Saturday, September 17, 2011

Basterdized Language Changes

Political Correctness
Ever notice how Secular Progressives are changing our language? They call it "Political Correctness." In essence, if one person objects to a word for ANY frigin' reason, they get a free pass to change our entire culture or tradition so THEY won't be offended any longer. The hell with American traditions, American history, or the Founding Fathers. It's OK if the one person complaining offends the rest of AMERICA! We can go screw!

Ironically, we have let the Progressives have THEIR WAY and they are making serious progress in changing our language. The best way to prove this allegation is to supply several examples. So here goes.

Examples of Secular Language Changes
  • Christ's Mass is now Christmas of Xmas

  • Christmas Holiday is now Winter Break

  • Easter Holiday is now Spring Break

  • Gregorian calendar is now the Civil calendar

  • Holy Day is now holiday

  • Resurrection Sunday is now Easter

  • Saint Patrick's Day is now referred to as Paddy's Day

  • Saint Valentine's Day is now just Valentine's Day

  • The Reverend Martin Luther King Day is now called MLK Day

  • Washington's Birthday is now called President's Day

More Examples
Other examples are as follows:
  • Pagan is now Secular

  • Perversion is now diversity

  • Act of God is now a natural disaster

  • Bible study is now Fundamentalism

  • God is now referred to as a higher power

  • Heathen is now multicultural

  • Holy matrimony is now civil union

  • Husband or wife is now the significant other

  • Islamic terrorist is now man-made-disaster

  • Rebuke is now hatespeach

  • Sodomite is now a gay or lesbian

  • Terrorist is now called a freedom fighter

  • Homosexual is now gay

  • Abortion is now birth control

  • God willing is now hopefully

  • Thank heavens is now thank goodness

  • God be with you is now good luck or goodbye

  • Thanksgiving is now turkey day

  • Independence Day is now the Fourth of July

  • Merry Christmas is now season's greetings

  • Anti-life is now pro-choice

  • Adultery is now fooling around

  • Curse is now bad luck

  • One nation under God is now one nation

  • Thank the Lord is now give thanks

  • Welfare is now social justice

You get the idea. The list goes on and on. That's OUR fault! This is a deliberate attempt to modify OUR language and manipulate it to become more Secular. This is just a lot of CRAP and we should NOT put up with it any longer. Why should one complaint change American history? Tell the Progressives to take a hike and "talk to the hand." We are ALL sick-and -tired of their political correctness BS and won't put up with it any more!

Friday, September 16, 2011

Hold Them Accountable

Make Their Oath Mean Something
We as legal US citizens have little recourse when our Congressional representatives IGNORE their oath of office and violate the Constitution. For example: Voting in favor of the Patriot Act. This act removes several God-given freedoms and bashes the 1st and 4th Amendments.

To date, we can just sit-back and watch them violate their oaths without any consequences. However, there is a new movement afoot which strives to make our representatives be accountable or face punishment.

Constitutional Enforcement
Finally we have a way to have our voices heard. There is an "Oath Accountability Civil Action for Constitutional Integrity" being signed by your fellow patriots. It requires that all members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches abide by their respective oaths of office to "support and defend" the Constitution under penalty of law.

This civil action is predicated on three questions:
  • Have you abided by your oath as according to the language in Article II, Section 1, and Article VI, clause 3?

  • Do all members comport with our Constitution's prescribed method for amendment as specified in Article V, rather than disregard that Constitutional prescription in favor of legislative actions based upon judicial diktats redefining those limits in accordance with the errant so-called "living Constitution"?

  • (If the above two questions are answered "NO") then does this breach of oath constitute a breach of trust with the American people?

Action to Take
Please register you support towards this effort. We need as many supporters as possible in order to change the current abuse of powers. You can register your support at this link.
Please tell others to follow suit.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

New Propaganda Site

Obama Never Quits Trying
Obama has opened a new website. It's purpose is summed up in this statement: "The smears didn't end with the 2008 election." Its sponsored by Obama for America. This is an Anti-Conservative website who's sole purpose is to try and neutralize the FACTS about Obama's record as a politician. It serves as damage control for Obama.

It directly attacks Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. It is pure propaganda with a HARD HARD LEFT SLANT. They want volunteers to report things to them. If you "see something, say something" so they can neutralize the opposition before it causes any more damage to the Cloward & Piven President.

Articles for Reading
The website contains articles on the following:
  • How Obama has strengthened our borders.

  • "Obama is a friend of Israel."

  • "Obama believes in common sense gun laws..." (ignoring his voting record)

  • TARP was passed by Bush - NOT OBAMA so it's NOT Obama's fault that TARP was a disaster.

  • Obama was born in America... He's a citizen...

  • Obama has saved millions of jobs in America (ignoring the weekly job losses and 9% unemployment for 30 months.)

  • "ObamaCare promotes affordable healthcare" for all (at the expense of senior citizens)
  • Obama is eliminating "outdated regulations" with NEW ones.

If You Want More of This CRAP
See for yourself. Visit Read the propaganda for yourselves. CAUTION: If you are Conservative, this may increase your blood pressure. Beware of this website. Understand its purpose. Know why they are promoting it. Then read it. Judge for yourself.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Guest Article - Obama's BAD Policies

Obama's Crony Capitalism
by Barton Hinkle of Reason magazine

"...Fourteen months ago, the president was using his sonorous baritone to deliver soaring rhetoric about how his policies helped launch that now-broke company, which made cylindrical solar panels. The administration fast-tracked Solyndra's loan guarantee through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—i.e. the stimulus—perhaps because Solyndra's principal backers just happened to have donated huge sums to the Obama election campaign. Washington guaranteed more than a half-billion in loans to Solyndra on the promise of 4,000 jobs.

"This new factory is the result of those loans," the president said at the Fremont, Calif., facility—a facility The Washington Post termed a "signature project of President Obama's initiative to help create clean-energy jobs." The result of those loans now? Solyndra has shut its doors, its 1,100 former employees are jobless, and the taxpayers are on the hook for perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.

Viewed in isolation, the Solyndra story is mildly troubling. But it is nothing Washington has not seen before. The late, great columnist Molly Ivins wrote some crackerjack pieces about the return on investment that corporate sharpies used to get from their campaign donations to Republican politicians. The Solyndra story sounds like the same old, same old.

Except it isn't. The Solyndra story encapsulates a much bigger issue than mere crony capitalism, bad as that is. Because Solyndra is not alone. The Obama administration has sunk billions into loan guarantees for dozens of other renewable-energy companies as well.

This is known as the political allocation of economic resources, and it entails all kinds of problems. The first and most basic: It's wrong. Government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

Problem No. 2: corruption. When government puts its massive thumb on the market scale, corporations have a huge incentive to try to win government's favor. Hence: campaign contributions and lobbyists galore. Progressives who want to keep money out of politics should help libertarians build a high wall between economy and state.

Problem No. 3: the distortion of market incentives. Although federal policy was far from the only reason for the recent housing bubble and crash, it played a significant role. And even when market intervention does not produce a crash, it can still produce a creature like the Chevy Volt—an electric vehicle for which there is zero demand despite a whopping $7,500 federal tax credit for purchase—or Cash for Clunkers. That idea, now universally derided, seemed bright at the time, at least to some. In retrospect, it seems as smart as paying people to burn down their houses to stimulate demand for new ones.

Such market distortion shifts resources from more productive to less productive purposes, which inevitably produces less prosperity—fewer jobs at lower pay. Want evidence? See last month's New York Times story "Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises," which concluded: "Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show,." For the Times to concede that government intervention in pursuit of progressive political goals has not worked is like National Review criticizing a Republican. The proof has to be overwhelming.

The fourth problem inherent in the political allocation of economic resources is the biggest: The underlying assumption that it is a good thing because politicians and bureaucrats have more knowledge, wisdom and virtue than everyone else.

But they do not. First, there is simply no way a government of even leviathan proportions can know more about, say, Joe's Auto Parts than Joe himself does. To think it can know more about the entire auto industry than the industry itself is absurd. Repeat this formula for all other industries.

Government and politicians also like to think they know what is best for America. Energy Secretary Steven Chu epitomized this attitude when he argued for new lightbulb standards by saying, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money." (The morons.) But since America is simply the sum of all the citizens who live in it, then to say the government knows what is best for the country is to say the government knows more about what is best for Abigail Anderson of 423 Morris Lane, Wilmington, Del., than Ms. Anderson does herself—and likewise for each of America's other 311 million citizens. Absurd.

Then there is the notion that government action proceeds from a place of virtue because politicians are not motivated by self-interest. Instead, like shepherds tending the flock, they seek only to protect the sheep (stupid and helpless creatures that they are) from the wolves at the edge of the clearing. It is a flattering conceit, and has no more to do with reality than an LSD trip.

It is not disinterested altruism that makes Obama think he can reshape the energy sector for the better, or conjure up jobs where employers do not want them. Such beliefs stem from unbridled hubris. And the result of hubris can be summed up in one word: Solyndra."

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Guest Article - Perry's Chances

Perry Walks the 3rd Rail
by Dick Morris

"Rick Perry was cruising in the Wednesday GOP presidential debate. He had weathered a sharp exchange with Mitt Romney over job creation and made the point well that his record as governor was better than Mitt’s. Romney’s counter – that his experience as a businessman makes him better able to create jobs than Perry’s life in politics – may eventually nullify Perry’s edge, but its got a way to go.

Then Rick stepped on the third rail – he called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme”, a “failed program”, and said it was a “monstrous lie” that young people would collect retirement benefits from the system. He might as well have come out against motherhood and apple pie. Whether you agree with Perry or not, who wants to spend the entire fall season of 2012 defending his Social Security comments. Obama and the Democrats are famous for creating issues that don’t exist. Look at how all Democratic candidates in 2010 campaigned against Congressman Paul Ryan’s roadmap proposals to cut Medicare when they were not yet in play in Congress.

Polling shows that Republican primary voters this year are very sophisticated and are much more interested in finding a candidate who can beat Obama than in finding one that suits every bit of their ideological convictions. Hence, Romney’s dalliance with an individual mandate for buying health insurance in Massachusetts does not make him radioactive in the GOP primary. As long as he can win.

Perry could have easily sidestepped the question and distanced himself from his remarks in his book on the subject. He could have said that perhaps he was overly heated in his rhetoric in using the terms “Ponzi scheme” and underscored his support for George W. Bush-style reforms in the system. But, no way. He surged right ahead and embraced his former words. Now he owns them for all time.

Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? It was sold politically as a form of social insurance where the “premiums” paid each year of a working person’s life were saved up and entitled him to retirement benefits. To underscore this point, FDR started collecting Social Security taxes in 1937 but did not distribute benefits until 1941.

But, under the weight of the automatic cost of living adjustments started under Nixon, the benefits have long outstripped the amounts that have been paid in by each retiree. Social Security functions like any other cash transfer program, taking from younger generations and paying the money to the older ones. The collected payroll tax deductions of the average retiree account for only a small part of his total pension. In that sense it is a Ponzi scheme – it sells itself as a savings and investment plan but it uses each new generations’ revenues to fund the older one’s benefits.

But it’s a Ponzi scheme with the power to tax. If Bernie Madoff had that capability, he wouldn’t be in jail today. A Ponzi scheme is only bad when the new money dries up. With the power to tax, it need never do so.

Is Social Security a failure? Hell no! It is the most successful anti-poverty program of all time. From FDR’s second inaugural where he said that one-third of the nation was “ill clothed, ill housed, and ill fed” until the early 60s when Michael Harrington alerted the nation to its high poverty level, the elderly constituted about half of America’s poor. Now there is no such thing as an impoverished senior citizen and our poverty rate has dropped from one-third to one-eighth, largely due to Social Security (and partly due to welfare reform).

Now Perry is flying in the face of the deeply held opinions of the entire American electorate. Rasmussen Reports shows that only 17% of Americans agree that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Rick Perry would do well to side with the 83%, not the 17% if he wants to get elected."

Monday, September 12, 2011

Why I'm in the Tea Party Movement

Here is a list of the reasons why I'm a member of the Tea Party movement. I'm in the Tea Party and write a daily blog because I believe;

  • The Founding of America was inspired by God.

  • We have God-given rights.

  • We are over taxed and have little or NO voice in government.

  • In the Bill of Rights.

  • The Federal Government is too large and too corrupted.

  • Congress should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.

  • Congress should have term limits.

  • English should be the National language.

  • That ILLEGAL ALIENS should NOT receive amnesty.

  • In Capitalism and Free Markets.

As you can see none of the things listed indicate that I am a terrorist, a homophobe, or a racist, or religious fanatic. I love America and I do not like the direction that we are going in today. We elected a man who is following Cloward & Piven and deliberately trying to collapse our economy. He wants to "fundamentally change America" HIS WAY - not the American way.

America is strong. It takes more than one mis-directed man to bring this country down. As a Tea Party member, I pledge NOT to let that ever happen and to protect freedom and liberty. We should all take that stand and ensure that this mistake gets corrected in a non-violent way so our children and grand children have the same or better life than we have.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Guest Article - Obama's Job Collapse Plan

Obama's Green Jobs Hoax

"The term "green jobs" (a.k.a. "green-energy jobs" or "green-collar jobs") refers to employment in industries dedicated to the decarbonization of the economy; i.e., less reliance on energy derived from fossil fuels, and more reliance on "sustainable" and "renewable" energy sources like the wind and the sun. Apollo Alliance chairman Phil Angelides, a venture capitalist who was the (unsuccessful) Democratic candidate for governor of California in 2006, defines a "green job" as follows: "It has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment."

For Angelides and his allies the definition of a "green-collar job" extends still further, to include virtually anything that theoretically will foster a cleaner future for America -- i.e., jobs in the public-transit sector, in "green building," and in energy efficiency of all types. In this model, a traditional blue-collar job such as automobile manufacturing becomes a green-collar job if the product is a hybrid vehicle rather than an SUV.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama pledged to spend $150 billion over 10 years to create 5 million new "green-collar jobs." Fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton likewise used that term repeatedly during her campaign, promising that her energy plan would create millions of new "green" employment opportunities as well. Republican John McCain, too, assured voters that the decarbonization of the U.S. economy would ultimately produce "thousands, millions of new jobs in America."

In practice, however, efforts to create large numbers of green jobs have had severe economic repurcussions wherever they have been implemented, most notably in Spain, Italy, Germany, and Denmark. In his February 2011 article, "The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience," environmental scientist Kenneth P. Green writes that "green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy." Contrary to President Obama's claim that green-job initiatives "will help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations," Green points out that "countries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren't sustainable and they are obscenely expensive."

Green further debunks Obama's claim that if Americans will "invest" more in green jobs, "the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition." Writes Green:

"It is well understood, among economists, that governments do not 'create' jobs. The willingness of entrepreneurs to invest their capital, paired with consumer demand for goods and services, does that. All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others. In the green case, it is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector -- and most likely in other industrial sectors -- through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs 'created' are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs.... [F]orcing green energy on the market [is] much, much more expensive. Using Spain as a model, when you do the math, you realize that creating 3 million new green jobs could cost $2.25 trillion."

As the libertarian political commentator John Stossel explains, green energy's economic inefficiency is due to the fact that its success depends entirely on "the government substitut[ing] force and taxation for consent and free exchange." Thus, "[i]nstead of a process driven by consumer preferences, we get one imposed by politicians' grand social designs.""