Many countries are helping-out in Haiti after the earthquakes recently. All of these countries are flying their respective flags. All except one. It' s the country that has done more to help Haiti and the world in the history of the world. Guess who that country is? The United States of America.
O-Bow-Ma says "Raising the flag will make us look bad." A White House statement released says "We are not here as an occupational force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the good of the Haitian people in the road to recovery." According to O-Bow-Ma our global reputation sucks and this is his way of fixing it.
Why even OUR OWN troops agree that we should be proud to fly the flag ANYWHERE! After all, the US is filled with generous people in every generation. Doesn't everybody know this? Only IDIOTS like Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn believe we are an occupational force.
O-Bow-Ma believes that US policies are shaped – not only by principles, but by placating our enemies. Why suck-up to our enemies? Sound familiar? (Remember how he and Holder coddle terrorists!).
We are not looking for thanks. We're there to help the people. We have donated more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY – even though we are in the midst of an economic crisis of our own.
So why would it hurt America to fly our flag? Is O-Bow-Ma afraid to hurt people's feelings? What the hell is the REAL reason for his protocol? Who's side is he on? Doesn't this seem odd to you? Isn't it un-American? We help the poor and the weak – so why not let the world know it? What good reason is there for not being proud and showing it?
Why is O-Bow-Ma ashamed of the flag? Why does he ALWAYS make us out to be the bad guys? O-Bow-Ma needs to apologize alright. He should apologize to all Americans for his shameful treatment of our flag!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Featured Article
The Right Need to Play as Dirty as the Left
By John Hawkins from: The Right Wing News
"When I was in college, I studied Southern Long Fist Kung Fu for more than a year and my teacher told me something that I never forgot. He said that when you're being attacked, the aggressor sets the rules and if you want to survive, you have to play by those rules. In other words, if your opponent is trying to cut your head off with a sword while you're trying not to hurt him, chances are that you're going to end up dead. This is a lesson that conservatives can and should apply to politics.
Too often today, liberals are using despicable tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever for it -- while those of us on the Right pat ourselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But, there's not much to be said for lovable losers and by now, conservatives should realize that simply appealing to the American public's sense of fair play isn't going to pay any dividends.
While the Right doesn't have to dip down into the sewer as far as the Left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine,if only to make them think twice about the way they're treating our fellow conservatives.
For example, look at the despicable media jihad that was launched against Sarah Palin's family. There was a not-so-subtle message being sent there: if you're a Republican woman, you better stay in the shadows or we're going to destroy your family to get you. The Left gave the same kind of intrusive, public anal exam to Joe-the-Plumber, a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama. While conservatives defended both Sarah and Joe as we complained incessantly about the way they were treated, the reality is that the left paid no price whatsoever for its out-of-bounds attacks. Instead of continuing to complain, here's a better idea: why shouldn't conservatives do opposition research on the reporters running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe-the-Plumber? Have they ever been arrested?Whom do they own property with? Have they ever been paid to do a speech for someone and then run a favorable news story about him? Certainly Keith Olbermann's personal life is just as newsworthy as Joe the Plumber's and the details of Maureen Dowd's life are just as noteworthy as those of Bristol Palin -- are they not?
Here's another example: on college campuses, it has gotten so bad that conservative speakers often need bodyguards to give a speech. Conservatives are shouted down, they're attacked -- and nothing serious ever seems to happen to the little liberal fascists who engage in these thuggish tactics. So, if it's done to a conservative speaker, why shouldn't conservative groups do the exact same thing to every liberal speaker who comes to the college? Go on stage, lock arms, and shout him down - then sue the university if they're given so much as an hour's detention more than the liberal students.
Along those same lines, how is it that we have public universities using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against conservatives, indoctrinate kids into liberalism, and hire terrorists like Bill Ayers as instructors? Why are Republican state legislators allowing our tax dollars to be abused in that fashion? How about standing up and saying, "If you want to continue to receive taxpayer money, you're going to act like a university should, not like a left-wing indoctrination center?"
Additionally, are you tired of being called a racist by race-hustling poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP? Then use their own tactics against them: boycott organizations that work with them or donate money to them.
Are you sick of feeling like you need to familiarize yourself with porn terms just to understand what they're saying about the Tea Parties on MSNBC or CNN? Then start filing obscenity complaints with the FCC. The Left has never hesitated to use the government and the court system against its political opponents; so why should we?
Look, we don't have to become liars like the Left -- in fact, even setting aside the ethics of it, it's better for our credibility if we don't. But, conservatives do need to stop playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules and futilely hoping that the public will finally start to notice that we're actually nice guys, even as the Left publicly smears us as Nazis, homophobes, and racists every day.
Ask yourself: how much credit did John McCain get for refusing to talk about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama's lack of patriotism? How many times was George Bush -- a moderate on domestic issues who bent over backwards to create a "new tone" -- accused of being Hitler? How many times has Fox News, which is more balanced than any of the other networks and all the biggest newspapers in America, accused of being as biased as Rush Limbaugh?
Complaining bitterly about the Democrats "politics of personal destruction" or bellyaching that the media doesn't treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The Left doesn't care and the public doesn't care. On the other hand, using the exact same tactics against the Left that it uses against us may be effective and even if it isn't, it may at least convince them that such tactics ought to be off limits on both sides. We can say, "Gee, what if Bush had done this," or, "That's a cheap shot," all day long, but until the Left feels the brunt of the same savage incivility that it dishes out on a regular basis, nothing is going to change."
By John Hawkins from: The Right Wing News
"When I was in college, I studied Southern Long Fist Kung Fu for more than a year and my teacher told me something that I never forgot. He said that when you're being attacked, the aggressor sets the rules and if you want to survive, you have to play by those rules. In other words, if your opponent is trying to cut your head off with a sword while you're trying not to hurt him, chances are that you're going to end up dead. This is a lesson that conservatives can and should apply to politics.
Too often today, liberals are using despicable tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever for it -- while those of us on the Right pat ourselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But, there's not much to be said for lovable losers and by now, conservatives should realize that simply appealing to the American public's sense of fair play isn't going to pay any dividends.
While the Right doesn't have to dip down into the sewer as far as the Left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine,if only to make them think twice about the way they're treating our fellow conservatives.
For example, look at the despicable media jihad that was launched against Sarah Palin's family. There was a not-so-subtle message being sent there: if you're a Republican woman, you better stay in the shadows or we're going to destroy your family to get you. The Left gave the same kind of intrusive, public anal exam to Joe-the-Plumber, a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama. While conservatives defended both Sarah and Joe as we complained incessantly about the way they were treated, the reality is that the left paid no price whatsoever for its out-of-bounds attacks. Instead of continuing to complain, here's a better idea: why shouldn't conservatives do opposition research on the reporters running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe-the-Plumber? Have they ever been arrested?Whom do they own property with? Have they ever been paid to do a speech for someone and then run a favorable news story about him? Certainly Keith Olbermann's personal life is just as newsworthy as Joe the Plumber's and the details of Maureen Dowd's life are just as noteworthy as those of Bristol Palin -- are they not?
Here's another example: on college campuses, it has gotten so bad that conservative speakers often need bodyguards to give a speech. Conservatives are shouted down, they're attacked -- and nothing serious ever seems to happen to the little liberal fascists who engage in these thuggish tactics. So, if it's done to a conservative speaker, why shouldn't conservative groups do the exact same thing to every liberal speaker who comes to the college? Go on stage, lock arms, and shout him down - then sue the university if they're given so much as an hour's detention more than the liberal students.
Along those same lines, how is it that we have public universities using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against conservatives, indoctrinate kids into liberalism, and hire terrorists like Bill Ayers as instructors? Why are Republican state legislators allowing our tax dollars to be abused in that fashion? How about standing up and saying, "If you want to continue to receive taxpayer money, you're going to act like a university should, not like a left-wing indoctrination center?"
Additionally, are you tired of being called a racist by race-hustling poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP? Then use their own tactics against them: boycott organizations that work with them or donate money to them.
Are you sick of feeling like you need to familiarize yourself with porn terms just to understand what they're saying about the Tea Parties on MSNBC or CNN? Then start filing obscenity complaints with the FCC. The Left has never hesitated to use the government and the court system against its political opponents; so why should we?
Look, we don't have to become liars like the Left -- in fact, even setting aside the ethics of it, it's better for our credibility if we don't. But, conservatives do need to stop playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules and futilely hoping that the public will finally start to notice that we're actually nice guys, even as the Left publicly smears us as Nazis, homophobes, and racists every day.
Ask yourself: how much credit did John McCain get for refusing to talk about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama's lack of patriotism? How many times was George Bush -- a moderate on domestic issues who bent over backwards to create a "new tone" -- accused of being Hitler? How many times has Fox News, which is more balanced than any of the other networks and all the biggest newspapers in America, accused of being as biased as Rush Limbaugh?
Complaining bitterly about the Democrats "politics of personal destruction" or bellyaching that the media doesn't treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The Left doesn't care and the public doesn't care. On the other hand, using the exact same tactics against the Left that it uses against us may be effective and even if it isn't, it may at least convince them that such tactics ought to be off limits on both sides. We can say, "Gee, what if Bush had done this," or, "That's a cheap shot," all day long, but until the Left feels the brunt of the same savage incivility that it dishes out on a regular basis, nothing is going to change."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Give Me Generation
Let's face it, we have created an entitlement society. We let it happen right before our eyes. It took a long time, but it's here and now we have to deal with it. Young people believe that the government should provide them with many free things, including a college education and government controlled healthcare. We have recently seen demonstrations by college kids complaining that their education is not subsidized enough. They resent tuition hikes and protested it vehemently. Let's just say to those who feel this way; welcome to the REAL world.
It should be noted that the bulk of Americans, roughly 75%, do not have the benefit of a college education. That's right, the majority of Americans have no college degree. Some of these individuals have entitlements. Americans currently receiving government entitlements do NOT want to give them up. This is especially true of Social Security benefits. However, most Americans do agree that they do not want more government entitlements dolled-out. They don't want to add entitlements to make America more like a Democratic Socialist Society like France, or Great Brittan.
They feel that way because they know that taxes would rise under a Socialist system and personal achievement is thwarted under a system like that. The American dream would be destroyed by a lack of money and drastic change in the standard of living. Americans don't want to live like third world countries. We like our living standards and never want to give them up.
Apparently young people do not know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." A right is not something that someone gives you (like the government or Congress). It is something that nobody can take away because it is due a person by nature. You have a right to be free. Governments cannot grant you this. A privilege is nothing more than a benefit. It's a special advantage. A driver's license is a privilege. The government can give it AND take it away. It is not for everyone. College education is a privilege not a right.
The younger generation support more entitlements but they haven't had to pay for them – ever. They like the idea of the "nanny state." However, as this generation grows older they are going to have families, children and have to pay taxes. Guaranteed, they won't like the high taxes needed to pay for all these entitlements. As the young get more and more responsibilities, political attitudes change as they grow older. Youth wants to be like the Socialist Europeans.
Ironically, our founders left that kind of system to come to the colonies and start a whole new system of government - a federal republic. They broke away from the extreme government controls over their lives. The Founders went in a completely different direction altogether. The spirit of not wanting to be controlled is what made America great.
Warning
Once you get accustom to the big government entitlements like they have in Europe, they never get undone!
It should be noted that the bulk of Americans, roughly 75%, do not have the benefit of a college education. That's right, the majority of Americans have no college degree. Some of these individuals have entitlements. Americans currently receiving government entitlements do NOT want to give them up. This is especially true of Social Security benefits. However, most Americans do agree that they do not want more government entitlements dolled-out. They don't want to add entitlements to make America more like a Democratic Socialist Society like France, or Great Brittan.
They feel that way because they know that taxes would rise under a Socialist system and personal achievement is thwarted under a system like that. The American dream would be destroyed by a lack of money and drastic change in the standard of living. Americans don't want to live like third world countries. We like our living standards and never want to give them up.
Apparently young people do not know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." A right is not something that someone gives you (like the government or Congress). It is something that nobody can take away because it is due a person by nature. You have a right to be free. Governments cannot grant you this. A privilege is nothing more than a benefit. It's a special advantage. A driver's license is a privilege. The government can give it AND take it away. It is not for everyone. College education is a privilege not a right.
The younger generation support more entitlements but they haven't had to pay for them – ever. They like the idea of the "nanny state." However, as this generation grows older they are going to have families, children and have to pay taxes. Guaranteed, they won't like the high taxes needed to pay for all these entitlements. As the young get more and more responsibilities, political attitudes change as they grow older. Youth wants to be like the Socialist Europeans.
Ironically, our founders left that kind of system to come to the colonies and start a whole new system of government - a federal republic. They broke away from the extreme government controls over their lives. The Founders went in a completely different direction altogether. The spirit of not wanting to be controlled is what made America great.
Warning
Once you get accustom to the big government entitlements like they have in Europe, they never get undone!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Unintended Consequences
ObamaCare proponents give moral arguments that ignore the facts regarding the government takeover of your healthcare. Obama AND the Democratic controlled Congress ignore the most recent findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The report states that 46.3% of today's doctor population will leave the medical profession if ObamaCare passes. That's almost half of our primary care doctors.
More Facts
Unintended consequences are a frightening offshoot of ObamaCare "reform." This major transformation will now include over 30 Million more people seeking medical care. The true consequence of this will be patient rationing. With fewer doctors attending, we have a formula for a disaster of monumental proportions.
Action to Take
Call your representatives and tell them to vote "NO" on ObamaCare.
More Facts
- 63% of doctors believe that changes to the healthcare system should be gradual
- 72% of primary care doctors believe that the public option (government owned healthcare) would have a strong negative affect on America's healthcare
- Loss of control - Most doctors value their freedom to make decisions about patient care.
- ObamaCare will cut payments - This will have a stronger affect on Medicare patients because ObamaCare takes 1/2 Trillion $$ from Medicare to help pay for the 30 Million new patients being added.
- Why bother? - Without tort reform the high cost of malpractice insurance drives their costs higher. They would have to see more patients just to break even.
Unintended consequences are a frightening offshoot of ObamaCare "reform." This major transformation will now include over 30 Million more people seeking medical care. The true consequence of this will be patient rationing. With fewer doctors attending, we have a formula for a disaster of monumental proportions.
Action to Take
Call your representatives and tell them to vote "NO" on ObamaCare.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Featured Article
Slaughtering The Constitution
by Joseph Klein
"House Democratic leaders are showing their true colors in their desperate fight to save Obamacare. According to the Washington Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it, using a sleight of hand known as a self-executing rule or a “deem and pass.” This latest ploy is the brain-child of House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, a member of the Progressive Caucus along with Pelosi. What Slaughter has suggested is in fact a slaughter of the Constitution.
Under what has been called the Slaughter Rule, there would be no up-or-down vote that President Obama and his Congressional supporters have been demanding as justification for using another artifice – reconciliation – to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The Slaugher Rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House without actually conducting a vote on the bill itself. House members would vote only on whether to accept the rule, and avoid acountability for a direct vote on the bill’s content.
Following this rule vote, the House would then approve the reconciliation changes. Obama would sign the Senate bill as is, even though the House did not vote to pass the bill itself (but only an internal House rule declaring the bill to be treated as if it were passed) and then the reconciliation changes would go to the Senate for passage and back to the President for signature.
Here is how Pelosi tried to explain the end-run :
"It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill."
Obviously, Pelosi and her Slaughter pack could not care less what the Constitution says, but a “deemed passed” House rule does not cut it. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, in order for a bill to be presented to the President for signature, the bill ”shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
Internal House rules are not bills and cannot be morphed into bills through parliamentary tricks. This is especially true when it comes to bills that include provisions for raising revenue, since Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says that all bills for raising revenue must “originate in the House of Representatives.” The Senate may propose changes, as it did with the so-called Cadillac tax on insurance policies and increased payroll taxes for Medicare, but the House must pass those changes directly before the Senate bill can be sent to the President for signature.
If Pelosi tries to go forward with the Slaughter Rule, in order to duck accountability for an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, Republicans should demand, as they are entitled to do under Article I, Section 5, the recording in the Congressional Journal of “Yeas and Nays” on the question of the content of the bill “deemed passed.”
One way or the other, those responsible for foisting the Obamacare monstrosity on the American people against their wishes must be held individually accountable."
by Joseph Klein
"House Democratic leaders are showing their true colors in their desperate fight to save Obamacare. According to the Washington Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it, using a sleight of hand known as a self-executing rule or a “deem and pass.” This latest ploy is the brain-child of House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, a member of the Progressive Caucus along with Pelosi. What Slaughter has suggested is in fact a slaughter of the Constitution.
Under what has been called the Slaughter Rule, there would be no up-or-down vote that President Obama and his Congressional supporters have been demanding as justification for using another artifice – reconciliation – to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The Slaugher Rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House without actually conducting a vote on the bill itself. House members would vote only on whether to accept the rule, and avoid acountability for a direct vote on the bill’s content.
Following this rule vote, the House would then approve the reconciliation changes. Obama would sign the Senate bill as is, even though the House did not vote to pass the bill itself (but only an internal House rule declaring the bill to be treated as if it were passed) and then the reconciliation changes would go to the Senate for passage and back to the President for signature.
Here is how Pelosi tried to explain the end-run :
"It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill."
Obviously, Pelosi and her Slaughter pack could not care less what the Constitution says, but a “deemed passed” House rule does not cut it. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, in order for a bill to be presented to the President for signature, the bill ”shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
Internal House rules are not bills and cannot be morphed into bills through parliamentary tricks. This is especially true when it comes to bills that include provisions for raising revenue, since Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says that all bills for raising revenue must “originate in the House of Representatives.” The Senate may propose changes, as it did with the so-called Cadillac tax on insurance policies and increased payroll taxes for Medicare, but the House must pass those changes directly before the Senate bill can be sent to the President for signature.
If Pelosi tries to go forward with the Slaughter Rule, in order to duck accountability for an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, Republicans should demand, as they are entitled to do under Article I, Section 5, the recording in the Congressional Journal of “Yeas and Nays” on the question of the content of the bill “deemed passed.”
One way or the other, those responsible for foisting the Obamacare monstrosity on the American people against their wishes must be held individually accountable."
Monday, March 15, 2010
Think Before You Respond
If you haven’t received your 2010 copy of the Census questions, you soon will. Or, you may be one of the lucky ones to receive a personal visit. Either way you will have to decide how much information you want to give to the government or a stranger standing at your doorstep. You may be surprised to the content of the Census questionnaire.
Caution
Before you decide to give your full cooperation to the government, consider the following fact. FDR (the President at the time) used the "private and strictly confidential information" of the Census to round-up American Japanese to send them to internment (Concentration) camps at the onset of World War II. US soldiers were given this “sensitive” data so they could tell how many Japanese lived on each block in each town. The Federal government denies this, of course. But the soldiers missed no one.
Oh, but that was during a war. Yes, and we are war now with Al Qaeda. The government has renewed the Patriot Act which steals YOUR liberties. The Census is another attempt to do the same. The Constitution mandates that the government take a head count every 10 years for the sole purpose of determining how many representatives to seat for each individual state. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are required to tell the government how many individuals live at your address. THAT'S IT!
There have been more abuses of misusing Census information. The Census Bureau cannot legally release your personal information (Yeah Sure) but they can and do release data about each city/town block. In the past, this information has been used by local planning boards to enforce local compliance with zoning regulations. Block counts have also been used to estimate the extent of illegal two-family home conversions. This data was used to crackdown on the perpetrators and hand-out fines and charges. Census data also helps housing inspectors target local violators. In 1983 the IRS tried unsuccessfully (thank God) to combine Census data with private mailing lists to track down and punish people who didn't pay their taxes.
If you remember the last Census, they asked for your name, the number of people living there, and their respective ages. That's what it was 10 years ago. SO why do they now want to know how you make your money and if you are disabled, and how many cars you have? Ask them! They won't tell you why.
Action to Take
You can be fined $100 (unconstitutional punishment that has never been tested in court) for not answering the Census questions. Do allow the government to threaten YOUR FREEDOMS. Tell them the number of individuals living at the address. THAT's ALL THEY CAN LEGALLY ASK!
Caution
Before you decide to give your full cooperation to the government, consider the following fact. FDR (the President at the time) used the "private and strictly confidential information" of the Census to round-up American Japanese to send them to internment (Concentration) camps at the onset of World War II. US soldiers were given this “sensitive” data so they could tell how many Japanese lived on each block in each town. The Federal government denies this, of course. But the soldiers missed no one.
Oh, but that was during a war. Yes, and we are war now with Al Qaeda. The government has renewed the Patriot Act which steals YOUR liberties. The Census is another attempt to do the same. The Constitution mandates that the government take a head count every 10 years for the sole purpose of determining how many representatives to seat for each individual state. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are required to tell the government how many individuals live at your address. THAT'S IT!
There have been more abuses of misusing Census information. The Census Bureau cannot legally release your personal information (Yeah Sure) but they can and do release data about each city/town block. In the past, this information has been used by local planning boards to enforce local compliance with zoning regulations. Block counts have also been used to estimate the extent of illegal two-family home conversions. This data was used to crackdown on the perpetrators and hand-out fines and charges. Census data also helps housing inspectors target local violators. In 1983 the IRS tried unsuccessfully (thank God) to combine Census data with private mailing lists to track down and punish people who didn't pay their taxes.
If you remember the last Census, they asked for your name, the number of people living there, and their respective ages. That's what it was 10 years ago. SO why do they now want to know how you make your money and if you are disabled, and how many cars you have? Ask them! They won't tell you why.
Action to Take
You can be fined $100 (unconstitutional punishment that has never been tested in court) for not answering the Census questions. Do allow the government to threaten YOUR FREEDOMS. Tell them the number of individuals living at the address. THAT's ALL THEY CAN LEGALLY ASK!
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The "O" World
Obama's Accomplishments in 14 Months
Obama's Leadership
Why Obama Hates Video Clips
More Obama Lies
Obama's Dream of Grandeur
Obama's Leadership
Why Obama Hates Video Clips
More Obama Lies
Obama's Dream of Grandeur
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
