Wednesday, December 9, 2009

A Constitutional Right to A College Football Playoff?

A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress has meatier targets to tackle. Read
the rest of the story

The Kremlin on the Potomac is becoming more outrageous every day. How do these arrogant fools interpret a constitutional authority to decide how college football will crown a champion? It seems every day brings a new realm of life that these tyrants believe they can rule.

If you are milling around your opinion of college football's BCS system, the pre-BCS bowl arrangements or a possible playoff, STOP!!! One's personal opinion of college football's methodology is irrelevant. This is about runaway power in the hands of vile individuals who believe they are our rulers.


In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

I'll believe that when I see it, Congressman Rush. Since you are such a talented individual, maybe you should give this task a try: read the U.S. Constitution. It is obvious Mr. Rush and these other jackals believe they are the masters of all Americans, so he is in dire need of a liberty lesson. Then, maybe Mr. Rush can explain where he obtained the authority to mandate a college football playoff system.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Barack Obama Doesn't Need Entrepreneurs

Erik Erickson posted this interesting nugget at earlier this week.

A friend of mine told me about a meeting he had with Goldman Sachs’ CEO in Atlanta at the beginning of the year. Someone asked the CEO what he thought of the new Obama administration. The CEO admitted he voted for Obama, but then said how stunned he was at lack of advisors surrounding Obama who had come from the private sector.

In fact, a new study shows Obama has fewer advisors who’ve made a living in the private sector than any other American President in the last 108 years — since the turn of the 20th century when the business of America became business.

This is not to say that the Chief Executive should have private sector experience. And this is not to say that the Chief Executive should employ only people from the
private sector. But it is to say that we should not trust a Chief Executive to know how to fix the private sector or “create competition” in health care when there is hardly a person near him who knows anything about job creation.

That is the key. More Americans than every before are on government handouts and the Democrats intend to take over 1/6th of the American economy — health care. This is an administration that has no understanding of and no commitment to the free market and the private sector, both of which are, at best, academic studies to ninety percent of Obama’s top advisors.

The Republican Party should be able to exploit this issue. The American people, at the end of the day, believe in, work in, and want to support the private sector. Contrary to the Obama and New York Times spin that there is no stigma attached to food stamps, the American people do not want to be dependent on the government for their food, health care, or income.

But that is Obama’s solution. To every problem, Obama offers government. He can offer no other because he has surrounded himself with no job creators, no producers, no captains of industry, and no free market champions. That’s not the change the American people were hoping for.

This played out with Obama's so-called "jobs summit" which was practically devoid of individuals who have ever created a job. There were plenty of academics and union bosses, but few entrepreneurs or anyone else who has ever had to meet a payroll. Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama is brilliant at campaigning and using the fawning Big Media to his advantage. But, this guy has a zero economic IQ. Of course, union bosses may not know how to create jobs, but they sure know how to write checks to the Democrat National Committee and Marxist politicians.

Tigergate: The Crime of the Century?

As I got in my car to head home from work almost every day this week, Sean Hannity was polluting the Sirius Patriot channel with the latest developments in the saga of Tiger Woods' car wreck, non-cooperation with authorities and affair. This story has dominated the media for over a week. Am I the only one who does not care at all about the relationship between Tiger and Tigerette? How can I be so "out of touch?"

  • Tiger Woods cannot raise my taxes.
  • Tiger Woods cannot take away my health care.
  • Tiger Woods cannot regulate my business.
  • Tiger Woods cannot enact policies that stifle job creation.
  • Tiger Woods cannot weaken our national security.
  • Tiger Woods cannot erode the plain meaning of the Constitution.
  • Tiger Woods cannot use his position to redistribute wealth.
  • If Tiger Woods is a Marxist, he cannot force that ideology on my country.
  • Tiger Woods cannot push the United States toward one-world governance.
  • Tiger Woods cannot sacrifice America's economy on the altar of the false god called Global Warming.
  • Tiger Woods cannot adjudicate or legislate attacks on traditional American values.

Do you get the picture? This is a story for Entertainment Tonight, The View, or some other mindless pop culture receptacle. Legitimate news programs should devote, at most, 30 seconds to this celebutard story at the end of a broadcast. It appears those whose job it is to keep the powerful honest will continue to fiddle while Rome burns. Bread and circuses for all!

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax : The Truth About Pilgrims, Socialism and Individualism

Increasingly, the Pilgrims' lessons of hard-scrabble survival and adaptation to new conditions have given way to a New Age diversity-driven communal living fantasy. The Pilgrims were able to give thanks because they abandoned Utopian visions for reality driven toil. If you have never read Richard J. Maybury's "The Great Thanksgiving Hoax" , this is the perfect time to learn what is left out of the typical history curriculum.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with
"corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

How did Bradford and the Pilgrims save their community? Read Richard J. Maybury's "The Great Thanksviging Hoax" at The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Concerned Women For America Miss The Health Care Point

Last night I received a phone call from Concerned Women for America. This is an organization that I strongly support, so I was shocked that I found myself lecturing the solicitor about the current ObamaCare legislation in the Senate.

The CWFA is, of course, making phone calls to solicit money for their lobbying efforts. Fine. Such organizations need cash to function and they call those who they believe agree with their work. Usually, I am on board with the CWFA.

The entire focus of the caller's script was on keeping abortion funding out the legislative plans to conduct a hostile takeover of the American health care industry. The CWFA recently posted an article in opposition to certain provisions in the House bill. The CWFA is unwittingly making the same mistake that Conservatives have been making for decades.

Simply put, its the liberty, stupid! If Conservatives focus on debating the rationale or legitimacy of certain elements of healthcare nationalization, they are missing the big picture. The whole notion is an assault on the individual liberty of the America people. Debating specific passages of an Orwellian 2,000-page legislative assault on the American people is asinine.

Take out abortion funding. Take out penalties for those who refuse to purchase insurance. Take out the government's ability to decide what procedures can be covered (FYI, they already do this in our so-called "free market"). We would still have a government-run health care system that will destroy individual freedom and saddle our children and grandchildren with stifling debt while eviscerating the world's best healthcare system.

It is fine to make people aware of some of the worst measures in the bill if it helps stir the blood to fight back against the Kremlin on the Potomac. However, it must be made clear to our elected officials that we are protecting liberty. They have crossed the Rubicon and we need to make sure they are stopped before further encroachments on our freedoms occur. Our future depends on it.

Sean Hannity Should Not Throw Stones About Plagiarism

Conservative talk radio is at its best when it is clever, smart, informative and dressed with zesty helping of satire. That is why Rush Limbaugh is Public Enemy #1 to Statist-Marxist-Democrats. No one does it better. Mark Levin is a great legal mind who guts Leftist legal doctrine like Sarah Palin field dressing an elk. Neal Boortz, the Talkmaster, infuriates me at times with some of his social views, but he represents Libertarianism like no other. Sirius morning superstar Mike Church has an incredible grasp of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. In fact, Church's commentaries on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention along with other issues related to the Founding should be studied by the rest of the talk radio upper strata so that they might build a stronger foundation for their political ideology. Of course, I think at least one of the heavyweights does listen to Church, though only to steal gimmicks and not to educate himself.

Yesterday, Sean Hannity went on a long diatribe about the earth-shattering and inventive concepts that are present on his website and how the rest of talk radio copies his intellectual property. Of course, it was OK since he takes it as flattery. He went on...and on...and on. That, by the way, is his most noticeable trait: the beating of a dead horse.

As Hannity droned on about his superior and "original" ideas, my mind drifted back to the summer. Soon after President Obama (and other Democrat "leaders") referred to Conservatives as "an angry mob", Mike Church began asking his listeners to make up a mob name when they called in to the show. It was funny and the callers came up with some creative ideas. Several days later, out of the blue, Sean Hannity begins running the same bit. He was so proud of comedy invention, you would think Seano Marx had just created the "knock, knock" joke. Truth was, he was just stealing a bit from another talk show host. I guess Church is what Hannity and Levin refer to as one of the "back benchers." Note to Sean: Nancy Pelosi will wear a "What Would Reagan Do" t-shirt before Mike Church will need to steal show ideas from you.

Mark Levin also devolves into the attacks on other hosts and that is unfortunate. He has been less involved in that nonsense since the success of his marvelous book, "Liberty and Tyranny." Hopefully, he realizes that he just has to do his thing and listeners will know they are hearing a keen legal mind. He doesn't need to be in a mud fight with Michael Savage. Savage has his niche and Levin has his. While he still refers to the "back benchers" he usually makes a quick comment and moves on. Hopefully, Levin will realize his work stands on its merit and that jabs at other talk show hosts are useless diversions (unless the comments are about specific comments that don't advance the cause).

When Hannity starts tooting his own horn and attacking others, it can last hours (ok, it may only seem that long). Hannity's work with the Freedom Concerts deserves praise. He does champion Conservatism over Republicanism in most cases. His radio and TV presence give him a large audience. Why the anger? Look, Sean, do your thing and don't assume you invented every talk radio bit or website feature in the marketplace. It is obvious you are not above cannibalizing others' ideas. Let's remember, the enemies are Marxist Democrats and RINO's, not competing talk show hosts.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

PajamasTV: Andrew Klavan Helps Explain The Left's Hatred of Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck

"Klavan on Culture" is one of the best regular features on Pajamas TV. Klavan takes on the Mainstream Media's hatred of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Very enlightening! See it here.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Mary Landrieu Believes There Is A Difference Between Call Girls and Streetwalkers

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu is one of those phony "conservative Democrats" who always pretends to be waffling between protecting liberty and growing the state. Most recently she has pretended to be against the Statist Democrats' desire to nationalize the American health care industry. However, she agreed to vote "yes" to the first procedural hurdle to open Senate debate on the Obama Care assault on the American people. And it only cost taxpayers $100 million. Ooops, make that $300 million. Who says? Landrieu herself, as reported on Newsbusters:

In explaining the latest Hurricane Katrina extortion, Landrieu boasted:

"Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation and it is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix."

But, she denied that $100 million provision was the reason she had decided to vote in favor of cloture.

"I'm proud to have asked for it," Landrieu said. "I'm proud to have fought for it and I will continue to. That is not the reason I am moving to debate. The reason I am moving to the debate, as expressed - in this statement and in hundreds of statements and speeches I've given over the last year or two on this subject, which should be self-explanatory."

Well, there you go. Four years ago. a natural disaster hit the nation's most corrupt and mismanaged state, therefore all Americans must sacrifice their individual liberty. Landrieu gets to dribble $300 million of pork on the Pelican State while the rest of America gets health care treatment at the whim of Tom Daschle and Ezekiel Emmanuel.

Senator Landrieu seems to believe that selling your integrity for $300 million is somehow more noble than giving it away on the cheap. She can call herself a call girl for the people if she likes. In reality, she is just another low rent streetwalker willing to sell something more precious than her body: the individual liberty of the American people. Hopefully, the citizens of Louisiana are not as cheap in their convictions as is Mary Landrieu.

Mark Warner and Jim Webb Support Harry Reid Over Virginia

From Norman Leahy at the Tertium Quids blog:

Warner, Webb both to vote "yes" on cloture

Both Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb intend to vote "yes" on the cloture motion tomorrow evening that will bring Sen. Reid's health insurance bill to the floor for debate.

Warner makes it clear he's looking for a handout (though probably not in Sen. Landrieu's league...but you never know), while Sen. Webb's office could only muster a spokesbeing, who says he'll vote "yes," too.

So...the debate will come, the taxpayers' checkbook will be opened wide and votes will be traded like shiny marbles on the Senate floor. It's just grand.

Hopefully, Virginians have caught on to the sad fact that Mark Warner and Jim Webb are not old-style "conservative Democrats." In fact, you have a better chance finding a Yeti than finding a "conservative Democrat" in the U.S. Senate. Warner and Webb are both dutiful stooges who answer to the Statist Democrat leadership and Democrat special interests.

Warner and Webb, like most politicians, assume the dumb masses have short memories and will forget all about their involvement in the Kremlin on the Potomac's takeover of the American health care system. Neither is up for reelection in 2010. Webb faces the voters in 2012 and Warner in 2014. Keep these traitorous actions filed away and when these Quislings ask to have their membership in Klub Kongress renewed send them to the unemployment line.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Palin-Palooza Heading For Roanoke; The Haters Snark Away

Former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin will sign her new book "Going Rogue: An American Life" at the Valley View Mall Barnes and Noble bookstore this Sunday at 10:00 am. If the early stops are any indication, expect a huge crowd for Palin's appearance. Palin is the hottest political superstar in America and she will inspire a long line of early risers to be in place waiting when wrist bands at handed out at 6:00am to insure a place in the autograph line.

Of course, not everyone loves Sarah Palin. Friday's Roanoke Times featured an article about the highly-anticipated event and also included a list of "do's and dont's" that Barnes and Noble has been handing out to folks who purchase the Palin book. It is certainly not uncommon for such events to have certain requirements. For instance, Barnes and Noble requires that you purchase the book at their store (or from their online store) for the privilege of getting it signed. Hardly unusual. A wristband system will be used to place a finite number on the autograph line. In addition, there are other rules in place to facilitate a smooth and fast-moving line.

However, The Roanoke Times, being a Leftist rag, placed a snarky "explanation" of the rules in the middle of the page containing the continuation of the main story while placing the "just the facts" version of the rules in the bottom right corner of the page. The oh-so-clever Dan Casey dedicated his junior high wit to an "analysis" of the rules. For example,

* Line passes/wristbands will be handed out on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 6 a.m. Sunday. Translation: Get your butt out of bed early if you want to see Sarah.

* You must be present in order to get a line pass/wristband. Translation: You can't get one the day before, so skip church!

* You must present your ORIGINAL Barnes & Nobel or receipt for "Going Rogue" in order to get a line pass/wristband. Translation: Tickets for Sarah's appearance are $17 plus change (and tax). You cannot bring your receipt from Walmart, where the book costs $14.50. So don't even try, cheapskates!

Do any of those requirements seem shocking? Sounds like the way most high-traffic events are managed.

* One line pass/wristband will be issued per person. Translation: If you've purchased two copies and a friend wants to come along, make sure you get separate receipts.

* A maximum of two copies of "Going Rogue" will be signed per person. Translation: Please buy more, but don't expect much, OK? Her hands will already be aching from the Rochester, N.Y., signing Saturday night.

* No memorabilia will be signed -- only the book, "Going Rogue." Translation: This is to sell books, you dummy. She will not sign the caribou sausage you brought home from that Alaska cruise but are afraid to eat, so don't even ask.

These are the types of limits that are common for an event that will draw a large and eager crowd. After all, this book was a best-seller long before it was released and Sarah Palin is a very popular lady. Maybe Dan Casey should try to arrange a Nancy Pelosi book signing (yes, she released a book earlier this year--I think it is in the top 80,000 on If the Speakerette holds a book signing the crowd will be so sparse that San Fran Nan will likely be able to join you at Panera Bread for breakfast.

Leftist clowns will continue to attack Palin, whether out of jealousy, ignorance or fear. She may or may not be presidential material, but she does represent the values and ideals that embody America at its best. Those values are alien to Statist Leftists. Real America gets Sarah Palin.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Conservative Women and the Liberals Who Hate Them

Leftist/Statist Democrats so desperately want the Republican Party and Conservative movement to be a white dude's club that ethnic minorities and women who escape the Democrat plantation are treated as traitors. Leftists are much more threatened by liberty-lovers such as Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin than they are by radical Islamic terrorists. The Islamo-fascists just want to kill Americans, but Thomas and Palin are a threat to Democrat identity politics which is the primary method by which they achieve and wield power.

Doug Patton has a great piece on Human Events about the Left's pathological hatred of ideological "traitors."

"The Rise of the Conservative Woman" by Doug Patton

Monday, November 16, 2009

Pelosi and Obama Have Contempt For the Constitution...And You

Dr. Walter E. Williams is one of America's greatest thinkers, but his column "Constitutional Contempt" is not a deeply thought opinion piece. Just horrifyingly accurate! Dr. Williams' premise is a very obvious point that, sadly, not enough Americans seem to get.

At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?

Speaker Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance,
down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn't think that the cure to Congress' unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today's Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It's a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

It isn't just that the Radical Left of the Democrat party believes in jamming statism down America's throat. The Radical Left controls the Democrat party and a Radical Leftist is President of the United States. So-called moderate Democrats or "blue dogs" are much closer to the Statists than they are to the Constitution. Ditto the Republican party. If allowed, many Republicans will pursue the siren song of the Statist's utopian dreams, but in "conservative" doses.

If Americans want to keep their liberty, they will begin to fight political battles from that standpoint. Death panels and publicly-financed abortions are sideshows and diversions from the real threat. Our constitutional republic and the protections provided by such a government are under siege. I don't care if the health care bill is 2,000 pages or two sentences. If the result is diminished freedom, the rest is mere detail.

Read the rest of Dr. Walter Williams' "Constitutional Contempt" at The Patriot Post.

Obama’s Swelling Ego - The Boston Globe...This President Knows No Shame

President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has an ego that would shame Narcissus. My guess is Obama's iPod is filled with Obama speeches. The ego that ate liberty reached a new level of self-congratulation on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. From Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:

PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends’’ that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.’’ He referred to “tyranny,’’ but never identified the tyrants - he never uttered the words “Soviet Union’’ or “communism,’’ for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan - or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

“Few would have foreseen,’’ declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.’’

All this time I thought the fall of the Berlin Wall was a symbol of man's desire for freedom and the culmination of a decades-long fight against Soviet domination of eastern Europe. It was the result of American Presidents like Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan drawing lines in the sand against Moscow's repressive regime. The courageous efforts of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa and others who loved liberty took form in the sledgehammers wielded by young Germans.

Now I know the truth: the fall of the Berlin Wall was just another blip on the radar signaling the coming of The One. Have you no decency, sir?

Obama’s swelling ego - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

Monday, November 9, 2009

Ralph Peters' "Fort Hood's 9/11" And The Mounting Evidence That A Terrorist Attack Took Place

Ralph Peters wrote a strong piece in the New York Post that makes clear that the tragedy at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

It has been truly disgraceful watching and listening while excuses and justifications are made for this piece of human refuse, Nadal Malik Hasan. This vile subhuman has made it clear he is an enemy of the United States while drawing a paycheck from its taxpayers and maintaining employment despite an ever-growing list of "red flags" that should have resulted in this murderer's expulsion from the military. Some of his actions prior to the killings were deserving of criminal investigation.

Political correctness is an epidemic that kills. Hasan maintained his position because no one wanted to be seen as an anti-Muslim bigot. Speaking for myself, I would much rather be called a bigot while protecting the lives of fellow Americans than kick the can down the road in the name of diversity and allow the "diverse" killer to murder American soldiers. Those who knew of Hasan's vitriol towards America and heard his incendiary language while staying silent should be held responsible for these deaths.

It seems that every hour more information is coming to light. Hasan was involved with a radical cleric who is tied to al Qaeda and U.S. intelligence officials knew about it.

Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.

“There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack
at all, or that he was directed to do anything,” one senior investigator said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying the case was under investigation.

Whether or not Hasan announced his plans to commit mass murder or not is immaterial. If individuals in the U.S. military are involved with radical Islamists and expressing sympathy for suicide bombers, they need to be removed from the armed forces. There is an ocean of difference between an individual disagreeing with government policy and actively supporting our enemies. Should the United States have inducted Nazis into the World War II marines? Maybe we should have allowed Viet Cong to camp out at Fort Bragg.

The mealy-mouthed reaction to Hasan's lunatic rantings begs the question, "how many more Islamist would-be murderers are in the U.S. military?" If Muslim soldiers are involved with radical mosques and openly endorsing jihad against the American infidels they should be removed or imprisoned. I doubt that patriotic Muslims would disagree with such a policy. They are as endangered by the semi-human extremists as are we "infidels."

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Congressman Mike Pence Defends Freedom In The Face Of The Marxist Health Care Takeover

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence defines the stakes in the fight against the Democrats' attempt at a hostile takeover of the American health care industry.

Folks, it ain't over. The fat lady ain't even warming up, but the Statist/Marxist/Progressive Democrats have moved an inch closer to the totalitarianism that their leadership desires. The passage of the Pelosi version of ObamaCare should wake up Americans to this violent attack on individual liberty.

Now, two things must happen. First, intensify the fight against ObamaCare in the Senate. There are already nervous Democrats in the Senate and it is highly unlikely Harry Reid can muster 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. Can 10 Democrats be convinced to uphold their oath of office? Maybe. However, forcing Harry Reid to employ procedural shenanigans to pass this monstrosity will add to the pressure on Dems in 2010. Call your Senators. Email your Senators. Even if the Senate version passes, it is different than the House bill. A conference bill will still have to be put together, meaning that House members will have to cast another vote. That means Real American has more time to makes its voices heard.

Secondly, keep an eye on November, 2010. Democrats who voted to strip American citizens of individual liberty in health care matters and who risk destroying jobs and economic growth in order to carry out a Marxist ideology must pay a price at the ballot box. The Leftist health care and cap-and-trade bills are attacks on the Constitution and the American people. The perps must pay with the loss of their jobs.

This is no time to rest in Real America. The fight is only beginning. Our future and our children's futures depend on our willingness to fight the traitors and tyrants in our midst.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg Offers Common Sense Health Care Reform Alternatives

Democrats seem to believe that a lie becomes a fact if repeated often enough. The lie that has been at the heart of the Leftist Democrats' defense of their hostile takeover of the American health care system goes something like this: "Well, if Republicans had any ideas we would listen, but they just want the status quo." President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has repeated the Big Lie ad nauseum as he plots his unconstitutional usurpation.

Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by Arizona congressman John Shadegg is which the dedicated defender of the Constitution clearly refutes the Big Lie. First, Shadegg defines the problem:

It is true that many Americans cannot find affordable health coverage. However, it is the government-imposed barriers that make coverage expensive, especially for the working poor in America. Fixing these problems would cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing, yet congressional Democrats refuse to consider these no-cost solutions.

The already high cost of insurance is often increased by excessive state regulations. States have passed more than 1,800 benefit mandates, requiring insurance companies to cover services from hair prostheses (wigs) to infertility treatments to acupuncturists to massage therapists. These state mandates raise the cost of insurance, which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health-insurance market.

You may be thinking, what if I don't need a hair prosthesis or infertility treatments? Tough luck. Instead of having a choice in coverage you do need, you'll likely be paying for health insurance at an exorbitant cost to cover things you may never use or desire.

Contrary to what the Statists would like you to think, Big Government has been at the heart of the problem. The high costs in health care are not a function of the free market. They are largely the result of over-regulation. The Leftist Democrat solution? Let's have even more regulation and interference. Shadegg proposes a different path:

The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.

Another no-cost solution? Give Americans the option to take the cash their employer uses to purchase health care and let them buy a plan on their own. If they are happy with their current plan, let them keep it. If not, let them take their business elsewhere and buy their own health coverage. This would force the insurance industry to innovate and control costs, or face losing
business to companies that do.

Americans should also be able to purchase their health insurance on the same tax-advantaged basis as their employers. If your employer purchased health insurance on your behalf today, he would be able to do so with pre-tax dollars. However, in today's market, if you go it alone, you won't get any tax incentive to purchase your own health care. This would be a simple remedy to our still antiquated tax code, which favors big government and punishes individuals.

Allowing insurance portability and fixing the tax code is just a cost-savings start. How about enacting restrictions on runaway medical malpractice litigation such as pre-litigation review panels and loser-pay provisions for frivolous suits? Making any one of these changes to our health-care system wouldn't cost taxpayers a single cent and could save us billions over the long

These ideas considered separately or enacted together will reduce costs for those who have health-insurance coverage and enable others to afford it. The savings could be used to fund high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and to provide tax credits and vouchers so no American goes without basic health coverage.
Conservatives have pushed many of these ideas for years with Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against any reform that doesn't give government greater power over our lives. The ideas presented by Congressman Shadegg (none are new--Conservatives have talked about these for years) would reduce health care costs and enable more Americans to be able to purchase their own policies. One additional reform not mentioned in Shadegg's essay is to allow small businesses, members of organizations and other groups to create pools that could help spread the risk and lower costs.

But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.

Proponents of ObamaCare can't cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.

Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn't stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That's scary and irresponsible.

Why aren't we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.

The answer is simple. Power and ideology. Government solutions, even if they solve nothing, make the state more powerful. The Democrat Party is now dominated by Marxists who, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that only the state can deliver the services needed by a people. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their fellow travelers are extremists and they will stop at nothing to control every aspect of how you and I live. After all, the government always knows best.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Sarah Palin is "Going Rogue" In Roanoke on November 22

Put it on your calendar (from The Roanoke Times)...

Palin book tour to include Nov. 22 stop in Roanoke

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin plans to swing through Roanoke to tout her new book.

By Katelyn Polantz

Sarah Palin will visit the Barnes & Noble bookstore at Valley View Mall Nov. 22 as part of the promotional tour for her book "Going Rogue: An American Life."

The former Republican vice presidential candidate's appearance will be at noon, a HarperCollins spokeswoman said. She didn't know if Palin would appear along with her family members, who traveled with her on the campaign trail last year.

To handle the expected crowds, the Valley View store will hand out wristbands to fans at 6 a.m., said Deanna Lemburg, Barnes & Noble's regional community relations

Palin's last visit to the Roanoke Valley, for a presidential campaign rally in October 2008, drew a crowd estimated at 16,000 to Salem Stadium. Since then, her celebrity status hasn't diminished: "Going Rogue" has an announced first printing of 1.5 million copies and has been at or near the top of's best-seller list for weeks.

The book, which "imparts Palin’s vision of a way forward for America," the publisher says, will go on sale Nov. 17.

My advice: get there early! The Palin campaign rally in Roanoke was a madhouse and Sarahcuda is as popular as ever. She is a strong, accomplished, intelligent woman who has run businesses, run governments and raised a family. She is the true embodiment of real feminism. But, since she isn't a Marxist or radical opponent of traditional culture she is hated by Big Media, Big Entertainment and so-called "liberals." You see, women should only speak if they are Democrats and believe in the state as the center of all activity.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

It Is A Great Day to Be A Conservative

The Conservative Republican sweep in Virginia and the GOP win over Jon Corzine in New Jersey made November 3 a turning point in the political fortunes of Conservatism in America. Not the Republican Party per se, but Conservatism. The three Virginia winners are all solid Conservatives and even Chris Christy in New Jersey is solidly Conservative on most issues.

This was also the first referendum on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid version of "hope and change." Big Media will attempt to downplay this fact, but it is inescapable. The Tea Party movement and the summer town halls all played a role in Tuesday's outcomes. These were votes for responsible government, not taxes, bailouts, and handouts.

Big Media will point to the Democrat win in the upstate New York congressional race as proof that Conservatism has been marginalized. The truth is just the opposite. Disgraced GOP nominee DeeDee Scazzafalla's endorsement of the Democrat candidate exposed the so-called "moderate" for what she and her ilk are: trojan horses who are simply misaligned Leftists. Conservative leaders across the country, for the most part, showed that they would support an independent over a RINO. No more Arlen Specters or Olympia Snowes. Doug Hoffman's loss was the result of party in-fighting and those who felt that outside forces influenced Scazzafalla's withdrawal. In the long run, Conservatives have shown that they must provide an alternative not an echo.

In one year, the entire House of Representatives and approximately one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election. What will happen? November 3, 2009 may well have been the preview for Election Night, 2010.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Alonzo Rachel Must-See-PajamasTV: "Damn, It Feels Good To Be A Victim"

This video speaks for itself. Great stuff from Alonzo Rachel at PajamasTV.

PJTV Video: "Victicrat: "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Victim"

Friday, October 30, 2009

Gun Shot Hits Lou Dobbs' House; Who's to Blame? Obama? Pelosi? Olberman? SPLC?

From the Associated Press via My Way News:

Oct 29, 7:11 PM (ET)

WANTAGE, N.J. (AP) - Police in New Jersey are trying to determine who fired a bullet that struck CNN commentator Lou Dobbs' home as his wife stood nearby. State police Sgt. Stephen Jones says Dobbs' wife and driver were outside the home Oct. 5 when they heard the gunshot. Jones says the bullet didn't penetrate the siding and fell to the ground outside.

Dobbs mentioned the bullet earlier this week on CNN and his radio show.

Dobbs says he had been receiving threatening phone calls for weeks. On his radio show, he connected the gunshot to his advocacy for a crackdown on illegal immigration and to his opponents' rhetoric.

The home is on a farm in Wantage, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.

It is small-game hunting season, but no hunters were seen in the area.

Why isn't this story the lead on every newscast? Why isn't it a headline in every newspaper? A couple of months back, Big Media and Leftist Democrats were apoplectic claiming that Tea Party Patriots and others who protested at town meetings were a threat to their safety. All of the angry verbal exchanges made them fear for their physical security. But, were any of those folks targeted by violent attacks? No.

Now, a radio and television commentator whose views are hard to pigeonhole but who is certainly on the conservative end of the spectrum is the victim of a drive-by shooting. His wife was close enough that she hit the ground. The Dobbs house was struck by the bullet. Do you think this could be linked to Statist?Leftist pundits and politicians who marginalize people like Dobbs and accuse them of racism over political disagreements? Could the responsibility be laid at the door of the Southern Poverty Law Center which has turned from being an information center focused on the KKK, Skinheads and Neo-Nazis to just another Leftist advocacy group that accuses mainstream Conservatives of hate speech over issues such as illegal immigration (the SPLC supports the law breakers in this case)? Could we possibly say that a White House that accuses every political opponent of ill will and ulterior motives is responsible for this sort of violence?

I pray that Lou Dobbs and his wife will face no more attacks and will be able to go about their daily business. Was this the act of a nut acting of his own volition or someone who felt the President, the press or their Congressman had declared folks like Dobbs to be fair targets? Has lumping legitimate political thought (you know, the things the Founders believed in) into the same category as Neo-Nazi rants legitimized such violence in the minds of some? Something tells me Big Media won't ask these questions.

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - White House Says No ‘Veracity’ to Argument That Forcing Individuals to Buy Health Insurance Is Unconstitutional - White House Says No ‘Veracity’ to Argument That Forcing Individuals to Buy Health Insurance Is Unconstitutional.

Robert Gibbs, Press Stooge for President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama, is out of his league responding to constitutional concerns about the Democrats' desire to take over the American health care system and force Americans to buy insurance.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told on Wednesday that there is no "veracity" to the argument that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force individuals to buy health insurance.

Oh really? Maybe Gibbs should actually read the Constitution. Since the White House Press Secretary is a constitutional illiterate like his boss, let's make it simple. The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. Any power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to take over any industry, control medical care, or force American citizens to buy any product. That isn't complicated. Maybe inconvenient for the tyrant class, but there is little confusion for those who honestly read the document.

"I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of--I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they're commentating on," said Gibbs.

First, Gibbs will never be confused for a scholar in any field except maybe the profession of bumbling stooge. Secondly, the "case law" canard is a Leftist/Statist standard. No matter how clearly the Constitution reads, they will claim that no one knows what the Constitution means until a federal court has made a decision. The use of federal courts to define the Constitution is a huge reason for the assault on individual liberty and the growth of government that has been the hallmark of so-called Progressives. The fact that activist judges are willing to place ideology ahead of the Constitution does not erase the document itself. It says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Whether some sleazy constitutional scholar endorses the fact or not, there is no constitutional authority to use force to control Americans in their health care decisions.

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

The health care debate is about far more than how medical care will be delivered. Individual liberty is in grave danger. The provisions of this hostile takeover of freedom essentially subjugate and enslave the America public. Sadly, many Americans no longer treasure liberty. They will fall for any offer of security or public largesse even if they lose control over their own lives. To those people, I offer the words of Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,go home from us in peace.We ask not your counsels or your arms.Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you,and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The Truth About Health Insurance Industry's "Obscene Profits"

An Associated Press ""Fact Check" piece points out another of the Obama administration's Big Lies. Rather than try to form a winning argument based on facts and logic, Leftists like President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama attempt to paint their opponents as evil. The target in the health care debate has been the insurance companies who are said to be making "record profits." Oh really??

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction
machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo?
Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

Candy bars and plastic ware to keep your leftovers fresh must be REALLY evil compared to the rapacious insurance companies.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Two percent? Yes, that is obscene, but not in the way Statists who seek to control everyone's health care frame the charge. It is an obscenity to the corporations' stockholders. Even at the typical six percent, the health insurance industry is not breaking the bank.


_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A ad.

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

Well, there you go. When will the Leftist-Statist-Democrats begin bashing Big Beer, Big Detergent, and Big Plastic? The answer is, as soon as those industries stand between these vile demogogues and some aspect of American life they want to control. The insurers' profits are far from obscene. However, the behavior of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the other would-be rulers of your life is beyond obscene. It is criminal.

Health insurance companies operate within the arena of growing health care costs, many of which can be laid directly at the feet of government. They are impacted by the lack of competition. They are impacted by government managed markets. They are impacted by the lack of control over ambulance chasers. They are impacted by the inability to offer different levels of coverage.

President Obama claimed he wanted a robust, comprehensive debate on health care. But, to paraphrase Joe Wilson, "he lied!" No matter how much the numbers and the realities refute the claims made by Obama and the leadership of the Kremlin on the Potomac they continue to attack the messenger. Everyone is a tool of Big Insurance or Big Pharma or simply hypnotized by Fox News. The truth is, Democrats are losing the health care debate in the arena of honest debate. The American people are not as ignorant as Democrats like to think. As many legislators found out over the summer, their constituents understood the issues better than the professional politicians. Maybe it is time they begin to heed their betters out here in Real America.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Gallup Poll: Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

Late last week, Big Media was practically wetting itself over a survey that showed Republican party identification is at its lowest point in decades. As usual, Big Media's analysis did not demonstrate a true understanding of what the numbers meant. A recent Gallup Poll frames the nation's political temperature more clearly.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Big Media may see this as contradictory, but the two sets of numbers make perfect sense. One uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that Big Media has tried to ignore during the Tea Party uprisings and Town Hall discussions was that the increasingly vocal Patriots are rooted in ideas, not party politics. During the September 12 March on Washington, I saw thousands upon thousands of signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts, but only one that was overtly GOP. That was one guy who was working the street trying to sign folks up for the Republican Party. Real America is disgusted with corrupt politicians, Constitutional infidelity and partisan hacks who have zero respect for the American people (for example, the kind of people who keep changing the name of nationalized healthcare to various euphemisms in hopes of finding one that sounds respectable).

Conservatism is on the ascent. Many Republicans realize they have lose their way, but many have not. Some want to play the same political games as they have played in the past. Some want to give half-measures of socialist programs to appear "bipartisan." A few haven't been paying attention since last election day and still want to hitch their wagon to the O-Train.

We The People have risen up and are in the process of re-establishing the GOP as the Conservative party. In recent years, I have found I am more likely to call myself an independent than a Republican because of the party's recent sorry state. Many others have abandoned the label for similar reasons. So, when GOP identification falls it doesn't mean Americans are less Conservative. To the contrary, it means there is a growing group of folks who demand that the Republican Party stand on principle and fight to defend the Constitution and individual liberty. According to Gallup, there's a change in the air.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's "Fox Wars"

Charles Krauthammer is one of the best in the business. Few columnists have the ability to eviscerate the arrogantly powerful as well as Mr. Krauthammer, as shown in his succinct dissection of President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's jihad against the Fox News network.

Obama's Fourth Reich hoped to squelch growing criticisms of the White House by attacking a news operation and warning other networks not to pick up stories that originated on Fox. The dutiful Big Media was done the O-Train's bidding and discarded all pretense of legitimate journalism. However, even some members of the state media felt compelled to cover the ACORN scandals and Obama's communist, conspiracy nut homeboy Van Jones after those stories became huge due to Fox News, talk radio and the alternative media. When Obama tried to kick Fox out of the White House press pool, the other bureau chiefs finally said "no." That was a stinging rebuke for The One.

What is truly remarkable about the goofy Left's visceral hatred of Fox News is the fact that the network comprises a small voice in the vast media chorus (though its ratings are incredibly high--guess they aren't out of touch with Real America). Krauthammer notes:

Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be
comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no
defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its
fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

This is a bit like the administration's claim that the free market needs competition from the government. Such logic only makes sense to an economic illiterate. Fifteen hundred health insurance companies compete for business (though their ability to compete is constrained to a large degree by, you guess it, the government), but the only REAL competition would come from a government "option." In media, one network presents all sides rather than the Statist talking points and it has undue influence on American journalism. Only in Obama World are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman legitimate journalists and Bret Baier a Republican stooge.

Krauthammer's best zinger was aimed at Anita Dunn, White House Mistress of Disinformation. Dunn is the empty skirt who rated the 20th century's most prolific mass murderer, Mao Tse-tung, as one of her two favorite political philosophers.

Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

The truth is that Anita Dunn's comments, Obama's associations, Van Jones' moonbat rantings, Rahm Emmanuel's exhortation to "not let a crisis go to waste," Michelle Obama's "first time proud comment and all of the other lunacy that has emanated from Team O is all part of a disturbing reality. That is who they are. That is who HE is. And it is that crushing realization more so than even the health care takeover or cap-and-tax scheme that has more Americans telling the Big O that he can keep his "change." Let's hope Fox News keeps reporting the truth about this gang of extremists. Who knows, maybe some of the other networks will put their profession and their country ahead of their Leftist ideology. Stranger things have happened.

Will CNN Fact Check Alex Trebek?

This is funny, unless you are a humorless leftist. Following Wolf Blitzer's recent last place performance, Newsbusters reports on CNN reporter Soledad O'Brien's third place finish on Celebrity Jeopardy:

This month, it was O’Brien’s turn against NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael McKean, of "Spinal Tap," "Laverne & Shirley" and "Saturday Night Live." McKean, a previous winner, ended with $24,800, followed by Abdul Jabbar with $8,800 and O'Brien with $6,200.

A CNN insider defended the journalists: "They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated. It's not activated until Alex [Trebek] finishes the last syllable of the question. If you hit the button too soon, nothing happens."

....Wolf was blitzed last month, coming in last with minus-$4,600, behind comic Andy Richter, a past winner who racked up $68,000 for charity. "Desperate Housewives" star Dana Delany came in second.

One really doesn't need to be well-read or flexible of mind to read a teleprompter. It is really not much of a shock that Wolfie and Soledad got thumped by a collection of jocks, comedians and actors. Reading DNC talking points and blaming every dissenting word on a vast rightwing conspiracy does not take a lot of smarts.

After CNN's recent fact check piece on a Saturday Night Live skit that mildly tweaked President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama (or simply The One if you are a CNN devotee), we can probably look forward to an investigative report on Dick Cheney's influence on Jeopardy's question selection process. Come to think of it, Jeopardy probably outsourced the job to Haliburton.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Rush Says The Operative Color is Red NOT Black

Big Media still beats the drum of racism in its critiques of those who criticize President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and the Leftist Democrats. Rush Limbaugh has effectively swatted aside these desperate attacks all along, but he recently framed the argument in a succinct and powerful way. In the words of the Maha Rushi:

"It's not the color of Obama's skin that we oppose. It's the color of his policies. It's not his blackness. It's his redness."

Any questions?

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Pat Buchanan is Right; We Owe Richard Nixon An Apology

Even some members of Big Media have accused President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama of using Nixonian tactics in his war against Fox News, insurance companies, investment houses, Conservatives, and generally anyone who doesn't hop aboard the O-Train without questioning the destination. Patrick J. Buchanan knows a little about the inner workings of the Nixon White House and he says the comparison with Obama is unfair. According to Buchanan, Nixon faced much tougher opposition than the thin-skinned President Obama.

Nixon took the oath as a minority president, 43 percent, in a hostile city, with both houses of Congress against him and a national press corps that had loathed him since he exposed the establishment golden boy Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, 20 years before.

Obama took the oath with close to a filibuster-proof Senate, a near 80-seat majority in the House, the media at his feet, not his throat, and a city in adulation that had voted 93 to 7 for Barack Hussein Obama.

The hatred of Nixon was as irrational as it was deep. The hardcore Left never forgave Nixon for his exposure of traitor Alger Hiss. Despite overwhelming evidence followed by irrefutable evidence gleaned from the Venona project, some still consider Hiss some sort of political victim. He was a Communist sympathizer and one who sold out his own country. It is those who continue to support Hiss' memory who have some 'splainin' to do.

Nixon's administration ended the war in Vietnam (which had been escalated by two Democrat presidents), pushed the concept of affirmative action, created the EPA, signed the Endangered Species Act and instituted FDR-style price controls to combat inflation. Nixon's presidency may well have been one of the greatest triangulations in history. He ended the war with honor (though the Democrats in Congress will later make sure both victory and honor were sacrificed), stood up for law and order, and extolled traditional values while signing a series of "progressive" (i.e., socialist) expansions of the federal government.

Obama, on the other hand, is a hardcore Leftists with a team of Fellow Travelers in unconstitutional positions of authority and more positioned in leadership positions throughout the House and Senate. He has a Big Media establishment that consists mostly of people who dream they could be his Monica. Trust me, if Obama sends Chris Matthews a blue dress the name of the Leftist sycophant's MSNBC show "Hard Ball" will take on a whole new meaning.

Whereas Nixon's was pilloried for exposing Communists in high places, Obama's relationships with communists, socialists, and other extremists are downplayed or ignored. Nixon built his reputation uncovering the types of dangerous anti-American activity that is now a resume' enhancer in the Obama White House.

Tricky Dick came unraveled and allowed his paranoia, distrust, anger, and ego get the best of him. However, prior to Watergate, the folks who sought to bury Nixon opposed his patriotism and defense of his country. The radical Left sought to use the legitimate social upheaval of the 1960s (such as the Civil Rights movement) as a veil to mask their desire to drag the United States further into nanny-state socialism. Nixon supported civil rights, but opposed much of the Left's radicalism.

Obama believes he has a mandate to destroy the very foundations of America. Although many saw through his "hope" and "change" nonsense as the Marxist tripe that it was, Obama did his best to mask his true intentions. He lied. The Obama opposition comprises folks who want to defend the Constitution, federalism, and American values that have made this nation the envy of the world. Nixon saw himself as the protector of American greatness. Obama doesn't see America as great. Instead, he presides over a nation that believes is arrogant, greedy, and a source for more ill than good.

At first, the comparison of Obama's enemies list to Nixon's seemed appropriate. However, further analysis shows Barry Obama to be a President who is not under siege, but rather a small man who is unwilling to tolerate dissent in a democratic republic. Brother Buchanan is right. My apologies to Tricky Dick.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Big Media Shows A Pulse; Rebukes Big Brother Obama's Fox News Ban

President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama finally crossed a line that Big Media could not stomach. On Thursday, it was announced that Obama called for the removal of Fox News from the White House Press Pool (which also includes ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC). The ban was announced as part of a plan to grant the White House Press Pool interviews with so-called "Pay Czar" Kenneth Fineburg (who actually claimed he has Constitutional authority--hopefully someone will hammer him for that idiotic statement). Today, the bureau chiefs of the four non-Fox networks announced that they would not participate if Fox News is excluded. Despite their obviously-slanted news operations, the other four networks stood up for the 1st Amendment and deserve congratulations.

I don't think Big Media is any less in the tank for the Obama administration than it was yesterday and I have no doubt they will continue to be shills for the O-Train. However, the White House Press Pool decision was not a total surprise. Earlier in the week, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper confronted Obama Press Stooge Robert Gibbs:

Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one -


Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say -

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

Gibbs was obviously referring to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, neither of whom claim to be journalists. They are Conservative commentators and clearly advertise themselves as such. Notice that Gibbs and Obama don't have a problem with alleged journalist Andrea Mitchell who has become increasingly nasty in interviews with non-Democrats. Or with Chris Matthews who gets funny feelings running up his leg when Obama speaks (Michelle O may want to keep an eye on that situation). Or with Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow who refuse to admit they are hardcore Leftists while shilling for the most extreme Left political positions. Or Rick Sanchez who is nothing but a Democrat bomb thrower. Or the condescending Charlie Gibson. Or the snarky Katie Couric. In other words, opinion journalism is only a threat to their vision of Amerika when it disagrees with Obama's leftist ideology.

How bad is the White House temper tantrum and partisan sniping? Hardcore Leftist reporter Helen Thomas even criticized Obama for their asinine attacks.

This situation is worth watching. For today, Big Media did the right thing and stood up for a free press. Will they continue to stand firm against a White House that seems intent on a Castro-Chavez style, state-controlled media? Stay tuned.

The Obama Presidency" Where Liberalism Meets Totalitarianism

This is a great piece from Richard Moore in The Lakeland Times. President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and his den of thieves have declared war on free speech. As Obama tries to turn this great nation into the Socialist States of Amerika, he has made it clear that dissent will not be tolerated. Moore's column examines who the Left claims to be and who they really are.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

A Patriot Stands: Tennessee State Representative Susan Lynn Defends Federalism

Tennessee state representative Susan Lynn is the latest American Patriot to take a stand for federalism and adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Lynn wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, urging them to follow the Volunteer State's lead in passing a state sovereignty resolution. In other words, rather than licking the federal government's boots, the states need to draw a line in the constitutional sand and just say "no."

Representative Lynn's letter is a great history refresher for all Americans. She set the stage by recounting the circumstances that prompted the move for independence in 1776 and the principles that provided the bedrock of our Constitution. Masterfully, she points out the dangerous path that our nation now walks:

So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.

Amen, sister! As the federal government attempts to erase all remnants of legitimate federalism it is the duty of the state governments to demand their sovereignty. The 10th Amendment is a powerful statement on the limits of the federal government in the united States of America. It is time each state erect a giant middle finger and direct it at the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Representative Susan Lynn's letter is also posted at the Tenth Amendment Center website. If you need more information about the 10th Amendment, how it has been abused, and how "we the people" can reclaim it, spend some time at the Tenth Amendment Center.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Lamar Alexander Admonishes Barack Milhous Obama and His White House Enemies List

Roll Call reports that Tennessee U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander publicly warned President Barack Milhous Obama about the obvious development of a White House enemies list.

“Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: Don’t create an enemies list,” Alexander said.

Describing the actions of Vice President Spiro Agnew and Nixon operative Chuck Colson, Alexander said he sees “symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.”

Alexander read off a list of examples he says support his contention, including: a reported effort by the White House to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supposed effort by the Health and Human Services Department to put a “gag order” on the insurer Humana, the White House move to take on Fox News, Obama’s repeated criticisms of banks and investment houses, his alleged “taking names” of “bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts,” and the president’s move to make insurers the bogeyman of the health care debate.

Alexander claimed that the incipient White House “enemies” campaign extends even to Congress. He suggested that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the victim of a sort of payback, saying that after Kyl suggested the stimulus plan wasn’t working, the White house subsequently wrote the governor of Arizona that, “If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it.”

He said that after he and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) questioned the power of White House “czars,” they both were “called out” on the White House blog.

“This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants,” Alexander said. “If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon White House know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.”

Senator Alexander is exactly right. Mr. Hope and Change has taken an active role in further dividing American citizens during his nine months in office. Democrats developed a mass case of the vapors when George W. Bush drew a line in the sand in regard to Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Barry Vladimir Hussein Milhous Soetero Obama wants to play nice with world dictators, but is engaged in a public relations war with American citizens who dare to disagree with The One.

No one is allowed to dissent from Obama. If you take him on, he will try to ruin you. The problem is that President Barry seems to have jumped the shark. The peak of Obama-mania is long past. He cannot bully the entire country. It is clear that this windbag intends to try to smear his political opponents. In the tradition of the legendary dictators, Obama embraces the "Big Lie" and repeats it over and over hoping repetitive dishonesty can replace facts. It is difficult to be the bearer of the "new tone" when you are tossing battery acid on your dissenters.

Obama seems to have a lot of Nixon in him. He is thin-skinned and makes every disagreement personal. However, there is a huge difference. Nixon won re-election by a record landslide. Wanna take bets on whether Barry pulls that off?

Here is video of Senator Alexander's statement from Fox News:

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Another Day, Another Communist in Chairman MaObama's Inner Circle

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom is the latest member of Team Obama to be shown praising Mao Tse-tung, grand champion of 20th century mass murderers. The never-ending stream of extremists that inhabit the inner circle of Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama is almost comical. "Almost" because these people yield real power and answer to no one. There is also the problem of a large segment of the American public that either supports Marxism, blindly supports the O-Train or is so out of touch that they think Mao Tse-tung is a side dish to accompany General Tso's chicken. Roll the tape...

The "Manufacturing Czar" does not believe in the free market and quotes Chairman Mao. This is the guy who is supposed to oversee job creation in America? What's next? Wavy Gravy as the Dental Czar? Madonna as the Virginity Czar? Kanye West as the Bluegrass Czar? John Walker Lindh as the Youth Patriotism Czar?

The real question is now this: does Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama actually know anyone who loves America and the American way? You know, capitalism, free markets, individual liberty, federalism, the Constitution, baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie? Of course, according to David Ass-elrod and Rambo Emmanuel Obama's den of thieves represent "mainstream America" while Tea Party protesters are a fringe element.

Keep the Commies coming, Barry! Your vision of hope and change is clearly the same communist utopia that has left misery and destruction around the world. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled in 2008. Don't bet on Real America allowing the Demo-fascists to repeat that victory in 2010.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Ronald Reagan Reminds Us Of The Stakes--Do We Climb Higher or Do We Dig A Deeper Hole?

Do you subscribe to the Patriot Post? If not, what is wrong with you??? Go to the Patriot Post and subscribe to their updates immediately if not sooner. If you do so, your inbox will receive golden nuggets like this Ronald Reagan classic from today's Patriot Post Monday Brief:

The Gipper
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.' The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing." --Ronald Reagan

These words come from Ronaldus Maximus' landmark "A Time For Choosing" speech which he delivered in 1964 in support of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater did not win, but Reagan eventually won twice. Conservatism, at times consigned to the closet by a rudderless Republican party, has remained at the forefront ever since. Even when the GOP sticks the people with the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the core understandings of Conservatism beat strongly in the hearts of patriotic Americans.

While politicians debate issues on the margins and value the give-and-take of political compromise, Real America focuses on deeper principles. As Reagan said, it isn't about left or right, but rather about whether our nation is headed up or down. Real American understands that President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama is an unrepentant Leftist who wants to push the United States into a State-dependent mode that is foreign to those who truly love this country. They understand that this White House is viciously leading attacks on every source of dissent in America. They do not tolerate honest debate.

The Obama plan for America will take this great nation down into the depths of dependency and slavery. Greater freedom and liberty are the keys to America digging out of its current problems. However, the individual is the enemy to Statists like those in the Obama administration. Liberty has never been in more grave danger than it is right now. Are you willing to stand up and be counted?