Saturday, January 1, 2011

Progressives vs Thomas Jefferson

The Government
Thomas Jefferson had several thoughts about government. He believed that government was chartered to do five things, as follows:
  • Government should acknowledge and adore God. If they don't they will not understand unalienable rights and the need to defend them.

  • Government should exercise frugality. Government should avoid waste in spending, demonstrate frugality of power and authority. They should not spend us into oblivion.

  • Government should encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise. The government should encourage prosperity through supporting free markets.

  • Government should restrain the infliction of injury. The government exists to keep the evil power-hungry, greedy people under control and not regulate the good people or control their lives.

  • The government should protect property and earnings of its citizens - not take it from them. The money you earn is YOUR prosperity just like your house and your land.

These are the main reasons government exists. We the People are in charge of all three branches of the government - not the other way around.

Progressive Views
Progressives believe that they know what's best for you. The hate the Constitution. They want to be in charge of YOUR lives.
  • They do NOT recognize unalienable rights. Many do not believe in God and cannot understand Natural Laws - or they chose not to. They believe that Big Government creates "rights" and citizens get them from the government.

  • Progressives are all about Power. The more they get, the more they want. The don't understand "Frugality" and they love to spend other people's money. They don't earn it, they take it fron citizens and spend it the way they think "best." They like to "redistribute wealth."

  • Progressives HATE the free market and Capitalism because they are Marxists. They want to destroy Capitalism and crush the free market - including small businesses. They want you to work for the "collective" instead.

  • Progressives believe that the government can, will and should inflict injury to those who they deem deserve their wrath. They decide who's too big to fail and reward them with bailouts and special favors. They punish the rest with taxes, fees, and regulations to control their behavior.

  • Progressives love taxes. They literally "steal" from whoever they want and tyr to re-distribute it because they know what's best.

Look At Where We Are
We have come a long way from the direction our Founding Fathers set for us with using the Constitution. We have been under attack slowly over time. Look at American History. It's all there for you to discover. History DOES repeat itself.

Which way does the present government lean? What does the present government try to tell you? What freedoms have we lost under this administration? Are you better off now that they have taken control?

Be fearful, because they want even more than they have today.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Guest Article - Progressive Giving - Ha!

By Ann Coulter - Columnist and commentator.

"Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37)

This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.

The Obamas' charitable giving is equally divided between "hope" and "change."

George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.

Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million -- more than twice as much as President Bush's $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's.

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total -- all 10 years combined -- of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.

Of course, even in Biden's stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, "Makers and Takers."

To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry's charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.

He also dropped a $5 bill in the Salvation Army pail and almost didn't ask for change.

In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity -- about a day's take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the '70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity -- or, as Schweizer says, "about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh." (Cash tips to bartenders and cocktail waitresses are not considered charitable donations.)

The Democratic base gives to charity as their betters do. At the same income, a single mother on welfare is seven times less likely to give to charity than a working poor family that attends religious services.

In 2006 and 2007, John McCain, who files separately from his rich wife, gave 27.3 percent and 28.6 percent of his income to charity.

In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.

In a single year, Schweizer reports, Rush Limbaugh "gave $109,716 to 'various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses,' $52,898 to 'children's case management organizations,' including 'various programs to benefit families in need,' $35,100 for 'Alzheimer's community care -- day care for families in need,' and $40,951 for air conditioning units and heaters delivered to troops in Iraq."

(Rush also once gave $50 to Maxine Waters after mistaking her for a homeless person.)

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold tickertape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:2-4)

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them."

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Defend Free Speech at All Cost

Free Speech
Here are the words of Benjamin Franklin regarding his thoughts on free speech:

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know. This sacred privilege is so essential to free governments that the security of property and the freedom of speech always go together; and in those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech...

The administration of government is nothing else but the attendance of the trustees of the people upon the interest and affairs of the people; and as it is the part and sake alone all public matters are ought to be transacted, so be the ambition of all honest magistrates to have their deeds openly examined and publicly scanned. Only the wicked governors of men dread what is said of them."

Why the Concerns? This is America!
Pay attention Americans! Your free speech is under attack from this administration and now the United Nations! The FCC has "regulated" Net Neutrality so they can control the content of the Internet news. Now the United Nations is also making a play to control the Internet. They must all be stopped or freedom will be dead. Speak now or forevermore hold your peace. Defend your God given rights or loose them to posterity!

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Big Government Always Fails

Big Government Will Help Me
This is a fallacy! If you think that relying on the government is the answer to solving YOUR problems, take a hard look at New York City as the perfect example of Big Government in action. Citizens are screaming that the Sanitation Union is NOT getting their job done clearing the roads. New York streets are still impassable four days after the blizzard.

Citizens may have a valid point. There have been accusations that the Sanitation Union is slowing down and milking the overtime. Recall Rahm Emanual's remarks that "you can't pass up a good crisis." (In other words - use this emergency as an excuse to get more paid overtime at the expense of the people). Since it is next to impossible to fire a union employee, there may be some truth to the rumor. One thing for sure, the response to the snowfall was totally inadequate. Another thing is that it proves that the government was NOT capable of dealing with this problem in a timely manner.

People Are Dying
"Dial 911 and DIE" by Richard W. Stevens is a must read book because it describes why you cannot rely on the government to save you in times of disaster. Unfortunately people in New York are finding this out the hard way. Here are a few examples:
  • Side roads remain unplowed causing traffic jams of horrendous proportions.

  • NYC subway lines are still inoperative and remain suspended making commuters unable to get into/out of the city.

  • Major airports (although cleared), are running behind with hundreds of passengers waiting for service that they may now be leaving the City until NEXT YEAR!

  • A newborn baby died after the parents called 911 and waited 9 hours before the city responded to their emergency.

  • A woman living in Brooklyn waited over 30 hours after calling an ambulance before it arrived.

  • There are few publicized stories about the Police Department responses, but you can bet they aren't good either.

Meanwhile the government officials are making a plethora of excuses ranging from "There were too many people on the streets..." to blaming their poor response on "Mother Nature." How lame is that?

The shocking truth is that Big Government cannot take care of you - ESPECIALLY in an emergency. YOU have to be prepared to step forward and be responsible for yourself and your family! If not, you could die waiting for the government!

Action To Take
Get educated quickly. Learn how to face Armageddon by yourself. Attend a Survival Seminar. If you were a Tea Party Member or joined the 911 Project, you would already have had this training available! Get a book on survival. Learn about food storage. Don't just be the victim when the SHXT hits the fan!

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

How Progressive is Your Rep?

A Non-Partisan Approach to Voting
The next time you vote you should know whether your existing Representative or Senator has a voting record that supports the Progressive (Socialist/Marxist) agenda. Happy Days! Now there is a tool that actually examines the voting records as reported, and ranks them accordingly in a non-biased way. Too bad you didn't have this in November huh? is a non-partisan website that contains a searchable database of Congressional voting records. Before you get all turned-off. STOP! It's easy to use and will be a big help to you in tracking your representatives. The higher the overall score, the more Progressive they are.

It shows you the performance and voting record of Congress for 160 different categories. You can get as much (or little) of the details as you want. You choose what to drill-down to find info on what matters most to YOU!

This is a free service and will show you whether your representatives are voting the way you want them to vote on the issues that concern you the most. it also helps you keep up with them so you can follow how they are voting on YOUR behalf!

How It Works
There are three ways to use the site, as follows:

1) Search by Members of Congress - Select your Representative or Senator and see how they are ranked overall. Then drill-down on specific issues.

2) Search by Issue Choose an issue category and see their voting results. Simple!

3) Search by Roll Call VoteChoose Senate or House, the year, and the number of the roll-call vote. Wa-lah, the results!

Action To Take
Try it, you'll like it! Go ahead and click the link above and try the website. Mark it in your browser as a bookmark or favorite site. Use it often! Be sure and tell friends and neighbors.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Death Panels Return!

US Constitution
The new Congress will be treated with a reading of the US Constitution as part of the opening ceremonies. Excellent! However, someone better send a copy to Obama because although he's supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar, he does NOT KNOW THE CONSTITUTION because he defies and violates it all the time!

End Run
This President thinks that he's above the law of the land. When he tried to pass legislation to control the Internet, there weren't enough votes. So he wrote a presidential Directive and the courts knocked that down. So then he ordered (or his FCC Czar Mark Llyod) the FCC to "regulate" the Internet. Recall, the FCC is Violating the Constitution because it "regulates" speech and content over the airwaves. Their latest takeover is Net Neutrality (Fairness Doctrine for the Internet to control news and other content).

Now Obama is resurrecting DEATH PANELS for the aged! Remember, these are the panels that "advise" the elderly on how they should die and avoid expensive treatments to save the government money. Of course Americans were told by the Progressives that there were no such things in ObamaCare.

Well, they are coming back thanks to Obama! He wants Death Panels and is going to write a Presidential Directive that will implement this into ObamaCare. His administration is busy pressing forward to enact measures on "end-of-life-planning" which is a euphemism for DEATH Panel! (The government decides whether you receive treatment or not). Funny, that when the law is passed a Presidential Directive cannot be "passed" to alter it's meaning or content. Apparently, Obama and his cronies never read or don't care about the Constitution. They just do as they Damn please. If no one complains, they get away with the violation. Don't let them get away with this underhanded behavior. Hold the ALL accountable.

Action To Take
Start complaining loud and clearly that you do NOT WANT ANY MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE DEATH PANELS! Tell Congress to enact legislation that reduces these abused Presidential Directives. And tell Congress to Repeal ObamaCare because it is unconstitutional as well.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Guest Article - Internet Takeover

Save the Net - Abolish the FCC

By David Harsanyi: A columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State

"Because there exists no area of human activity that couldn't benefit from more paternalistic attention ... Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Federal Communications Commission to your Web browser.

Congressional Democrats cannot find the votes to pass "network neutrality." No problem. Three unelected officials will impose rules on hundreds of millions of satisfied online consumers. A federal appeals court stops the FCC from employing authority over the Internet. Again, not a problem. Three out of five FCC commissioners can carve out some temporary wiggle room, because, as any crusading technocrat knows, the most important thing is getting in the door.

It's not that we don't need the FCC's meddling (or worse); it's that we don't need the FCC at all. Rather than expanding the powers—which always seem to grow—of this outdated bureaucracy, Congress should be finding ways to eliminate it.

Why would we want a prehistoric bureaucracy overseeing one of the past century's great improvements? As a bottom-up, unregulated, and "under-taxed" market in which technological innovation, free speech, and competition thrive—at affordable prices, no less—the Internet poses a crisis of ideology, not commerce, for the FCC.

It's about control and relevance. What else can explain the proactive rescue of the Web from capitalistic abuses that reside exclusively in the imaginations of a handful of progressive ideologues?

What is the FCC doing? It's complicated, and in some ways, it's irrelevant. It claims that regulatory power will ensure that consumers enjoy an "open Internet." (With more broadband providers than ever, is there anything more open than the Internet?) But the FCC can censor speech. And once the FCC can regulate Internet service providers, those providers will be more compliant and more interested in making censors happy.

The FCC also can hand out favors that hurt competition. And as Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in 2008, "economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead."

Even as Chairman Julius Genachowski claims that he will employ a "light touch," the FCC leaves open the possibility that it will use the Title II docket to classify broadband as a public utility—and, as you know, nothing says progress and modernization like "utility."

The same organization that forced all consumers to buy Ma Bell-made telephones for decades, the same FCC that enforced speech codes via radio "fairness doctrines," the same FCC that took two decades after its invention to OK cellular technology for the marketplace and acted similarly sluggishly with cable and satellite innovation has no business online. It has a history of hurting consumers, not protecting them. (Unless you need protection from fleeting expletives and the once-a-decade nipple controversy.)

It is likely that a new Congress—or perhaps the courts—will undo this regulatory power play. And though "net neutrality," or "open Internet" (no one needs to worry; doublespeak is still flourishing), may not survive, it reminds us that the FCC's institutional positions conflict with the vibrancy and freedom of the Internet.

Positions that are as archaic as they are detrimental."

Great Article - But...
This is a great article. However, it omits one important fact. The FCC is AGAINST the LAW! Created by Progressive President FDR, the Telecommunications Act of 1934 violates the 1st Amendment because the FCC "regulates" content AND speech over the airwaves! Has anyone ever challenged this? It is totally AGAINST the US Constitution and the FCC should be ABOLISHED!!