Day and the Perilous Future
By Ed Meese September 17, 2010
On September 17, we celebrate the creation of our Constitution, one of the greatest governing documents ever conceived by the hand of man. This is the day we commemorate the birth of the United States as a nation, based on the rule of law and dedicated to the preservation of personal liberty, political freedom, economic opportunity, and the natural rights with which we are all endowed by our Creator.
But 223 years after the formal signing of the Constitution, our country stands at a dangerous crossroads, the likes of which we have never faced before, although it is one that was certainly feared by many of our Founders. James Madison and many of the other leaders of our country who were at the Constitutional Convention were all classically educated. They were better educated about history than many of our representatives in Washington today and they were well aware of what had happened to ancient democracies in Athens and Rome.
We are faced today with two different roads, one of which follows the path of liberty set by our Founders in the Constitution, and one of which diverges from that path and leads us down the road to tyranny. There are two different warring camps within our society, and the ongoing battle between those camps has been graphically illustrated in recent primary elections and by the vicious fight over the nationalization of our healthcare system.
On one side are those of us, including the members of the Tea Party movement, who work hard to support their families, who love their country, and who understand and revere a document that has stood firm for 223 years to guide us. These ordinary, everyday Americans rightly fear the unprecedented growth in the size and power of the federal government. They are angry over the unsustainable and uncontrollable growth of federal spending and the federal deficit that will inevitably lead to financial ruin. They are appalled over the contempt shown by so many in the other camp for our governing document, the Constitution.
The Heritage Foundation has distributed over 4 million copies of the Constitution, a number that shows the interest and dedication of so many Americans to preserving the liberty, freedom, and limits on the power of government that are ingrained in that charter.
That other camp is made up of politicians who recognize no limits on their power, their liberal activist allies in the judiciary, and members of the media, Hollywood, and academia, who have been stretching, bending, and chipping away at the Constitution for decades. They welcome a tyranny of elites who can govern however they see fit without being checked and limited by what they view as an “anachronistic” document and the parochial views of the American people. After all, they know what is best for all of us. They should control our lives and our economy.
Their contempt and disdain for the Constitution was vividly illustrated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was asked “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her now infamous answer [1] was “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The very idea that Congressional power has limits never even occurred to her. Similarly, Cong. Pete Stark (D-CA) was asked “How can this [healthcare] law be Constitutional, but more importantly than that, if they can do this what can’t they?” Starks’s answer [2]: “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” The very idea that Congress only has the enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution is completely foreign to Stark. And too many in Washington have that exact same view.
This same camp of elitists uses class warfare to divide the American people and to expand the power of the federal government. They use entitlements as a bribe and have taken away the requirement for large numbers of Americans to pay taxes, making it easier to raise taxes and extract exorbitant amounts of money from the producers and entrepreneurs in our country who have, before today, given us the prosperity and quality of live that has made us the envy of the world.
We have not had one momentous event that has put us on the path to tyranny. Rather, we have had a long series of small steps by the courts, the executive branch, and Congress through legal decisions, regulations, and legislative enactments that have steadily diminished our liberty and freedom, and increased the power of government over our lives. My former boss, Ronald Reagan, correctly observed that a government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. We are, unfortunately, increasingly on our way down that road.
We have a dedicated elite intent on destroying the Constitution and building a government so big and so powerful, that eventually we could be unable to resist and fight back against the inevitable loss of our freedoms. But fortunately, we are seeing the start of a revival amongst the American people, a recognition of the importance of preserving the Constitution and it’s wonderfully designed, interlocking provisions that were intended to protect our God-given rights and to prevent our government from becoming a tyranny.
There is a growing movement throughout America to reinvigorate the tree of liberty, a tree whose trunk is the Constitution, whose limbs are the Bill of Rights, and whose leaves are the new sons and daughters of liberty who embody the same spirit that infused our Founders. On Constitution Day, let Americans rededicate themselves to securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” by actively working to preserve the Constitution of the United States.
The author, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
And then there's this article; Test yourself.
Do You Really Know The Constitution?Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
September 17, 2010 by Chip Wood
Today is Constitution Day — a day specifically designated by an Act of Congress when Americans are supposed to honor the remarkable document that created our system of government. The date was chosen because the Constitution was approved at the original Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787.
The act that created Constitution Day mandates that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. Let’s see how well the schools have done their job.
Ask a recent high school or college graduate to take the following brief quiz. I’ll be interested to hear how many of the 20 questions he or she answers correctly.
And be sure to take the quiz yourself. Even if you score 100 percent, it’s good to be reminded of some of the fundamental principles upon which our country was founded. The quiz was compiled by an old friend, John McManus, who is president of the John Birch Society. Thanks, John, for permission to share this with my readers today.
1.Has the Constitution always guided our country?
2.What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?
3.Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?
4.Does the Constitution empower the President to make law?
5.Does the Constitution give the Federal government any power in the field of education?
6.Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid?
7.Did the Constitution give the Federal government power to create a bank?
8.Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution?
9.Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war?
10.Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution?
11.Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution?
12.According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office?
13.How many amendments have been added to the Constitution?
14.How is an amendment added to the Constitution?
15.Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?
16.Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?
17.Which part of the Federal government holds “the power of the purse”?
18.Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress?
19.How many times is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Constitution?
20.Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc?
It wasn’t as easy as you thought it would be, was it? Here are the answers, also as provided by McManus.
1.No. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence the Constitution was written, agreed to and sent to the states for ratification. When ratified by nine states (as the document itself prescribed), the Constitution was declared to be the new governmental system. That occurred on Sept. 13, 1788. The new government was ordered to be convened on March 4, 1789.
2.Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
3.No. The very first sentence in the Constitution states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case that binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word “all” has not been changed.
4.No. Executive Orders issued by the President that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, “All legislative powers” are possessed by Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the Federal government (such as granting a holiday) is proper because the President should be considered to be the holder of power much like that possessed by the CEO of a company. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the President.
The President does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure approved by Congress (which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress), or simply allow it to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, “Sundays excepted.”
5.No. The Constitution contains no mention of any power “herein granted” in the field of education.
6.No such authorization appears in the Constitution.
7.No. Congress was granted power to “coin money,” meaning it was to have the right to create a mint where precious metal could be stamped into coinage of fixed size, weight and purity. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have created the Federal Reserve.
8.Absolutely not. Thomas Jefferson responded to those who consider treaty-making power to be “boundless” by stating, “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
9.It does not. The sole power to declare the nation at war is possessed by Congress. Congress last used this power at the beginning of World War II, when war was declared on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Germany declared war on the U.S. the next day.) A congressional vote to authorize the President to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions should never be considered a substitute for a formal declaration of war.
10.The four crimes mentioned are: Treason, bribery, piracy and counterfeiting.
11.Many do hold that view because if the promise to add a Bill of Rights had not been made during the ratification process, some states would not have ratified the Constitution.
12.The President and other high officers of the Federal government can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment does not constitute removal; it should be considered the equivalent of an indictment that must be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the Senators “present” must approve removal at the subsequent trial to effect removal.
13.There are 27. The first 10 (the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution. Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21. This means that, in 223 years, only 15 other amendments have been added. The process was deliberately made difficult to keep anything dangerous or silly from being added to the Constitution in the heat of passion.
14.Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to do so. Any proposed amendment must then by ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the States. Amendments can also be proposed by a Federal Constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the States. Any amendment arising from a Constitutional convention must also be ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states.
15.Not directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the Federal government the duty “to protect each of them [the States] from invasion.” It does not specify that the invasion must be military. When 12 million people enter our nation illegally, it is an invasion that should be repelled by the Federal government.
16.Yes. In 1951, Amendment 22 was added to the Constitution to limit any President to two terms. The only President who served longer than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office during a fourth four-year term. He died in April 1945 shortly after beginning his 13th year in office.
17.The House of Representatives. Article I, Section 7 states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” If a majority in the House (218 of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for something, then no funds can be spent on that activity.
18.Two-thirds of each House has the authority to expel any of its members for cause even though the member has been elected by voters.
19.The word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders feared Democracy (unrestricted rule by majority) and favored a Republic (rule of law where the law limits the government). James Madison wrote: “…. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
20.No. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our Creator. The various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to possess a weapon. Those who claim “Second Amendment rights,” for instance, make a big mistake with such a statement. If the right is granted by the Second Amendment, meaning by government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.
While every politician pays lip service to the Constitution (the President, Vice President, and every member of Congress take an oath to “preserve and protect” it), the sad truth is that vast majority of actions taken by the Federal government are not authorized by the Constitution.
I have heard it said that, if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced today, the Federal government would be 20 percent of its present size and would cost 20 percent of its present budget. I think those numbers are an exaggeration; I suspect the truth would be closer to 10 percent.
Just imagine: No foreign aid, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health, Agriculture or Homeland Security. No commissions, bureaucratic monstrosities or other meddlesome agencies that “harass our people and eat out their substance.” (That’s an actual indictment of King George from the Declaration of Independence.)
What would this country be like if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced? I hope some day we’ll find out.
Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
Do you believe this yet? How much more will it take to persuade you? If you're still on the fence, get off - choose a side. Right or wrong, don't be just an apathetic malcontent whining about the government, and claiming there's nothing you can do about it! Here's the whole article.
Morning Bell: Constitution Day and the Perilous Future
By Ed Meese September 17, 2010
On September 17, we celebrate the creation of our Constitution, one of the greatest governing documents ever conceived by the hand of man. This is the day we commemorate the birth of the United States as a nation, based on the rule of law and dedicated to the preservation of personal liberty, political freedom, economic opportunity, and the natural rights with which we are all endowed by our Creator.
But 223 years after the formal signing of the Constitution, our country stands at a dangerous crossroads, the likes of which we have never faced before, although it is one that was certainly feared by many of our Founders. James Madison and many of the other leaders of our country who were at the Constitutional Convention were all classically educated. They were better educated about history than many of our representatives in Washington today and they were well aware of what had happened to ancient democracies in Athens and Rome.
We are faced today with two different roads, one of which follows the path of liberty set by our Founders in the Constitution, and one of which diverges from that path and leads us down the road to tyranny. There are two different warring camps within our society, and the ongoing battle between those camps has been graphically illustrated in recent primary elections and by the vicious fight over the nationalization of our healthcare system.
On one side are those of us, including the members of the Tea Party movement, who work hard to support their families, who love their country, and who understand and revere a document that has stood firm for 223 years to guide us. These ordinary, everyday Americans rightly fear the unprecedented growth in the size and power of the federal government. They are angry over the unsustainable and uncontrollable growth of federal spending and the federal deficit that will inevitably lead to financial ruin. They are appalled over the contempt shown by so many in the other camp for our governing document, the Constitution.
The Heritage Foundation has distributed over 4 million copies of the Constitution, a number that shows the interest and dedication of so many Americans to preserving the liberty, freedom, and limits on the power of government that are ingrained in that charter.
That other camp is made up of politicians who recognize no limits on their power, their liberal activist allies in the judiciary, and members of the media, Hollywood, and academia, who have been stretching, bending, and chipping away at the Constitution for decades. They welcome a tyranny of elites who can govern however they see fit without being checked and limited by what they view as an “anachronistic” document and the parochial views of the American people. After all, they know what is best for all of us. They should control our lives and our economy.
Their contempt and disdain for the Constitution was vividly illustrated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was asked “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her now infamous answer [1] was “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The very idea that Congressional power has limits never even occurred to her. Similarly, Cong. Pete Stark (D-CA) was asked “How can this [healthcare] law be Constitutional, but more importantly than that, if they can do this what can’t they?” Starks’s answer [2]: “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” The very idea that Congress only has the enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution is completely foreign to Stark. And too many in Washington have that exact same view.
This same camp of elitists uses class warfare to divide the American people and to expand the power of the federal government. They use entitlements as a bribe and have taken away the requirement for large numbers of Americans to pay taxes, making it easier to raise taxes and extract exorbitant amounts of money from the producers and entrepreneurs in our country who have, before today, given us the prosperity and quality of live that has made us the envy of the world.
We have not had one momentous event that has put us on the path to tyranny. Rather, we have had a long series of small steps by the courts, the executive branch, and Congress through legal decisions, regulations, and legislative enactments that have steadily diminished our liberty and freedom, and increased the power of government over our lives. My former boss, Ronald Reagan, correctly observed that a government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. We are, unfortunately, increasingly on our way down that road.
We have a dedicated elite intent on destroying the Constitution and building a government so big and so powerful, that eventually we could be unable to resist and fight back against the inevitable loss of our freedoms. But fortunately, we are seeing the start of a revival amongst the American people, a recognition of the importance of preserving the Constitution and it’s wonderfully designed, interlocking provisions that were intended to protect our God-given rights and to prevent our government from becoming a tyranny.
There is a growing movement throughout America to reinvigorate the tree of liberty, a tree whose trunk is the Constitution, whose limbs are the Bill of Rights, and whose leaves are the new sons and daughters of liberty who embody the same spirit that infused our Founders. On Constitution Day, let Americans rededicate themselves to securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” by actively working to preserve the Constitution of the United States.
The author, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
And then there's this article; Test yourself.
Do You Really Know The Constitution?Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
September 17, 2010 by Chip Wood
Today is Constitution Day — a day specifically designated by an Act of Congress when Americans are supposed to honor the remarkable document that created our system of government. The date was chosen because the Constitution was approved at the original Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787.
The act that created Constitution Day mandates that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. Let’s see how well the schools have done their job.
Ask a recent high school or college graduate to take the following brief quiz. I’ll be interested to hear how many of the 20 questions he or she answers correctly.
And be sure to take the quiz yourself. Even if you score 100 percent, it’s good to be reminded of some of the fundamental principles upon which our country was founded. The quiz was compiled by an old friend, John McManus, who is president of the John Birch Society. Thanks, John, for permission to share this with my readers today.
1.Has the Constitution always guided our country?
2.What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?
3.Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?
4.Does the Constitution empower the President to make law?
5.Does the Constitution give the Federal government any power in the field of education?
6.Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid?
7.Did the Constitution give the Federal government power to create a bank?
8.Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution?
9.Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war?
10.Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution?
11.Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution?
12.According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office?
13.How many amendments have been added to the Constitution?
14.How is an amendment added to the Constitution?
15.Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?
16.Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?
17.Which part of the Federal government holds “the power of the purse”?
18.Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress?
19.How many times is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Constitution?
20.Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc?
It wasn’t as easy as you thought it would be, was it? Here are the answers, also as provided by McManus.
1.No. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence the Constitution was written, agreed to and sent to the states for ratification. When ratified by nine states (as the document itself prescribed), the Constitution was declared to be the new governmental system. That occurred on Sept. 13, 1788. The new government was ordered to be convened on March 4, 1789.
2.Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
3.No. The very first sentence in the Constitution states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case that binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word “all” has not been changed.
4.No. Executive Orders issued by the President that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, “All legislative powers” are possessed by Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the Federal government (such as granting a holiday) is proper because the President should be considered to be the holder of power much like that possessed by the CEO of a company. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the President.
The President does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure approved by Congress (which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress), or simply allow it to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, “Sundays excepted.”
5.No. The Constitution contains no mention of any power “herein granted” in the field of education.
6.No such authorization appears in the Constitution.
7.No. Congress was granted power to “coin money,” meaning it was to have the right to create a mint where precious metal could be stamped into coinage of fixed size, weight and purity. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have created the Federal Reserve.
8.Absolutely not. Thomas Jefferson responded to those who consider treaty-making power to be “boundless” by stating, “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
9.It does not. The sole power to declare the nation at war is possessed by Congress. Congress last used this power at the beginning of World War II, when war was declared on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Germany declared war on the U.S. the next day.) A congressional vote to authorize the President to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions should never be considered a substitute for a formal declaration of war.
10.The four crimes mentioned are: Treason, bribery, piracy and counterfeiting.
11.Many do hold that view because if the promise to add a Bill of Rights had not been made during the ratification process, some states would not have ratified the Constitution.
12.The President and other high officers of the Federal government can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment does not constitute removal; it should be considered the equivalent of an indictment that must be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the Senators “present” must approve removal at the subsequent trial to effect removal.
13.There are 27. The first 10 (the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution. Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21. This means that, in 223 years, only 15 other amendments have been added. The process was deliberately made difficult to keep anything dangerous or silly from being added to the Constitution in the heat of passion.
14.Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to do so. Any proposed amendment must then by ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the States. Amendments can also be proposed by a Federal Constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the States. Any amendment arising from a Constitutional convention must also be ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states.
15.Not directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the Federal government the duty “to protect each of them [the States] from invasion.” It does not specify that the invasion must be military. When 12 million people enter our nation illegally, it is an invasion that should be repelled by the Federal government.
16.Yes. In 1951, Amendment 22 was added to the Constitution to limit any President to two terms. The only President who served longer than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office during a fourth four-year term. He died in April 1945 shortly after beginning his 13th year in office.
17.The House of Representatives. Article I, Section 7 states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” If a majority in the House (218 of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for something, then no funds can be spent on that activity.
18.Two-thirds of each House has the authority to expel any of its members for cause even though the member has been elected by voters.
19.The word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders feared Democracy (unrestricted rule by majority) and favored a Republic (rule of law where the law limits the government). James Madison wrote: “…. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
20.No. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our Creator. The various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to possess a weapon. Those who claim “Second Amendment rights,” for instance, make a big mistake with such a statement. If the right is granted by the Second Amendment, meaning by government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.
While every politician pays lip service to the Constitution (the President, Vice President, and every member of Congress take an oath to “preserve and protect” it), the sad truth is that vast majority of actions taken by the Federal government are not authorized by the Constitution.
I have heard it said that, if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced today, the Federal government would be 20 percent of its present size and would cost 20 percent of its present budget. I think those numbers are an exaggeration; I suspect the truth would be closer to 10 percent.
Just imagine: No foreign aid, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health, Agriculture or Homeland Security. No commissions, bureaucratic monstrosities or other meddlesome agencies that “harass our people and eat out their substance.” (That’s an actual indictment of King George from the Declaration of Independence.)
What would this country be like if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced? I hope some day we’ll find out.
Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
Fined in America For Growing Vegetables?
Still think government isn't too big? Well, ask this guy how he feeels. He's being fined $5000.00 because he's growing too many vegetables on his property. So why do we allow a government to regulate how much we can grow? That also means they can regulate how much we eat, how much we give away (charity), and perhaps even what we grow! That's not the America we should be living in - sounds more like Cuba to me...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
RINO Problem May Be Bigger Even Than I Thought!
And I thought it was a pretty big problem. But when you have the "face" of the Republican Party, Karl Rove, stating that Republican Primary winner, Christine O'Donnell, is "unelectable" and that "there were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that just simply don't add up", what does that tell you? What happened to party loyalty? So here's a question I'd love Mr. Rove to answer. If Christine O'Donnell, clearly a conservative, can not get elected these days, who can? Is Coons, a self-avowed Marxist, more electable in America? Read this.
The political class in Washington - irrespective of Party - isn't willing to, or perhaps just can't, get it. They are looking at the movement sweeping the country through the prism of years, if not decades, of insulated political machinery. They are trying to figure out how to incorporate our views into their machine. But we we have no desire for that to happen. We have no trust in their machine any longer. What many conservative citizens in America have realized, and what most politicians in Washington have failed to realize, is that the power really does rest with the people! And so no incumbent's job is safe in Washington, save for a select few...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
The political class in Washington - irrespective of Party - isn't willing to, or perhaps just can't, get it. They are looking at the movement sweeping the country through the prism of years, if not decades, of insulated political machinery. They are trying to figure out how to incorporate our views into their machine. But we we have no desire for that to happen. We have no trust in their machine any longer. What many conservative citizens in America have realized, and what most politicians in Washington have failed to realize, is that the power really does rest with the people! And so no incumbent's job is safe in Washington, save for a select few...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Send This Guy A Few Bucks If You Have It!
Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of crazy Nancy once and for all?
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Front & Center
Get involved! This Article Is From TakeAction. The Senate plans a vote on DREAM Act amnesty!
Call your two Senators and tell them to OPPOSE the DREAM Act (S. 729) today! Take Action!
September 15, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced last evening that he plans to offer Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) controversial Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2009 (the DREAM Act, S. 729) as an amendment to the unrelated National Defense Authorization Act. The DREAM Act would effectively legalize approximately 2 million illegal aliens under the age of 35.
The Senate will remain in session for the next few weeks before recessing in early October in preparation for the mid-term elections, so the vote on the DREAM Act could come up anytime over the next three weeks!
TAKE ACTION!
Sen. Durbin’s DREAM Act amendment would:
Award legal status and a “path to citizenship” to all illegal aliens living in the U.S. who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years of age, and who have earned a high school diploma or a General Educational Development certificate (GED).
Allow states to give reduced in-state tuition at state-supported colleges and universities to illegal aliens by repealing the federal law that now prohibits them from receiving in-state tuition.
Give illegal aliens access to federal student loans and work-study programs that they are currently ineligible to receive.
Require amnestied aliens to complete two years of college or military service during their first six years of legal residence, but DHS can waive the requirement or grant additional time to comply for those who do not.
Allow amnestied aliens to apply for citizenship and petition to bring their extended relatives, including their parents who brought them here illegally, to the U.S. after six years.
ProEnglish strongly opposes the DREAM Act because it would give legal status and extraordinary education benefits to millions of non-English speaking and limited-English proficient illegal aliens without requiring specific steps for them to learn English.
Many illegal aliens educated in U.S. schools are unable to speak English. According to a 2007 report by the Migration Policy Institute, 57 percent of limited English proficient adolescents nationwide are U.S. born. Up to 27 percent of all LEP adolescents are members of the second generation, and 30 percent are third generation, meaning that many students educated exclusively in U.S. schools still cannot speak English fluently.
TAKE ACTION!
Giving legal status to millions of non-English speaking illegal aliens would dramatically expand demands for government services in foreign languages and further erode English’s critical as our unifying national language.
TAKE ACTION!
As you may recall, Sen. Reid attempted this same maneuver—attaching the DREAM Act to the Defense Authorization bill—back in 2007 just after the Kennedy-Bush amnesty plan went down in defeat in the Senate. Thanks to the American people’s continued opposition and unrelenting phone calls, the DREAM Act was pulled and never received a vote, so there is no time to waste! Call your Senators now and tell them to VOTE NO on the DREAM ACT AMENDMENT!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Call your two Senators and tell them to OPPOSE the DREAM Act (S. 729) today! Take Action!
September 15, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced last evening that he plans to offer Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) controversial Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2009 (the DREAM Act, S. 729) as an amendment to the unrelated National Defense Authorization Act. The DREAM Act would effectively legalize approximately 2 million illegal aliens under the age of 35.
The Senate will remain in session for the next few weeks before recessing in early October in preparation for the mid-term elections, so the vote on the DREAM Act could come up anytime over the next three weeks!
TAKE ACTION!
Sen. Durbin’s DREAM Act amendment would:
Award legal status and a “path to citizenship” to all illegal aliens living in the U.S. who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years of age, and who have earned a high school diploma or a General Educational Development certificate (GED).
Allow states to give reduced in-state tuition at state-supported colleges and universities to illegal aliens by repealing the federal law that now prohibits them from receiving in-state tuition.
Give illegal aliens access to federal student loans and work-study programs that they are currently ineligible to receive.
Require amnestied aliens to complete two years of college or military service during their first six years of legal residence, but DHS can waive the requirement or grant additional time to comply for those who do not.
Allow amnestied aliens to apply for citizenship and petition to bring their extended relatives, including their parents who brought them here illegally, to the U.S. after six years.
ProEnglish strongly opposes the DREAM Act because it would give legal status and extraordinary education benefits to millions of non-English speaking and limited-English proficient illegal aliens without requiring specific steps for them to learn English.
Many illegal aliens educated in U.S. schools are unable to speak English. According to a 2007 report by the Migration Policy Institute, 57 percent of limited English proficient adolescents nationwide are U.S. born. Up to 27 percent of all LEP adolescents are members of the second generation, and 30 percent are third generation, meaning that many students educated exclusively in U.S. schools still cannot speak English fluently.
TAKE ACTION!
Giving legal status to millions of non-English speaking illegal aliens would dramatically expand demands for government services in foreign languages and further erode English’s critical as our unifying national language.
TAKE ACTION!
As you may recall, Sen. Reid attempted this same maneuver—attaching the DREAM Act to the Defense Authorization bill—back in 2007 just after the Kennedy-Bush amnesty plan went down in defeat in the Senate. Thanks to the American people’s continued opposition and unrelenting phone calls, the DREAM Act was pulled and never received a vote, so there is no time to waste! Call your Senators now and tell them to VOTE NO on the DREAM ACT AMENDMENT!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
They Fought For Us
They are still fighting for us! And in my way, I am fighting for us as well. God bless America! God bless our military! I salute you all, and thank you all from the very bottom of my heart! You - every member of our military - are the heart of Liberty. You keep freedom alive, not only in America, but throughout the world! There is no tribute, no memorial, no material thing that those of us who you protect can present you with that could come closem o the debt we owe you. So instead, I will give you may heart, and with it, my undying support. Again, thank you all so very, very much!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
If You Still Had Any Doubts
The Delaware election last night ended any speculation as to where the people who vote Republican stand on the direction they want "their" party to move in. And yet, State political leadership and even Republican elites like Carl Rove, are appalled by Christine O'Donnell's win. Sarah Palin, Jim DiMint and Rush Limbaugh were three Republicans who actually backed O'Donnell - but where were the rest of the GOP, and the SRCC? Where were the voices of all the RINO's? The GOP machine was backing long-time (40 year politician) liberal-republican Mike Castle.
So my questions this morning are simple. Do you still have any doubt that the progressive movement is alive and well in the Republican Party? Why won't they embrace conservatism whole-heartedly, as clearly We The People are mandating? Have you noticed that they have no problem declaring a mandate when it serves their purpose? But not this time!
Yes, if Americans truly want to step back from the socialistic precipice, they have got to forge ahead with conservative candidates. We have been persuaded, mostly by the Dems and the RINO's (both of varying ideologically progressive degrees), that the Repulicans need to be more moderate to win. As we've walked that road, we've come closer and closer to the cliff. Closer and closer to conservative irrelevancy. Perhaps they are right. I don't happen to think so, but perhaps it's true. Let's find out for sure over the next 5-6 years. Let's put truly conservative candidates on every ballot so that there is a clear choice for people to make. Then we will see what America really stands for. As for me? I believe when America has a choice between the clearly articulated goals of conservative "goodness" and the progressive vision espoused by the left including the RINO's they will choose conservative because it is the right choice for freedom and liberty! And I think most Americans still support those ideals. God Bless America!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
So my questions this morning are simple. Do you still have any doubt that the progressive movement is alive and well in the Republican Party? Why won't they embrace conservatism whole-heartedly, as clearly We The People are mandating? Have you noticed that they have no problem declaring a mandate when it serves their purpose? But not this time!
Yes, if Americans truly want to step back from the socialistic precipice, they have got to forge ahead with conservative candidates. We have been persuaded, mostly by the Dems and the RINO's (both of varying ideologically progressive degrees), that the Repulicans need to be more moderate to win. As we've walked that road, we've come closer and closer to the cliff. Closer and closer to conservative irrelevancy. Perhaps they are right. I don't happen to think so, but perhaps it's true. Let's find out for sure over the next 5-6 years. Let's put truly conservative candidates on every ballot so that there is a clear choice for people to make. Then we will see what America really stands for. As for me? I believe when America has a choice between the clearly articulated goals of conservative "goodness" and the progressive vision espoused by the left including the RINO's they will choose conservative because it is the right choice for freedom and liberty! And I think most Americans still support those ideals. God Bless America!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Bye Bye Charlie Crist
Good news for Marco!
GOP: Crist Linked to State Party's Financial Scandal
Tuesday, 14 Sep 2010 Orlando Sentinel
An audit suggests that Gov. Charlie Crist, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, may have made perhaps "hundreds of thousands" in inappropriate charges, according to a report by orlandosentinel.com.
GOP state officials note a forensic audit by Alston & Bird LLP that reportedly shows that Crist spent money on travel, consultants, meetings and other expenses not tied to party business.
The news comes as Crist and Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio are in a tight horse race in many polls.
The audit was triggered after former state GOP Chairman Jim Greer was ousted from office on the heels of out-of-control spending.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
GOP: Crist Linked to State Party's Financial Scandal
Tuesday, 14 Sep 2010 Orlando Sentinel
An audit suggests that Gov. Charlie Crist, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, may have made perhaps "hundreds of thousands" in inappropriate charges, according to a report by orlandosentinel.com.
GOP state officials note a forensic audit by Alston & Bird LLP that reportedly shows that Crist spent money on travel, consultants, meetings and other expenses not tied to party business.
The news comes as Crist and Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio are in a tight horse race in many polls.
The audit was triggered after former state GOP Chairman Jim Greer was ousted from office on the heels of out-of-control spending.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
How Can We Possibly Expect That Muslims Will Honor Our Constitution?
As the rhetoric ramps us, who among us truly believes that the Islam faith will ever subjugate itself to our Constitution? But if you do, don't hesitate to tell me why...
Hijacking the First Amendment and Flying it into the Jefferson Memorial
By Scott Wheeler - TownHall Daily
Editor's note: Buckley Carlson is co-author of this column.
We have heard more angry attacks on Americans from the so-called peaceful Muslim world for the mere mention that a Koran might be burned than we have ever heard from them in condemning their fellow Muslims for perpetrating terrorist attacks on behalf of their religion.
Just this week, in a 1,000 word op-ed in The New York Times, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam leading the effort to build the Ground Zero Mosque, dismissed the concerns of 70% of America, labeling us “radicals,” thus giving us the same identifier that Obama gives to terrorists; gave short, arrogant shrift to the victims’ families; and he refused to denounce his own vitriolic statements regarding the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. Remember, he claimed America’s policies were an “accomplice” to the slaughter of 9/11…and “the U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have to done to Muslims before the terror can stop.” Quite a “peaceful” diplomat, this guy, this “universally well-regarded” “man of faith.” But Rauf did something else in his Times op/ed; he threatened Americans with violence if his Ground Zero Mosque location was moved away from the site of the devastating attacks:
“These efforts by radicals at distortion, endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide… Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides.”
There were no Korans burned or mosques opposed before the Islamic terrorists burned nearly three thousand Americans. And yet, we are not supposed to burn the book they say inspired them to do it…or there will be more violence, Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us. Let’s get this straight: not burning the Koran lead to the burning of nearly three thousand Americans. And now, burning the Koran – we are told – will lead to more Americans dying?
Here’s a dinner table-worthy question: What puts more American lives in danger than burning a Koran in Florida? Answer: having an unqualified, anti-American street punk for a president! So, if you liberals take Obama at his word, then you must call for his immediate resignation with the same enthusiasm that you are now denouncing the kookie Koran-burner.
Obama and Jabba the Hillary want to allow Osama bin Laden to rewrite the First Amendment. Boy, that will surely teach those “radicals” who is winning the war on terrorism! Killing unborn children causes violence too, and not only to the murdered children themselves, it turns out; the occasional abortion provider finds himself in danger too. So, the same lunatics demanding that the First Amendment be abrogated in order to shield Islamists from the slightest offense, are the very ones loudly declaring that the right to kill unborn babies is so sacrosanct, they must send federal marshals out to protect the abortionists. Mind boggling. It’s a shock some of these Democrats can even walk straight and upright, so contorted they become defending their so-called “principles.”
When Muslims threaten violence in response to any Constitutionally-protected act, the proper response should be to multiply those acts to demonstrate that this country is governed by laws, not threats. And wasn’t that the exact lecture they – the “peaceful” Imam and his wife, the pedantic Mayor Bloomberg, and all the newly minted Leftist First Amendment stalwarts – gave us about the Ground Zero mosque?
The media and the Far Left have labeled Tea Partiers as violent and racist due to the alleged paper signs and shouting of a very few. However, these elitists refuse to use the same filter of condemnation when talking about the Muslim faith and the murderous actions of the 19 Muslim hijackers on 9/11, or the Muslim underwear bomber on New Year’s Day, or the Muslim Fort Hood attacker, or the Muslim Times Square bomber, or pretty much any other Muslims like Osama Bin Laden, the rest of Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Taliban. In fact, anyone opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque, tea partier or not, is labeled insensitive, ignorant and racist.
The Left has attacked Christianity for decades and has succeed largely in taking God out of our classrooms, ensuring the Pledge of Allegiance is rarely recited, and removing Christ from Christmas. How ironic they are the first to stand up and fight for the Muslim faith. Anyone with even peripheral knowledge of the Muslim faith and Sharia Law understands how absurd it is for the Left – self-heralding champions of the feminist movement and the pushers of “gay rights” – to adopt this charge.
But since Obama seems to take such threats seriously, here is a thought: You know how the Democrats are constantly telling us how dangerous we Tea Partiers are? Okay. Why don't we apply the same policy domestically; Democrats in the media are always spouting shrill warnings that Tea Partiers are on the tipping point of violence, so shouldn't they then advocate for lower taxes, a halt in spending, and a hurry-up-and-appease us attitude before someone gets hurt?
Once again, the Left has constructed a box, tied themselves in knots, and climbed right in; they either really believe in appeasing dangerous people, or they have been lying about how dangerous they think we are.
Scott Wheeler is a former investigative journalist, and the Founder and Executive Director of the National Republican Trust PAC. Buckley Carlson is a Washington-based writer and political strategist.
So, what does your inner voice say?
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty
Hijacking the First Amendment and Flying it into the Jefferson Memorial
By Scott Wheeler - TownHall Daily
Editor's note: Buckley Carlson is co-author of this column.
We have heard more angry attacks on Americans from the so-called peaceful Muslim world for the mere mention that a Koran might be burned than we have ever heard from them in condemning their fellow Muslims for perpetrating terrorist attacks on behalf of their religion.
Just this week, in a 1,000 word op-ed in The New York Times, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam leading the effort to build the Ground Zero Mosque, dismissed the concerns of 70% of America, labeling us “radicals,” thus giving us the same identifier that Obama gives to terrorists; gave short, arrogant shrift to the victims’ families; and he refused to denounce his own vitriolic statements regarding the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. Remember, he claimed America’s policies were an “accomplice” to the slaughter of 9/11…and “the U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have to done to Muslims before the terror can stop.” Quite a “peaceful” diplomat, this guy, this “universally well-regarded” “man of faith.” But Rauf did something else in his Times op/ed; he threatened Americans with violence if his Ground Zero Mosque location was moved away from the site of the devastating attacks:
“These efforts by radicals at distortion, endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide… Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides.”
There were no Korans burned or mosques opposed before the Islamic terrorists burned nearly three thousand Americans. And yet, we are not supposed to burn the book they say inspired them to do it…or there will be more violence, Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us. Let’s get this straight: not burning the Koran lead to the burning of nearly three thousand Americans. And now, burning the Koran – we are told – will lead to more Americans dying?
Here’s a dinner table-worthy question: What puts more American lives in danger than burning a Koran in Florida? Answer: having an unqualified, anti-American street punk for a president! So, if you liberals take Obama at his word, then you must call for his immediate resignation with the same enthusiasm that you are now denouncing the kookie Koran-burner.
Obama and Jabba the Hillary want to allow Osama bin Laden to rewrite the First Amendment. Boy, that will surely teach those “radicals” who is winning the war on terrorism! Killing unborn children causes violence too, and not only to the murdered children themselves, it turns out; the occasional abortion provider finds himself in danger too. So, the same lunatics demanding that the First Amendment be abrogated in order to shield Islamists from the slightest offense, are the very ones loudly declaring that the right to kill unborn babies is so sacrosanct, they must send federal marshals out to protect the abortionists. Mind boggling. It’s a shock some of these Democrats can even walk straight and upright, so contorted they become defending their so-called “principles.”
When Muslims threaten violence in response to any Constitutionally-protected act, the proper response should be to multiply those acts to demonstrate that this country is governed by laws, not threats. And wasn’t that the exact lecture they – the “peaceful” Imam and his wife, the pedantic Mayor Bloomberg, and all the newly minted Leftist First Amendment stalwarts – gave us about the Ground Zero mosque?
The media and the Far Left have labeled Tea Partiers as violent and racist due to the alleged paper signs and shouting of a very few. However, these elitists refuse to use the same filter of condemnation when talking about the Muslim faith and the murderous actions of the 19 Muslim hijackers on 9/11, or the Muslim underwear bomber on New Year’s Day, or the Muslim Fort Hood attacker, or the Muslim Times Square bomber, or pretty much any other Muslims like Osama Bin Laden, the rest of Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Taliban. In fact, anyone opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque, tea partier or not, is labeled insensitive, ignorant and racist.
The Left has attacked Christianity for decades and has succeed largely in taking God out of our classrooms, ensuring the Pledge of Allegiance is rarely recited, and removing Christ from Christmas. How ironic they are the first to stand up and fight for the Muslim faith. Anyone with even peripheral knowledge of the Muslim faith and Sharia Law understands how absurd it is for the Left – self-heralding champions of the feminist movement and the pushers of “gay rights” – to adopt this charge.
But since Obama seems to take such threats seriously, here is a thought: You know how the Democrats are constantly telling us how dangerous we Tea Partiers are? Okay. Why don't we apply the same policy domestically; Democrats in the media are always spouting shrill warnings that Tea Partiers are on the tipping point of violence, so shouldn't they then advocate for lower taxes, a halt in spending, and a hurry-up-and-appease us attitude before someone gets hurt?
Once again, the Left has constructed a box, tied themselves in knots, and climbed right in; they either really believe in appeasing dangerous people, or they have been lying about how dangerous they think we are.
Scott Wheeler is a former investigative journalist, and the Founder and Executive Director of the National Republican Trust PAC. Buckley Carlson is a Washington-based writer and political strategist.
So, what does your inner voice say?
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Our Hope Getting In The Way Of Reality?
Let's hope not. Let's hope our hopefulness for the outcome of November elections is justified. I'm just afraid to count the chickens before they've hatched...
Sinking With Obama, Democrats Plan Political Triage
By Michael Barone (Archive) · Thursday, September 9, 2010
When you spot the word "triage" in a political news story, you know someone is in trouble.
Triage is the procedure by which medical personnel screening people injured in combat or disasters separate those who can be saved from those who can't. The first group is given immediate surgery in hopes of recovery. The second is given painkillers to make the end bearable.
So it was startling to read last weekend in The New York Times that House Democratic leaders "are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority."
House Democratic campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen quickly pooh-poohed the story, as any politically savvy person would. But I bet he's already done his triage and that some of the names mentioned in the Times story are to get painkillers only.
For in the last week the bad news has been flooding in on congressional Democrats. On the generic ballot question, the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls showed that 49 percent said they would vote for the Republican candidate for the House and 41 percent said they would vote for the Democrat.
To put these results in perspective, consider that before last month Gallup had never shown Republicans leading by more than 6 percent since it began asking the question in 1942. Now they lead by as much as 13 percent in some polls.
And consider also that the generic ballot question has tended to under-predict actual Republican performance in five of the last six House elections.
Republicans need to gain 39 seats for a House majority. The professional analysts see it happening: Larry Sabato puts the number at 47, Stuart Rothenberg at 37 to 42, Charlie Cook at 40. Cook notes that Democratic incumbents are trailing Republican challengers in polls in 32 districts.
These are cautious prognosticators who evaluate candidates for every seat. No wonder Politico's Mike Allen wrote yesterday that "the sky is falling" for the Democrats.
The signs are that Democratic candidates are getting the same message in their polls. Joe Donnelly in Indiana 2 runs an ad criticizing Barack Obama. Travis Childers in Mississippi 1 boasts of voting against the budget. Steve Driehaus in Ohio 1 runs a spot identifying his opponent as a congressman, even though he's an ex-congressman, while positioning himself as the challenger.
At least five House Democrats are running ads bragging about their votes against Obamacare. Surveys of ads run by candidates indicate that no Democrat has run an ad bragging about the health care bill since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did in April. More recently, he's been concentrating on depicting his opponent, Sharron Angle, as a wacko.
Is all this just a response to a sputtering economy? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz, on a panel with Sabato and me at the American Political Science Association conference last weekend, said he thought so. I disagreed.
I think what we're seeing is a rejection of the Obama Democrats' big-government policies. The president and his party thought that in times of economic distress most voters would be supportive of or at least amenable to a vast expansion of the size and scope of government.
They jammed the Senate version of their health care bill through the House in March, in the face of the clear opposition signaled by the voters of Massachusetts as well as every public opinion poll. I can't think of a more unpopular major measure passed by Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
Back then, the Democrats also had supermajorities in both houses of Congress and a young, previously little known president who had defeated an aging war hero by a decisive margin. They realized that the Kansas-Nebraska Act promoting slavery in the territories would raise some hackles, but expressed confidence that voters would accept it when it was properly explained to them.
They didn't. Voters reduced the number of Democratic House members from 159 to 83, nearly eliminating the party in much of the North. Democrats didn't win a House majority for the next 20 years.
Today, House Democrats have more money than their opponents and, unlike 1994, they've known for months that they might be in peril. They know that Republicans remain unpopular and hoped their own numbers would improve. But instead they're plunging to historic depths. Time for triage.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Sinking With Obama, Democrats Plan Political Triage
By Michael Barone (Archive) · Thursday, September 9, 2010
When you spot the word "triage" in a political news story, you know someone is in trouble.
Triage is the procedure by which medical personnel screening people injured in combat or disasters separate those who can be saved from those who can't. The first group is given immediate surgery in hopes of recovery. The second is given painkillers to make the end bearable.
So it was startling to read last weekend in The New York Times that House Democratic leaders "are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority."
House Democratic campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen quickly pooh-poohed the story, as any politically savvy person would. But I bet he's already done his triage and that some of the names mentioned in the Times story are to get painkillers only.
For in the last week the bad news has been flooding in on congressional Democrats. On the generic ballot question, the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls showed that 49 percent said they would vote for the Republican candidate for the House and 41 percent said they would vote for the Democrat.
To put these results in perspective, consider that before last month Gallup had never shown Republicans leading by more than 6 percent since it began asking the question in 1942. Now they lead by as much as 13 percent in some polls.
And consider also that the generic ballot question has tended to under-predict actual Republican performance in five of the last six House elections.
Republicans need to gain 39 seats for a House majority. The professional analysts see it happening: Larry Sabato puts the number at 47, Stuart Rothenberg at 37 to 42, Charlie Cook at 40. Cook notes that Democratic incumbents are trailing Republican challengers in polls in 32 districts.
These are cautious prognosticators who evaluate candidates for every seat. No wonder Politico's Mike Allen wrote yesterday that "the sky is falling" for the Democrats.
The signs are that Democratic candidates are getting the same message in their polls. Joe Donnelly in Indiana 2 runs an ad criticizing Barack Obama. Travis Childers in Mississippi 1 boasts of voting against the budget. Steve Driehaus in Ohio 1 runs a spot identifying his opponent as a congressman, even though he's an ex-congressman, while positioning himself as the challenger.
At least five House Democrats are running ads bragging about their votes against Obamacare. Surveys of ads run by candidates indicate that no Democrat has run an ad bragging about the health care bill since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did in April. More recently, he's been concentrating on depicting his opponent, Sharron Angle, as a wacko.
Is all this just a response to a sputtering economy? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz, on a panel with Sabato and me at the American Political Science Association conference last weekend, said he thought so. I disagreed.
I think what we're seeing is a rejection of the Obama Democrats' big-government policies. The president and his party thought that in times of economic distress most voters would be supportive of or at least amenable to a vast expansion of the size and scope of government.
They jammed the Senate version of their health care bill through the House in March, in the face of the clear opposition signaled by the voters of Massachusetts as well as every public opinion poll. I can't think of a more unpopular major measure passed by Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
Back then, the Democrats also had supermajorities in both houses of Congress and a young, previously little known president who had defeated an aging war hero by a decisive margin. They realized that the Kansas-Nebraska Act promoting slavery in the territories would raise some hackles, but expressed confidence that voters would accept it when it was properly explained to them.
They didn't. Voters reduced the number of Democratic House members from 159 to 83, nearly eliminating the party in much of the North. Democrats didn't win a House majority for the next 20 years.
Today, House Democrats have more money than their opponents and, unlike 1994, they've known for months that they might be in peril. They know that Republicans remain unpopular and hoped their own numbers would improve. But instead they're plunging to historic depths. Time for triage.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Foriegn Aid: Decades Long Redistribution Of Wealth?
Can someone please tell me why America is in the Foreign Aid "business"? We shell out billions of dollars annually, and what do we get in return. Well these figures may not surprise you, but the fact that we keep handing out money after consistently being bitch-slapped should tell you something about the mentality of the American leadership over decades. If you actually follow the snopes link at the bottom, you will find that very few countries vote with us in the UN, and only one votes with us regularly - Israel. And obama is pretty much hanging that country out to dry. So, who authorized, and why did they authorize, the annual foreign aid to these countries? When did it start, and why is it still going on? Time to send another letter to my Senators and Representative...
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY? WHO IN THE HELL STARTED THIS AND WHY? THESE COUNTRIES HAVE ACTUALLY BIT THE HAND THAT'S BEEN FEEDING THEM.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice just so our government can send those tax dollars overseas. (And don't forget the price they charge for oil/gasoline, and the collusion that goes on to set those prices).
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. Disgusting isn't it?
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp SAYS IT'S TRUE ! And these aren't the only countries that don't support us...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY? WHO IN THE HELL STARTED THIS AND WHY? THESE COUNTRIES HAVE ACTUALLY BIT THE HAND THAT'S BEEN FEEDING THEM.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice just so our government can send those tax dollars overseas. (And don't forget the price they charge for oil/gasoline, and the collusion that goes on to set those prices).
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. Disgusting isn't it?
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp SAYS IT'S TRUE ! And these aren't the only countries that don't support us...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Truth
The Washington Post babbled again about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,....a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! I have heard many people say, what can I do? One person just can't make a difference. I disagree. Look at what Chris Christie has done in New Jersey. Look what Jan Brewer has done in Arizona. Look what Glenn Beck has done in America. And look at the destructive leadership of barack obama. Yes, my friends, one person can make a difference! This is your chance to make that difference. Take it!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Bye Bye Harry Reid, So Sad, Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out!
It can't happen soon enough for me!
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)