Life's Inanities and Ironies

Oh Walter...Where are you when we need you?

2012-01-05T05:30:00.000-05:00

America’s news media has fallen from being a watchdog and defender of liberty to a worthless, sniveling pawn of the power brokers in Washington. That is why, today, after the Iowa primaries, the American people still have little useful information on the candidates.

Yes, our media is great at telling us which candidate is the most boring, the most attractive or what their favorite snack might be. Who cares? Americans need to know which candidates have the best ideas, the strength of character, courage and the leadership skills to put our nation back on track.

For more than twenty years, U.S. Border Control has rated the candidates for federal office, based entirely on their record in addressing our nation’s border and immigration policies.

And we will likely continue our detailed analysis of the candidates later this year. In the interim, however, we have assembled a brief scorecard of the Republican presidential candidates who competed in Iowa.

This rating provides three scores, one strictly on border and immigration policy; a second, more general rating on their capabilities, knowledge, and their defense of liberty, and, a third rating on their chances to defeat President Obama.

The ratings (Alphabetically):

NAME            IMMIGRATION  OVERALL  CAPABLE                                                 OF WINNING

Michelle Bachman         A-   C+       C

Newt Gingrich            C    B        B+

John Huntsman            C-   B-       C

Ron Paul                 B    A-       B

Rick Perry               C-   B        B

Mitt Romney              B    B        B+

Rick Santorum            B    B        B

As much as possible, the immigration ratings were derived from actual votes and bills sponsored or cosponsored by the candidates. When not available, public statements were also used. The Overall and the Capable of Winning are subjective but are based on our 30+ years of political experience in Washington.

America Is Becoming A Socialist Nation

2011-12-03T09:46:00.000-05:00

Norman Mattoon Thomas was born in 1884 and died in 1968. He was a leading American Socialist, pacifist and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. In 1944, Norman Thomas, as a candidate for president said in a speech,

" The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

He went on to say,

" I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."

I agree with Mr. Thomas, but I would also include many in the Republican Party who have strayed from their conservative roots. I would most certainly include Sen. Richard Lugar in this group of Republicans.

The next national election may be the most important in the history of this country. We must elect individuals who will put our country, and it's citizens, first and reduce the size of government by reducing or eliminating programs. We must elect people who will be fiscally responsible and will respect the First and Second Amendments by promoting individual rights as outlined in our Constitution. We must elect individuals who will not tread on our Constitution, but will live by its words. The words “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

During the next few months, we must scrutinize every candidate who is running for public office. We must elect candidates who will adhere to the Constitution and will take their oath of office very serious. I encourage everyone to become engaged in the political process and be able to vote intelligently in the next election. Our country needs you.

All of the taxes we pay today did not exist 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous nation in the world with no national debt and with the largest middle class in the world. What happened? Politicians!

Minnie The Moocher

Schools and funding are at a crossroads

2011-11-03T06:30:00.000-04:00

GLEE GIVES $1 MILLION! Your vote can help deserving schools ...Check out this video and help this school win up to 50K for their school music program. Lend your voice by voting today.

Wall Street’s excesses blew up the economy. Now the question is who pays to clean up the mess. And across the country, our children are already paying part of the bill – as their schools are hit with deep budget cuts. A new report – StarvingAmerica’s Public Schools: How Budget Cuts and Policy Mandates are Hurtingour Nation’s Students – released Oct.12, 2011 by the Campaign for America’s Future and the National Education Association looks at five states to detail what this means to kids in our public elementary and secondary schools.

Every study shows the importance of early childhood education. Analysts at the Federal Reserve discovered that investments in childhood development have, in the words of Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, such “high public as well as private returns” that the Fed has championed such investments, noting they save states money by reducing costs of dropouts, special education, and crime prevention. Yet across the country, states are slashing funding for pre-kindergarten and even rolling back all day kindergarten. Now only about one-fourth of 4-year-olds are served by pre-K programs. Ten states have eliminated funding for pre-K altogether, including Arizona. Ohio eliminated funding for all-day kindergarten.

Every parent and teacher knows the importance of smaller classes, particularly in the early years, when individual attention is vital. Yet across the country, schools are facing layoffs of nearly 250,000 workers next year, many of them teachers. In Chester Upland, Pa., 40 percent of the teachers were eliminated, with class sizes rising from 21 to 30 in elementary schools and to 35 in high schools, prompting students to walk out.

Intelligence comes in many forms. Successful schools offer a well-rounded curriculum – not just the basics, but art and music, social studies, extracurricular activities and physical education. But now schools across the country are forced to terminate or charge extra for anything beyond the core curriculum. In York, Pa., art, music and physical education was eliminated in elementary schools. In Medina, Ohio, students returned to find courses in French, German, art, music and advanced placement science and math were eliminated.

And children, needless to say, are extremely diverse. They learn in different ways, at different rates, and face different challenges. Public schools educate the poor and the affluent, those with developmental challenges and those who are gifted. Yet across the country, schools are slashing funds for special learning instruction, for advanced placement courses. Increasingly parents face extra fees for programs. In Medina, Ohio, for example, it costs $660 to play a high school sport, $200 to join the school choir or $50 to act in a student play.

And even as budgets are slashed for public schools, more and more state education money is getting siphoned off to private contractors to pay for elaborate tests, and to vouchers and corporate tax credits to subsidize private and charter schools. We’re cutting billions out of educating kids while increasing spending on testing how they are doing.

School budgets have been cut in some 34 states and the District of Columbia. In Arizona, the cuts average about $530 per pupil. In Florida, $1 billion was cut in next year’s budget, or about $542 per student. Not surprisingly, these cuts fall hardest on the poorest districts that can’t afford to make up for them the way affluent districts can. The kids who have the greatest need for public education are suffering the deepest cuts.

Americans sensibly value education. Every political candidate promises our children will have the best education in the world. Yet Washington seems largely oblivious to the carnage taking place in our schools. Part of the president’s American Jobs Act was special funding to avoid more teacher layoffs. A filibuster by Republican senators kept that from even coming up for debate, much less a vote.

Meanwhile a furious argument continues about to what standard teachers and schools should be held accountable. The administration, still touting its Race to the Top program, wants the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to set the standard that all children should be “college ready” by the year 2020. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a more sensible standard of requiring “continuous improvement” from all schools.

But schools are eliminating kindergarten, laying off teachers, cramming 35 kids in a class, cutting advanced placement classes, and levying steep fees for kids to be in the band or play on an athletic team. Continuous improvement? Race to the Top? The grim reality facing our kids mocks the rhetoric.

Jeff Bryant, author of the Starving America’s Public Schools report, notes that there have been only two previous times since 1929 when this nation cut spending significantly on its children’s education, once in the midst of the Great Depression and once in the midst of World War II. With schools facing budget cutbacks while the largest generation of kids since the boomers flood the classrooms, this is likely to be the third. The bankers who caused the mess got bailed out. The military budget exceeds Cold War levels. The richest 1 percent of Americans, who make as much as the bottom 60 percent of Americans, pay the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression. But our kids and their schools are paying the price for an economic mess they didn’t create. No wonder The Tea Party & Occupy Wall Street have spread across the country.

WikiTree

2011-08-24T06:31:00.003-04:00

+ more at the collaborative, worldwide WikiTree.

COMBINE HARVESTER:

Minnie The Moocher:

What has Mr. Obama accomplished as President of the United States?

2011-08-01T06:54:00.000-04:00

Mr. Obama’s Report Card:

Increased America’s debt by 35%.

Increased unemployment by 18%.

Falsified Hawaiian birth certificate after illegally holding the office of President of the United States.

Violated the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution by exerting federal government over state’s rights.

Largest increase in federal government in history.

Created a national health care system, modeled after the failing systems in Canada and Great Britain, and which creates nearly 100 new government agencies and programs.

Made the federal government the monopoly agency for student loans.

Made the federal government co-owner of various industries.

Alienated one of the US closest allies –Israel.

Weakened the military by allowing gays to openly serve.

Refuse to defend US borders against illegal aliens.

Violated the US Constitution by requiring every American to purchase health insurance.

Openly embrace Muslims who have vowed to destroy America while at the same time pushing to remove more Christian rights from Americans.

Established more socialist policies than any President in history.

Removed more citizen’s rights than any President in history.

Striving to make 15 million illegal aliens US citizens in time to vote in 2012.

To be fair his predecessor Mr Bush's record is as abysmal, just in different areas.

Garden Party:

U.N. to attempt to seize Jerusalem from Israel by September. Take Action!

2011-07-22T06:27:00.002-04:00

The United Nations Security Council has scheduled July 26th in New York, for open "debate" about whether or not they will attempt to seize Israeli land in September, and divide Jerusalem by establishing a Palestinian state, without negotiation or approval from Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he feared a "surprise" move after the Quartet of the United Nations, EU, USA, and Russia met last Monday in DC, to endorse President Obama's plan to enforce 1967 borders, and divide Jerusalem and seize Israeli land to form an independent Palestine, on either July 26th or in Sept. at the U.N.

Haaretz newspaper reported Quartet members "are expected to release a statement endorsing U.S. President Barack Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East, which called for...the borders of a future state based on pre-1967 lines..."

"A source in Jerusalem said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues have concerns that the Quartet announcement could provide a surprise for Israel similar to Obama's May speech, the contents of which were revised less than 24 hours before it was delivered....The U.S. is proposing a Quartet statement that mentions the Obama address in relatively general terms and announces that a Quartet delegation would visit the region for additional talks."

The Jerusalem Post reported Netanyahu said he was ready to restart negotiations "tomorrow morning" but the Palestinians "refuse" to negotiate now. JTA reported this week, "Palestinian negotiators refuse to return to talks unless Israel freezes settlement; Israel will not consider talks with the Palestinians unless the P.A. breaks off its talks with Hamas, and unless the framework of the talks includes recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an end to refugee claims and a long-term Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley," [without which Israel cannot defend her existence.]

President Obama wrote in his book "I will stand with [Muslims] if the political winds shift in an ugly direction," so I picture Obama siding with Palestinian President Abbas above, who said last week, "President Obama says he wants to see an independent Palestinian state by September."

We must awaken Congress so Israel can negotiate to keep their land...take action now!

Haaretz newspaper reported last Wednesday, "The UN Security Council plans to discuss in July [on the 26th] the possibility of Palestine becoming a United Nations member state, the Security Council president said on Tuesday. The Arab League has said it would request UN membership for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital at the UN General Assembly in September."

Only the U.N. Security Council can vote to recognize new nations, and move borders. It is composed of 15 member nations among which only 5 have veto authority: USA, Britain, France, China, and Russia.

The "Quartet meeting [is] a possible indicator on the situation," reported Haaretz. "The Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators...[met] amid a U.S. push to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."

The fact any debate will occur on 26 July confirms a big U.N. vote will occur in September, and if President Obama's U.N. delegation fails to veto, Israel will forfeit half its land and Jerusalem will become the Muslim capitol of the new state of Palestine.

President Obama has recently signaled that the U.S. may not veto such a land-grab, as Abbas said last week on Lebanese TV, quote: "President Obama says he wants to see an independent Palestinian state by September." No wonder Abbas met with PLO leaders and decided to seize the moment, and East Jerusalem with it.

Israel would likely not recognize such a vote, and refuse to forfeit their land. Palestinians will declare independence and start a war in September, with the whole world against Israel. Except us. We must awaken the U.S. Congress to defend Israel now.

A pro-Israel U.S. Congressman has introduced a brand new law to de-fund the United Nations if they dare to seize Israeli land, or if President Obama fails to veto any Palestinian land-grab of Jerusalem without permission from Israel.

Pro-Israel Congressman Steve Chabot who chairs the Subcommittee for mid-East relations, introduced H.R. 297, which says the United States should withhold "contributions to the regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations … if the General Assembly adopts a resolution in favor of recognizing a state of Palestine outside of or prior to a final status agreement negotiated between, and acceptable to, the State of Israel and the Palestinians."

The Washington Times confirms the U.N. plans an illegal vote to unilaterally recognize Palestine in September. "A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be an illegal act that would violate the letter and the spirit of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Those binding resolutions called for a negotiated settlement of the dispute with Israel with 'secure and recognized boundaries.'"

The Times also reports America supplies 22 percent of the U.N. budget, so de-funding would get their attention. "The United States cannot prevent this ill-advised move - it circumvents America’s Security Council veto by design - but U.S. leaders can let it be known that the U.N. would incur more than just a political cost." The United Jerusalem Foundation warns: "A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood by the United Nations General Assembly would cause incalculable harm to peace and stability in the Middle East."

So far ZERO Congressman have co-sponsored Chabot's important bill. Please call your Congressman and both Senators at 202-224-3121, and say "please co-sponsor H.Res 297 to protect Israel's current borders, and defund the U.N. if President Obama refuses to veto their Jerusalem land-grab." Also please call every member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East here. Israel needs our support today.

The Associated Press just reported "The West Bank Palestinian leadership formally decided Monday to press ahead with efforts in September to win U.N. recognition of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem." Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the same P.L.O. historically linked with violent terrorists of Hamas) and decided they will unilaterally seek United Nations permission to seize Israeli land without negotiation or consideration of Israeli sovereignty.

"Leading members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement met Sunday and later said in a statement that the goal is to bring a state of Palestine into the family of nations of the world....Only the U.N. Security Council can add a nation to the world body, and the U.S. government has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the move, signaling it will veto such a resolution," said one AP reporter.

However, President Obama has recently signaled the opposite, that the U.S. may not veto such a land-grab, as Abbas said last week on Lebanese TV, quote: "President Obama says he wants to see an independent Palestinian state by September." No wonder Abbas met with PLO leaders and decided to seize the moment, and East Jerusalem with it.
"Palestinian officials hope U.N. recognition would force Israel to make concessions when negotiations resume...The statement did not say what form of U.N. recognition the Palestinians are seeking or what steps they might take after such a nod from the world body," said AP.

They will declare independence and cause a war. Abbas and the PLO do not want concessions "during negotiations." They plan to declare independence and fight for their newly claimed land, with U.N. and Obama's approval. There is war coming in September. If Israel refuses to comply, Obama will not veto, the U.N. will grant land, and Muslims will attack Israeli territory to seize East Jerusalem and the 1967 borders.

Let's do everything we can to wake up the U.S. Congress...

President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority said on Lebanese TV last week, quote: "President Obama says he wants to see an independent Palestinian state by September."

This confirms the likelihood Obama will direct America's U.N. representatives to NOT VETO the upcoming U.N. vote to seize Israeli land and establish an independent Palestine state, without any concern or negotiation for Israeli sovereignty.

Haaretz newspaper in Israel confirmed a unilateral vote will be forced upon Israel by the U.N. this September. "Israel's new ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor urged Jewish American leaders on Monday to form a clear and operational plan ahead of the United Nations vote in September regarding unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state," the report said.

If Obama does not veto this, it would immediately cause a violent war against Israel. Prosor also said that "regardless of the outcome of the UN vote, a Palestinian state will not be created and added that the UN is not authorized to dictate borders between countries." He stressed that "a unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will bring about another cycle of violence that will only lead to a dead end."

Obama could stop the coming war, simply by vetoing any U.N. resolution. "I don't know if the US has another option, but if it does, we will not go to the UN," Abbas told Lebanese TV. [In other words, Obama holds power to stop their unilateral demands, but he won't.]

Abbas, who claims 116 of the 195 member states of the UN General Assembly are willing to recognize a Palestinian state, has stressed that his government would go through with the declaration if negotiations with Israel remain deadlocked. Israel hopes for 30 nations against, but America is the only among them who could veto the U.N. land grab.

"Unilateral moves are not constructive," Prosor said after his first day on the job, emphasizing that there was still time to act before the vote.

Haaretz newspaper in Israel reported President Obama had privately given a 30-day ultimatum to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to either forfeit their land and revert to Obama's 1967 border plan, or face punishment by the United Nations. A U.N. vote to recognize Palestine (and seize Israeli land) is scheduled for September, which could be vetoed by the United States, but Obama's recent actions cast doubt upon whether the U.S. will veto any U.N. land-grab.

"An Israeli source who spoke recently with senior officials in Washington said the Americans were very frustrated with Netanyahu's behavior, feeling that he was impeding America's efforts to keep the Palestinians from unilaterally seeking UN recognition of a state in September," reported Haaretez. "Netanyahu's personal envoy, Isaac Molho, spent last week in Washington...The Americans told Molho that to block European initiatives...they must have something concrete to offer, like Netanyahu's agreement to negotiate on the basis of Obama's speech." [So if Netanyahu doesn't comply, America won't block European initiatives.]

In other words, Obama issued an implied threat to destroy Israel, by endorsing the U.N. plan to seize her land, unless Netanyahu commits national suicide by returning to the 1967 borders (just nine miles wide in spots) which are militarily indefensible.

"We're about to crash into the wall. We're galloping at full speed toward a situation where Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state," said Israeli President Shimon Perez. "Whoever accepts the basic principle of the 1967 lines will receive international support from the world," Peres said. "Whoever rejects it will lose the world." Perez is liberal, and encourages Netanyahu to sell Israeli land for peace.

Netanyahu voiced his "vehement objection to starting peace talks on the basis of the 1967 lines, which he called 'indefensible' in both the Knesset and the U.S. Congress," said Haaretz. Netanyahu is conservative, but without American help he stands alone in trying to preserve, not only Israel's current borders, but their right to exist.

Bottom line: Without the USA's veto of the U.N. plan, Israel will soon cease to exist as a nation. Both Perez and Netanyahu agree Israel will soon cease to exist, but one says "compromise" and the other says "no compromise." We must demand Congress defend Israel, since Obama won't.

Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-TX) led 45 Members of Congress with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) this week by introducing H.Res 271 supporting Israel's right to defend its own borders, against attack by Hamas terrorists, Iranian nuclear ambitions, and the Obama Administration.

The resolution reads in part: "Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."

Asking YOUR Congressman to co-sponsor this critical pro-Israeli self-defense initiative. REJECT President Obama's plan to return Israel's borders to the 1967 borders, REJECT Obama's plan to divide Israel's land in a two-state solution, REJECT Obama's plan to bring a curse upon America for violating Joel 3:2 and dividing the land of Israel in a phony "land for peace" deception, and REJECT anybody's call to take away Israel control of the holy city of Jerusalem.

Let's please stand with Israel one more time.

"I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land." Joel 3:2

Eve Of Destruction:

Holder Used Stimulus Money to Pay for Gunrunner Scandal

2011-07-21T05:45:00.000-04:00

There is a new little wrinkle in Attorney General Eric Holder's claims of ignorance regarding the Gunrunner Scandal – Holder's Department of Justice requested and received $10 million in funding specifically for "Project Gunrunner" as part of Obama's 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the Stimulus Bill.

The damning evidence can be found on page 16 of the Act, under the heading "Department of Justice" and subheading "Office of Justice Programs"! According to the Library of Congress the section reads as follows:

"For an additional amount for 'State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance', $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to 'Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses' for the ATF Project Gunrunner."

Eric Holder not only knew about Gunrunner, he requested $10 million to fund it. The only question now is, how much did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?

DAMN the birth certificate;……………….I want to know why we are not drilling???

2011-04-26T20:56:00.004-04:00

Here’s an interesting read, important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and
one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to
ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil
does the U.S. have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more
than all the Middle East put together.” Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in
this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and
extreme eastern Montana …… check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe
Bay,and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign
oil.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion
barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable….. at $107 a barrel,
we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5….3 trillion.

“When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see
their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.” says Terry Johnson, the Montana
Legislature’s financial analyst.

“This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found
in the past 56 years,” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a
formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the
‘Bakken.’ It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and
into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead
end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells
decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up
the Bakken’s massive reserves….. and we now have access of up to 500
billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels
will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years
straight. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one
should – because it’s from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the
largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION
barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In
three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this
motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders,
than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

– 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

– 18-times as much oil as Iraq

– 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

– 22-times as much oil as Iran

– 500-times as much oil as Yemen

– and it’s all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the
environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America
become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of
people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in
this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION
barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in
the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think
again!
It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to… Think OPEC just
might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you
should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices – by
doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you
sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Suddenly Seymour:

Nonprofits, the Recession Is Not Over

2011-03-27T14:04:00.004-04:00

Nonprofits are on the front lines of the recession, tending to our neighbors in need. A new survey released March 21st finds that American charities expect 2011 to be another tough year of increasing demand and dwindling resources.

The Nonprofit Finance Fund 2011 Survey finds that 85 percent of nonprofits expect demand for their services to expand this year, but fewer than half have the resources to meet that growing need. This comes after three consecutive years of increased demand on these nonprofits, the survey finds.

“Years of economic uncertainty have forced nonprofits to adjust to the ‘new normal’ of scarce resources and increased demand,” said Rebecca Thomas, vice president of consulting services at NFF. “Some of the adjustments we’re seeing are creative and healthy... Other effects [such as] layoffs, people who need services being turned away... are further compromising the social safety net at a great cost to America.”

That's a dire warning at a time when elected officials are planning to cut many services further. But there's hope. The NFF is offers some suggestions, thinking mechanically about solving problems by fortifying organizations. NFF surveyed these 1,900 nonprofits about their fiscal solvency as well as their predictions. The groups say it's not just more donations or more revenue they needed, but a better kind of funding: general operating revenue, the kind that can be used to pay the mortgage, not just the sexy new initiatives.

On a related note, the NFF has measured the importance several kinds of funding for nonprofits. In a recent report they found that for organizations looking to scale "philanthropic equity" that can be used to help high impact group scale can be especially powerful in impact for dollar terms from a donor perspective. The lesson seems to be, restrictions on how a nonprofit can use the funds they get, well intentioned as they may be, can hamper good work.

“Last year, we received more restricted money and less of the important general funds that help us manage the organization," said Ann King, executive director of the Tri-Valley Haven, a community resource center dealing with domestic violence, sexual assault, or homelessness. "We’ve said ‘no’ to funding opportunities that didn’t cover their own cost." She added, "unfortunately, the recession is not over for many of us in the nonprofit sector. One of the hardest things is finding funding for operating support.”

There was some hope in the NFF data though. The survey found 44 percent of groups ended 2010 with a surplus, that's up from 2009, and about a third of the groups reported actually raising more money than expected.

Complete survey data and information.

Old Man River:

Biden: Impeach President for Unauthorized Attack

2011-03-27T13:51:00.004-04:00

Vice President Joe Biden has a very clear idea of what should happen to a president who orders U.S. military forces to launch an attack on a foreign country without congressional authorization: impeachment.

With some voices saying President Barack Obama should face impeachment for attacking Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in Libya, a videotape has surfaced from the 2007 campaign trail showing Biden threatening to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without the approval of Congress.

“I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee,” Biden said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on “Hardball.”

"I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the United States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran.

“And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record … if he does, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him."

He went on to say: “I think the best deterrent is for the president to know, even at the end of his term, we would move and move to follow through with that so his legacy would be marred for all time if he acted in what was clearly, clearly an impeachable offense.

“In the absence of that, what happens is, and you're going to think I'm joking about this — I'm not. If you're going to impeach George Bush you better impeach Cheney first. Not a joke.”

If You Could Read My Mind:

IF character counts.

2011-03-10T06:30:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich has been incredibly brazen in the past few weeks, forming an exploratory committee to help consider his first steps towards a presidential bid in 2012. Yesterday it was reported that "if he runs for president he will make his announcement in early May outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia" and that he's leaning towards a "yes" on his decision to run.

I'm in the George Will school of skepticism about Newt's run. I think of him as an attention hog with very few principles to rub together. Sure, he did a great service in 1994 as Speaker of the House. Sure, he knows a lot of history.* But look at his career after Congress!

Vanity Fair really nailed Newt on his recent commentary regarding his adulterous past:

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network this week, Newt Gingrich blamed his history of philandering on patriotism: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” Which raises many questions, and prompts a few conclusions. To wit:

1. This must be a recent insight of Gingrich’s, because a quick Google search shows he never cited Bill Clinton’s love of country during the 1998 impeachment drive.

2. If loving America leads to full-on adultery, does loving your home state lead to office-party flirting?

3. Ewww. Where does loving France or Greece lead?

I have an interview tomorrow for an internship. I wonder what will happen if they ask about a blemish in my résumé and I proceed to cite diligence or congeniality as the cause....

Newt isn't a bad person, necessarily. Though I fail to understand why anyone would favor him over someone like a Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, or Haley Barbour. Everyone has baggage, but why should we have to nominate anyone who oscillates carelessly?

Sickly Aging Man:

The New Kind of Immigrant

2011-03-03T06:28:00.000-05:00

A look at our history books tell us why today’s American should not be willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.

Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Our fathers fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And now here we are with the new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. That’s not what being an American is all about. True Americans are loyal only to America!

The immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900′s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.

For the wrong things to prevail, the rightful majority needs to remain complacent and quiet.

Don’t ever let this happen!

FDA launches jihad against nut distributor for educating the public

2011-02-12T10:24:00.006-05:00

When the federal government gets into the business of classifying walnuts as a "drug," you know that American medical innovation is going down the crapper!

Politics destroys most everything it touches and medical care is no exception. That's why in the coming months you are going to hear more and more from me about the importance of medical self reliance.

Let's start with a new plan by FDA bureaucrats to expand their dominion over walnuts. Why? Because walnuts are a natural therapy available as a supplement to – or, in some cases, a replacement for – prescription drugs!

Some private marketers are exercising their First Amendment rights to say so. Enter FDA bureaucrats, who only last year sent an ominous "warning letter" to Diamond Foods, Inc.

FDA scolds have an issue with the way Diamond referenced scientific and medical studies in their marketing. In essence, the FDA told Diamond Foods, Inc. – Walnuts Are Drugs! Here are some excerpts from the ridiculous letter (emphasis mine):

...your walnut products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes. Thus, your walnut products are also misbranded under Section 502(f)(1) of the Act, in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for use...

Just to be clear, we're talking about the whole food – walnuts. Not a molecule or derivative or modified extract made from walnuts. It's the same walnuts you find in a fruit cake!

...your firm's website also contains several additional unauthorized health claims...

The FDA doesn't have an issue with the validity of the scientific or medical research referenced, such as the benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts. Its issue is that it did not authorize Diamond Foods, Inc. to say so.

...You should take prompt action to correct these violations. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action... seizure or injunction.

It's Just Walnuts,
Not Illicit Narcotics or Poisons that Harm Consumers!

The FDA is taking on Diamond Foods, Inc. because it was promoting the health benefits of walnuts, nothing more.

* Diamond was not using false statements.
* Walnuts are not dangerous to your health (as are many FDA-approved prescription medications, whose side effects and improper administration kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year).
* The scientific and medical research referenced by Diamond was true and accurate.

But because Diamond was promoting health benefits, the FDA claimed that it now has the authority to step in, classify walnuts as drugs, and force Diamond to correct violations or face "regulatory action... seizure or injunction."

Which Brings Me to This Natural Therapy. What is it?

Why are FDA bureaucrats out to get U.S. walnut producers and stymie promotion of the beneficial effects of walnuts on your health overall, including sexual health? It's beyond Puritanical. They obviously don't get out enough.

You need to know the truth, and despite the apparent regulatory risks, I will tell you! Since this Monday is Valentine's Day, I'll start with sexual health.

Walnuts contain an amino acid called arginine, which is also found in beans, cold-water fish (tuna, salmon), soy products, and oats. Arginine promotes a process called nitric-oxide release, which relaxes blood vessels and increases the blood flow, including to the penis.

Walnuts Also Deter Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes,
and Even Memory Loss!

Walnuts not only taste great but are also a rich source of heart-healthy monounsaturated fats and an excellent source of those hard to find Omega-3 fatty acids. They help protect against metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular problems, and type 2 diabetes. Packed with anti-oxidants, they help deter cancer.

A limited (but increasing) number of studies have shown potential health benefits for walnuts in the area of memory and general thought processes (often referred to as "cognitive" processes).

A final fascinating aspect of walnuts and their potential health benefits involves melatonin (MLT). MLT is a widely-active messaging molecule in our nervous system and is very hormone-like in its regulatory properties. MLT is critical in the regulation of sleep, daily (circadian) rhythms, light-dark adjustment, and other processes.

Learning about natural health supplements like walnuts is part of becoming more medically self reliant. Exploring alternatives to getting and staying healthy is an imperative, particularly as we head into the new age of Obamacare which has only added to the existing problem of an FDA bureaucracy doing more harm than good.

Witch Doctor:

Hallelujah:

I was lied to

2011-02-02T22:39:00.008-05:00

The President and Congress promised that Obamacare would bring down healthcare costs. But Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, just testified to the House Budget Committee that this claim is "false, more so than true." This makes me think I was lied to.

President Obama also promised that everyone who likes their current health insurance would be able to keep it. But many people are already losing their old health insurance because of Obamacare. This feels like another lie.

Candidate Obama promised that his healthcare bill would contain no requirement that would enrich health insurance companies by forcing citizens to buy their products. He even said, "Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

Mr. Obama made quite a point of this when debating Hillary Clinton, but the law that people now call by his name, Obamacare, does exactly what he PROMISED it would not do. I'm quite certain I was lied to.

Politicians constantly promise to protect me from rapacious businesses, but that's another fraud. I can already protect myself by refusing to do business with companies I don't like. But how do I stop doing business with the federal state?

The best I can do is convince a majority of my fellow citizens to elect a Congress that will stop coercing me, but that's nearly impossible. So it's really you I need protection from, especially when you conspire with big businesses to pick my pocket for my own supposed benefit, as with Obamacare.

I'm angered by the hypocrisy. When a business does something wrong you politicians always erect some cancerous regulatory scam, like Sarbanes-Oxley, to punish the innocent along with the guilty, but do you hold the federal state to the same standard? NO! Not at all. Instead, it's lies, lies, lies, and fraud, fraud, fraud. Enough!

The Senate needs to repeal Obamacare, just like the House did. DO IT NOW!

Town Without Pity:

Child of The King:

Mr. Obama Continues to Ignore Reality

2011-01-27T13:45:00.004-05:00

President Obama Continues to Ignore Reality … and so do his followers. In his State of the Union, the president barely touched on the issue that galvanized the nation against his Administration — illegal immigration. And when he did mention it, he got it all wrong.

The President: “Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”

That was it. That’s all he had to offer. He’s going to “take on… the issue of illegal immigration“. Obama chooses his words carefully. He didn’t say he was going to stop illegal immigration, did he?

Then he said he was ”prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders.” That’s a far cry from sealing our borders to terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal aliens, isn’t it?

Then he said he would “address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.” What the heck does that mean? I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean. It sure doesn’t mean packing them up and sending them home, which is what the American people are demanding. And as for their living in the shadows, what a load of baloney.

Today’s illegal aliens know our government will never kick them out and so they march in the streets, fearlessly making their demands; they appear on television declaring themselves illegal aliens; they campaign for radical liberals who support their cause; and they can walk into any hospital and get free health care, something no Americans get.

There was no recognition by our President that we have lost control over huge segments of our own border which have been taken over by the drug cartels; no recognition that illegal aliens are the leading cause of crime in America; no recognition that illegal aliens are the fastest growing population in the United States.

But my favorite quote from Obama’s speech was his jab at the Tea Party and other American patriots when he said, “And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

Pay close attention to this one. In the same sentence, he is attacking Americans as extremists who are inspiring acts of violence, while giving Muslims a clean slate!

Excuse me but who is it that is disrupting traffic in Times Square, spitting on the American flag, lighting it on fire; and using every sort of hate-filled speech imaginable? I don’t thing they are conservatives or Tea Partyers. They are Muslims. And their goal is the destruction of our country. Yet, our Commander in Chief uses every opportunity to praise them.

The Times They Are A-Changin':

Ramblin' Man:

10 Things That Would Be Different If The Federal Reserve Had Never Been Created

2011-01-14T21:35:00.004-05:00

Reprinted From The Economic Collapse

The vast majority of Americans, including many of those who believe that they are "educated" about the Federal Reserve, do not really understand how the Federal Reserve really makes money for the international banking elite. Many of those opposed to the Federal Reserve will point to the record $80.9 billion in profits that the Federal Reserve made last year as evidence that they are robbing the American people blind. But then those defending the Federal Reserve will point out that the Fed returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury. As a result, the Fed only made a couple billion dollars last year. Pretty harmless, eh? Well, actually no. You see, the money that the Federal Reserve directly makes is not the issue. Rather, the "magic" of the Federal Reserve system is that it took the power of money creation away from the U.S. government and gave it to the bankers. Now, the only way that the U.S. government can inject more money into the economy is by going into more debt. But when new government debt is created, the amount of money to pay the interest on that debt is not also created. In this way, it was intended by the international bankers that U.S. government debt would expand indefinitely and the U.S. money supply would also expand indefinitely. In the process, the international bankers would become insanely wealthy by lending money to the U.S. government.

Every single year, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are made lending money to the U.S. government.

But why in the world should the U.S. government be going into debt to anyone?

Why can't the U.S. government just print more money whenever it wants?

Well, that is not the way our system works. The U.S. government has given the power of money creation over to a consortium of international private bankers.

Not only is this unconstitutional, but it is also one of the greatest ripoffs in human history.

In 1922, Henry Ford wrote the following....

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

It is important to try to understand how the international banking elite became so fabulously wealthy. One of the primary ways that this was accomplished was by gaining control over the issuance of national currencies and by trapping large national governments in colossal debt spirals.

The U.S. national debt problem simply cannot be fixed under the current system. U.S. government debt has been mathematically designed to expand forever. It is a trap from which there is no escape.

Many liberals won't listen because they don't really care about ever paying off the debt, and most conservatives won't listen because they are convinced we can solve the national debt problem if we just get a bunch of "good conservatives" into positions of power, but the truth is that we have such a horrific debt problem because it was designed to be this way from the beginning.

So how would America be different if we could go back to 1913 and keep the Federal Reserve Act from ever being passed? Well, the following are 10 things that would be different if the Federal Reserve had never been created....

#1 If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government could conceivably have a national debt of zero dollars. Instead, we currently have a national debt that is over 14 trillion dollars.

#2 If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government would likely not be spending one penny on interest payments. Instead, the U.S. government spent over 413 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2010. This is money that belonged to U.S. taxpayers that was transferred to the U.S. government which in turn was transferred to wealthy international bankers and other foreign governments. It is being projected that the U.S. government will be paying 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019.

#3 If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, there would not even have to be a debate about raising "the debt ceiling", because such a debate would not even be necessary.

#4 If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, it is conceivable that we would not even need the IRS. You doubt this? Well, the truth is that the United States did just fine for well over a hundred years without a national income tax. But about the same time the Federal Reserve was created a national income tax was instituted as well. The whole idea was that the wealth of the American people would be transferred to the U.S. government by force and then transferred into the hands of the ultra-wealthy in the form of interest payments.

#5 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not be on the verge of national insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080. Remember when I used the term "debt spiral" earlier? Well, this is what a debt spiral looks like....

#6 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, the big Wall Street banks would not have such an overwhelming advantage. Most Americans simply have no idea that over the last several years the Federal Reserve has been giving gigantic piles of nearly interest-free money to the big Wall Street banks which they turned right around and started lending to the federal government at a much higher rate of return. I don't know about you, but if I was allowed to do that I could make a whole bunch of money very quickly. In fact, it has come out that the Federal Reserve made over $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks, large financial institutions and other "friends" during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.

#7 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, it is theoretically conceivable that we would have an economy with little to no inflation. Of course that would greatly depend on the discipline of our government officials (which is not very great at this point), but the sad truth is that our current system is always going to produce inflation. In fact, the Federal Reserve system was originally designed to be inflationary. Just check out the inflation chart posted below. The U.S. never had ongoing problems with inflation before the Fed was created, but now it is just wildly out of control....

#8 If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the U.S. dollar would not be a dying currency. Since the Federal Reserve was created, the U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its purchasing power. By constantly inflating the currency, it transfers financial power away from those already holding the wealth (the American people) to those that are able to create more currency and more government debt. Back in 1913, the total U.S. national debt was just under 3 billion dollars. Today, the U.S. government is spending approximately 6.85 million dollars per minute, and the U.S. national debt is increasing by over 4 billion dollars per day.

#9 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not have an unelected, unaccountable "fourth branch of government" running around that has gotten completely and totally out of control. Even some members of Congress are now openly complaining about how much power the Fed has. For example, Ron Paul told MSNBC last year that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now more powerful than Congress.....

"The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress."

#10 If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the American people would be much more free. We would not be enslaved to this horrific national debt. Our politicians would not have to run around the globe begging people to lend us money. Representatives that we directly elect would be the ones setting national monetary policy. Our politicians would be much less under the influence of the international banking elite. We would not be at the mercy of the financial bubbles that the Fed has constantly been creating.

There is a reason why so many of the most prominent politicians from the early years of the United States were so passionately against a central bank. The following is a February 1834 quote by President Andrew Jackson about the evils of central banking....

I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out.

But we didn't listen to men like Andrew Jackson.

We allowed the Federal Reserve to be created in 1913 and we have allowed it to develop into an absolute monstrosity over the past century.

Now we are drowning in debt and we are on the verge of national bankruptcy.

Will the American people wake up before it is too late?

Internet FCC Rules Dec 21 Deadline

2010-12-20T12:16:00.005-05:00

There is very important, one-of-a-kind, information enclosed below about Mr. Obama and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wanting to control YOUR Internet freedoms.

Please read every word to understand the totality of this threat to your freedoms.

Thank you,

Barack Obama has a "Christmas surprise" for the American people. It's based upon the FCC's self-imposed December 21 deadline to implement new Internet rules.

Via the FCC, Mr. Obama wants to take control of the Internet---YOUR Internet---your ability to contact your friends, your relatives, and your elected representatives in government.

This "stealth" use of new rules and regulations will sneak up on us just before Christmas. Quite frankly, not too many people know about this; or really take the notion seriously, because, after all, we have the 1st Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to protect us. Right? Wrong!

The FCC is ready to add the Internet to its "portfolio" of regulated industries. The Obama Administration wants to take control of the Internet. BEFORE CHRISTMAS! (even though the regulations won't "officially" go into effect until after the holidays. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he has circulated "draft rules" that he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement---I call it a bald face lie---reflects the vast gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama Administration policy.

Obama's FCC is ready to steal our Internet freedom by simply declaring it has the "right" to regulate it. Here's the underlying problem for Barack Obama. Internet journalists tend to report the news without coloring it with the brush of "political correctness." They challenge the lies that the Obama Administration puts out that the so-called "mainstream media" simply accept and repeat as the truth.

We must be prepared to do battle with the intrusive FCC federal regulations that will clamp down on our 1st Amendment rights via the Internet. To protect our free speech rights on the Internet, we must fax every single Member of Congress and let them know they must NOT agree to the upcoming December 21st regulations!

Will you do that for yourself and for the rest of us... today---please? This is so important; let me repeat my request so you understand the extreme urgency. Because, historically, when government seizes liberty, it's gone forever.

According to the Washington Times: "With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the 'freedom' of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped 'non-public, for internal use only' to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled December 21 vote. So much for 'openness.'

Mr. Obama will use the FCC plans to implement control of cyberspace by issuing regulations. He blatantly insists that he has the right to regulate the Internet through the FCC---which regulates the other electronic mediums: radio and television. What Mr. Obama really means is that as long as the American people have unfettered access to the Internet, he cannot continue to spread his propaganda and bald face lies without being challenged, and he will be a one-term visitor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Make no mistake; Barack Hussein Obama is very determined to undermine free speech by seizing cyber-control Internet free speech; under the disguise of making sure our safety and security are of prime importance.

The recent WikiLeaks fiasco has helped him to rationalize this tremendous increase of government control to the American public.

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's December 21 proposals should be STOPPED by Members of Congress. In fact, both the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives should make it even clearer that the FCC should STOP trying to expand its REGULATORY EMPIRE and should STOP trying to control our freedom of speech over the internet!

In the administration's zeal to "protect the people," the social progressive zealots in the Obama federal bureaucracy are not averse to writing the rules and regulations like this. It makes a clear statement. It takes away our freedoms on the Internet; but it is all under the claim of "protection."

That's why the proposed FCC Internet rules and regulations---THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE IMPLEMENTED without Congressional legislation being enacted---must be stopped by that Body whose legislative authority has been abridged.

That is why YOU must get involved this very moment!

Don't let the Obama Administration give you a government "Merry Christmas" via Internet controls.

Send Barack Obama your personal "BAH, HUMBUG!"

Say "Merry Christmas" with a message that STOPS the federal government from crossing that Constitutional line by seizing the Internet. Barrack Hussein Obama blames the Tea Party Revolution, and the results of the 2010 election, on the American conservatives' unfettered access to the Internet. That appears to be the real reason that the Obama Administration authorized the FCC power grab to regulate the Internet. Obama talking heads might refer to regulation as a form of "Net Neutrality," or a cyber-version of the "Fairness Doctrine." But, plain and simple, it is plain, old fashioned, censorship of the views of a majority by a frightened minority who want to silence that majority. Are you part of the no-longer "silent" majority which believes that the 1st Amendment protects our right to speak our mind, in the public forum of the Internet, or at a Town Hall meeting? Free speech is free. Don't let anyone regulate your right to speak. Get involved. Now. Today. SEE BELOW.

When it comes to the Internet, bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a strict hands-off policy whenever the left has proposed legislation to impose censorship through regulation. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April, by striking down the FCC's last attempt to do it. In order for the FCC to take this control, it needs Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so. Since they have chosen not to, Mr. Obama intends to just do it himself. The Obama Administration is overstepping its Constitutional boundaries? These proposed regulations prove that!

December 21 is only one day away.

That's why we must Fax every Member of Congress, RIGHT NOW, to stop this government intrusion into our private, on-line, communications. We have not witnessed this kind of government intrusion since FDR tried to regulate newspapers in 1933.

Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Federal judges have ruled specifically that the Internet has the exact same freedoms. But the Obama Administration is trying to control the Internet... and YOU!

On December 1, with an impending implementation on December 21st, Mr. Genachowski announced to the media that he had circulated his draft rules memo. He said it will "... preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," adding that the federal government will increase the freedom of online services because, he noted, heavy use in some areas of the Internet slow the "web experience" for everyone sharing the same information superhighway lines.

Even though that may be partially true, the United States government should not dictate to us what we can and cannot do on the Internet. Period.

Will you assist us to make sure that our Internet remains OURS, not Barack Obama's?

Please, give us your support, right now, by faxing every Member of Congress.

Although the federal judiciary has extended First Amendment protection to the Internet, Barack Obama believes that he has the executive authority, WITHOUT legislation enacted by Congress, to arbitrarily regulate who uses cyberspace and what access they may enjoy, based entirely on the content of the material that they wish to publish there. If this isn't a violation of our basic rights as Americans, I do not know what is!

Pay Attention! Another GOP Betrayal Coming.

2010-10-23T13:39:00.004-04:00

"Republicans on the campaign trail are bashing the president and his agenda... Behind the scenes, key party members are talking a different game." - The Wall Street Journal

As I read the passage above in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, my eyebrows raised. But then my worst fears were confirmed when The Journal quoted Congressman Darrell Issa as saying: "It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise... They [the American people] want us to come together after we agree to disagree."

"It's pretty clear?" What is Congressman Issa, a generally reliable conservative, talking about? Have our conservative allies in Congress taken complete leave of their senses? Do they just not get it?

No, Congressman Issa. With all due respect, the American people do NOT want conservatives in Congress to use gridlock to "create compromise" on Barack Obama’s radical agenda. The American people want the socialist Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda STOPPED... PERIOD... END OF SENTENCE.

And yet, in spite of the wishes of the American people, once again, this dangerous urge to "compromise" with the opposition has reared its ugly head. It's clear that far too many of our self-proclaimed conservative leaders, yet again, need to be reminded about what the American people really want... And with the November elections right around the corner, it’s up to patriotic Americans like you and me to set them straight.

As President Ronald Reagan once said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

This Land is Your Land:

Engine Engine #9:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

2010-10-15T22:12:00.003-04:00

Below is a suggested act for those wonderful members of our legislative branch of government.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits. 12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(S), then go home and back to work.

Now, if some Congresscritter would just have the cajones to introduce such a bill!

Let's Misbehave:

‘Cash for Flunkers’

2010-08-15T11:19:00.003-04:00

House Minority Leader John Boehner has suggested several names for the new stimulus bill Democrats rammed through Congress last week none of them complimentary.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summoned lawmakers back from summer break and they voted 61 to 39 on Tuesday to approve the emergency $26 billion stimulus-type bill that Democrats said would save 300,000 jobs. President Obama immediately signed it into law.

But Democrats were in such a rush to pass the bill that on Sunday night, two days before the vote, the legislation still did not have a name.

Congress’ official website called it the “____ Act of ____,” and the Library of Congress referred to it as the “XXXXXX Act of XXXX.”

Republicans said the bill is an election-year gift to teachers and public workers unions, CNSNews reported.

“A nameless bill for a hopeless cause is a fitting metaphor for a Democratic Congress that refuses to listen to the American people and abandon its job-killing agenda,” said Boehner. The Ohio lawmaker referred to it as the “union-boss bailout” bill and offered several names for the legislation:

Save Our “Stimulus” (SOS) Act

“Recovery Summer” Bailout Act (Cash for Flunkers)

Delivering Unions a Major Boost (DUMB) Act

Helping Election Expenditures, Hurting American Workers (HEEHAW) Act

Democracy Is Strengthened by Clearly Leveraging and Optimizing Special-Interests' Effectiveness (DISCLOSE) Act

Rescuing Incumbent Democrats Is Costly (RIDIC) Act

Summertime Cash for Union Bosses Instead of Spending Cuts for Taxpayers Act

Frivolous Act of Ineffective Largesse (FAIL) Act

Naming These Things Hasn't Gotten Us Anywhere, So Why Bother Act

Boehner said, “The American people don’t want more Washington ‘stimulus’ spending especially in the form of a political season payoff to union bosses.”

Walking In Jerusalem

Silver Spurs (On The Golden Stairs)

2010-08-02T06:11:00.001-04:00

It appears that things ARE getting smaller (including my waistline, thankfully) and we have to pay more for it. Here is an example: The other day I was enjoying a Tootsie Roll Pop and I noticed that it was considerably smaller than what I was used to. Also there wasn’t as much Tootsie Roll inside.

Just a taste and that was all. Sticks of gum are smaller and fewer in a package; candy bars are smaller; ice cream cones are smaller. SMALLER, smaller, smaller.
This hasn’t just happened over-night. It has been slowly happening over the years. Oh well, I guess this is the coming thing. Now — don’t get me wrong — I’m not picking on only grocery items, but it seems that is the most noticeable commodity.
I don’t blame the grocery stores as they must sell what items they get — it’s the manufacturers and marketers who think that we won’t notice that things are getting shorter, smaller, not as many, and costing more. Packaging is another culprit that is trying to deceive us.
Larger or same size containers, but not as much inside like plastic jars that have an indentation on the bottom, to name one.
Here is a list of things that I noticed to be smaller and maybe you also have noticed these and other items.
• Crackers: No matter what kind of crackers you buy — they are smaller.
• Coffee: You used to be able to buy a pound (16 ounce) but now it is 11.5 ounces.
• Bar soap: Was 4.5 ounces but is now 4 ounces.
• Peanut butter: Was 18 ounces and is now 16.3 ounces.
• Toilet Paper: Rolls are shorter and not as wide. The core tube on which the paper is wound is larger, though. Woweee!
• Ice cream bars: They are smaller than they used to be.
• Cereals: Are the same price but their is less weight per box.
• Facial Tissue: A box used to have 100 sheets; now it has less.
• Pop/Soda: Comes in cases of 18, not 24, but at the same price.
• Sugar: Forever was in 5 lb bags now most are 4 lbs.
• Magazines and Newspapers: Yes, even the size of the print media is smaller.
Well, there you have it, but the more I think about that — smaller isn’t all bad. Smaller portions of food and drink, for example isn’t bad. Moderation is the key. Hey, I’m even smaller in size. I used to be 6' but now I am 5’11”
So does that make me the incredible shrinking man? I guess this is just a cranky old person that used to remember when things were larger and when you wanted a pound of coffee there was 16 ounces in the can.
They say that the “world is getting smaller” when the airplane began setting records of speed, and “good things come in small packages” was a saying years ago as was “smaller is better” (as in transistors and hearing aids and microscopic chips).
So, I guess, small is OK when you talk about those things.

Silver Spurs (On The Golden Stairs):

I Hang My Head And Cry:

The Need For Constitutional Sheriffs Now!

2010-07-07T06:07:00.001-04:00

"It is time for the sworn protectors of Liberty, the County Sheriffs, to walk tall and defend their citizens from all enemies of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights."

Americans are facing the stark reality that their Constitutional rights are being shredded. Nearly every action taken by the Federal government today violates the Constitution that sheriffs and the military have taken an oath to defend. The Sheriff may truly be the last hope for saving our constitutional Republic and our liberties.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in "The value of Constitutions", that "there is no honorable law enforcement authority in Anglo-American law so ancient as that of the county sheriff whose role as a peace officer goes back at least to the time of Alfred the Great."

The Office of the Sheriff has existed for over one thousand years and is the oldest law enforcement position in the United States. The word Sheriff is derived from the "Shire-Reeve" (who was the most powerful English law authority figure). Throughout history, the sheriff was recognized as the chief law enforcement officer in his shire or county, and was responsible for maintaining law and order and being an officer of the peace.

The County Sheriff is elected by, for, and of the People, and is our last line of defense against an oppressive and over-reaching government and tyranny. The Sheriffs are powerful executors of the law, and the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution.

In 1775, Edmund Burke declared, "Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny." By that definition, we have tyranny today. Thousands of new laws are being shoved down our throats, and most bear little resemblance to the Constitution. Indeed, the very essence of tyranny is defined by the blind enforcement of bad laws. A Sheriff has the power, the authority, and the responsibility to resist tyranny and unconstitutional laws and actions.

Our founders understood that Liberty was our most important asset to defend. Samuel Adams said,"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks."

The New American magazine article, "Sheriffs Oppose Encroachment of Federal Agents Into Their Jurisdictions", stated: "There are dozens of candidates for sheriff nationwide who share [the] view on the supremacy of state government and the constitutional locus of police power. These lawmen read the Constitution and nowhere in it do they find authorization for the federalization of law enforcement. In fact, they argue, the Constitution's federal system endows local police with greater authority than any federal agent when it comes to enforcing the laws in their counties."

The article continued with, "... the sheriffs and sheriff candidates ... firmly assert their preeminence in the field of law enforcement. Their principle premise is that as sheriffs are the highest elected law-enforcement agent in the land and they are directly answerable to the voters and chosen by them, then they stand on the top rung of the police ladder. Federal officials, they argue, are not on the ladder at all, as the Constitution does not endow the federal government with police power and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves that right to the states and to the people.

In 1994, Sheriff Richard Mack stood up to the Federal government and filed a lawsuit to stop the "Brady bill" that was signed into law by President Clinton. Six other sheriffs from around the country joined the lawsuit. On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady bill was in fact unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding [Mack/Printz v. USA]. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, stating, "The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program."

In 2005, a bill (HB 284) was introduced in the Montana State Legislature which required the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provided not only for pre-notification, but that the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed. Every state legislature should draft a similar bill for their next session.

In his book titled, "The County Sheriff -- America’s Last Hope", Sheriff Richard Mack wrote: "If we are to get America back, if we are indeed to return to the constitutional Republic we were meant to be, then it will be up to us, the sheriffs of America... who have the guts and dedication to tell the feds that we will no longer tolerate their intervention, control, meddling, mandates, or criminal behavior."

The Sheriff is the chief law enforcement authority in our county, and he is elected by the ultimate power source, We The People. It is time for us to elect County Sheriffs who will walk tall and defend their citizens from all enemies of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The future of our constitutional Republic may depend on it.

Seminole Wind:

Dead Skunk:

Welcome to Maywood, Mexifornia, home of Reconquista!

2010-07-01T06:43:00.000-04:00

Boasting a population that is 97% Hispanic, more than half foreign born, and 40% illegal, the Los Angeles County, California incorporated city of Maywood has achieved the Reconquista Goal.

It is now as lawless and chaotic as any place in Mexico. Maywood is a dire warning to every city and town in America. The Maywood City Council announced this week that after years of radical policies, corruption and scandal, the city was broke and all city employees will be laid off and essential city services contracted out to neighboring cities or to L.A. County government.

How did this happen? Until recently, Maywood was the model for “brown power” politics! Maywood was the first California city with an elected Hispanic City Council, one of the first “sanctuary” cities for illegal aliens, the first city to pass a resolution calling for a boycott of Arizona after that state passed a law to enforce federal immigration laws, the first California city to order its police department not to enforce state laws requiring drivers to have licenses to drive, the first American city to call on Congress to grant amnesty to all illegals.

Council meetings were conducted in Spanish. Maywood was the leader in the peaceful, democratic achievement of the La Raza goal to take power in the U.S. The City of Maywood started out quite differently. Back after World War II, Maywood was a booming blue-collar town with good jobs, a multi-ethnic suburb of Los Angeles.

On the 25th anniversary in 1949 of Maywood’s incorporation as a city, the town celebrated with a beard-growing contest, a rodeo, and wrestling matches in City Park. Chrysler operated an assembly plant there until 1971.

But the early 1970s saw these industrial jobs in aerospace, auto and furniture manufacturing, and food processing evaporate under the pressure of higher taxes, increased local and state regulation, and the attraction of cheaper land and cheaper labor elsewhere.

The multi-ethnic Maywood of the post-war years was transformed in the ’80s and ’90s by wave after wave of Hispanic immigrants, most of them illegal. In August 2006, a “Save Our State” anti-illegal immigration rally in Maywood drew hundreds of protesters-but a larger number of defenders of illegal immigration. The pro-illegal protesters carried signs which read “We are Indigenous ! The ONLY owners of this Continent!” and “Racist Pilgrims Go Home” and “All Europeans are Illegal Here.”

According to newspaper reports at the time, objectors to illegal aliens were subject to physical attacks. A 70-year-old man was “slashed,” a woman attacked, and cars vandalized. Pro-illegal demonstrators raised the Mexican flag at the U.S.Post Office, taking the American flag down!

The illegal population and their sympathizers became increasingly radicalized. Elections to the City Council saw “assimilationist” incumbent Hispanic council members ousted by La Raza supporting radical challengers.

For years, the Maywood City Council authorized police checkpoints to stop drunk driving. Drivers without licenses had their cars impounded. Illegals in California cannot get drivers licenses. By 2005, the number of such impounds were in the hundreds. A community campaign was launched forcing the City Council to suspend the checkpoints.

Cars were still being impounded whenever a police traffic-violation stop resulted in a driver without a license. Felipe Aguirre, a community activist with Comite Pro-Uno, an “immigration service center,” coordinated a new campaign against any impounds. He was elected in 2005 to the City Council. He is the mayor of Maywood today.

Aguirre and a new majority of the council dismantled the Traffic Department. Illegals were given overnight-parking permits and impounds stopped. You didn’t need a license to drive in Maywood.

The Los Angeles Times wrote glowingly of this “progress” in a story entitled “Welcome to Maywood, Where Roads Open Up For Immigrants”.

The Maywood Police Department was restructured by the new council. A new chief and new officers were hired. Later it turned out that many of the new officers had previously been fired from other law enforcement agencies for a variety of reasons.

The Maywood P.D. was known as the “Department of Second Chances.”

Among those hired was a former L.A. Sheriff’s deputy terminated for abusing jail inmates; a former LAPD officer fired for intimidating a witness; and an ex-Huntington Park officer charged with negligently discharging a handgun and driving drunk. Even the L.A. Times called the Maywood Police Department a “haven for misfit cops.” Their story alleged that a veteran officer was extorting sex from relatives of a criminal fugitive; that another officer tried to run over the president of the Maywood Police Commission; and that another officer has impregnated a teenage police-explorer scout.

Charges of corruption and favoritism led to one recall of city council members and threats of more recalls are heard to this day. Maywood is represented in the state Senate by Democrats “One Bill” Gil Cedillo. He earned the nickname by introducing every year in the state legislature a bill to grant drivers licenses to illegals. Maywood is represented in Congress by Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard, a staunch advocate of amnesty for illegals.

Today, Maywood is FLAT broke. Its police department dismantled along with all other city departments and personnel. Only the city council remains and a city manager to manage the contracts with other agencies for city services in Maywood.

Maywood is the warning of what happens when illegal immigrants, resisting assimilation as Americans, bring with their growing numbers the corruption and the radical politics of their home countries. Add the radical home-grown anti-Americanism of Hispanic “leaders” and groups like La Raza and you get schools where learning is replaced with indoctrination, business and jobs replaced by welfare and gangs, and a poisonous stew of entitlement politics.

In too many American communities, this sad tale is becoming all too familiar.

Fox On The Run:

Anchor Babies: Is Citizenship an Entitled Birthright?

2010-05-28T20:27:00.003-04:00

Whenever immigration is discussed, advocates of immigration (legal and illegal) make the claim that immigrants actually aid the US economy. While that claim can be debated, nobody can claim that "anchor babies" provide a boost to the US economy. Anchor babies are babies of immigrants that are born in the US. Based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, these babies are granted immediate US citizenship.

Some parents come legally as temporary visitors but others enter illegally. In either case anchor babies are granted immediate US citizenship. Immigration officials seldom initiate deportation proceedings against illegal aliens with anchor babies, so they simply remain here illegally. After all what heartless bureaucrat would deport illegal immigrant parents and separate them from their newborn?

Since anchor babies are considered citizens they instantly qualify for public welfare which means they gain access to free medical care, schools, housing, food stamps, and all the other benefits of our welfare state. While the anchor babies do not provide immediate citizenship to the alien family, they do provide an anchor for that family - hence the name anchor baby.

Granting automatic birthright citizenship is a huge magnet that attracts immigrants from all over the world. It is estimated that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States are babies born to immigrants. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 requires that hospitals and doctors treat the uninsured mother and baby without reimbursement. That means the taxpayers pick up the tab. California is even more generous. So it's no surprise that 60% of babies born in LA community hospitals are born to illegal immigrants.

How did all this nonsense get started?

In post Civil War America, politicians wanted to amend the Constitution to address injustices to the black slaves. The 14th Amendment was intended to provide citizenship to those that had endured slavery. The Amendment states in part, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Unfortunately too many self serving politicians and advocates for illegal immigrants ignore an important phrase in the Amendment. That phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

To understand the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment we need to understand what the co-author of the amendment wrote about the Amendment. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard wrote, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship.

The US Supreme Court recognized this when they ruled in 1873 that the phrase (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." Since the court recognized that the children of foreign citizens and diplomats should not be granted US citizenship, why should anyone think that the children of those that enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government? The simple answer is no thinking person would. The anchor baby parents are neither US citizens, subject to US jurisdiction, nor do they owe any allegiance to the US. Federal immigration laws require aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign government and to support the US Constitution to become citizens. The parents of anchor babies never fulfilled this obligation and were never "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.

Both the author of the 14th Amendment and the US Supreme Court recognized that an alien mother and her baby are subject to the jurisdiction of their native country - not the US. The 14th Amendment wasn't created to provide an end run for aliens to defy US immigration laws. But politicians have subverted the Constitution and allowed citizenship to any child born in the US. This misinterpretation is not accidental - it is intentional. An error of this magnitude could not be accidental.

The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S. style policy in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today. Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread fraud? Several members of Congress have recognized that the 14th Amendment has been misapplied and was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to anchor babies. But when the issue is addressed, advocates for illegal immigrants will claim that they are racists and want to punish the children.

The anchor babies have become the justification for the entire extended alien family to stay in the US. This insanity will continue until the Congress has the intestinal fortitude to clarify the ignored phrase and deny citizenship to those that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

How Many Gallons have spewed into the Gulf?

2010-05-26T15:25:00.001-04:00