About Me

My photo
I am a conservative, I ran for state office as an American Party member in 1974,and again as a republican in 1976. I have children of my own as well as step children and ALL I stand for is to defend their future. I have traveled across this nation, and Canada, I have stood on the shore of the Pacific Ocean in California, Oregon and Alaska, looked out at the Gulf from New Orleans, put my feet in the Atlanic in Florida, caught Lake Trout in Lake Superior, Fished for Grayling in Lake Wassila. I have driven over the mountains, looked across the Grand Canyon, drove through Death Valley. Mostly as a young man on the road. Now I like being home with my family, but I want them to be able to see what I saw, I want them to be able to say this is the Greatest Nation on earth! Because it is free! And as I have learned, I want them to know, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! We owe it to our neighbors to the North and South to remain a bastian of Freedom they can lean on when there is need. MAY THE REPUBLIC LIVE ON.

Monday, July 26, 2010

How we can take the bite out of Obama

Will we pull Obama's teeth? Our founding fathers instructed us to chose men who were virtuous in private, How well do we know our candidates. They told us to chose men with high morals, how many have we elected in the past only to find they have more skeletons in their closet than most of us have forks in the silverware drawer. They told us not make these positions one of high pay, only of honor, or scoundrels would seek these positions. They told us elect modest thinking men, for those with large egos would bully and push their will unto the country and their opposition would demean them while wanting to have the same power themselves to pursuit their goals. Have we listened, is not the pay for these jobs way above average, is not the retirement program they have voted for themselves far better than most Americans enjoy? How many elected officials have legal problems, how many have and are facing ethics charges? How many actually have read and studied the constitution to know if they are are passing or proposing constitutional laws? De we really know the heart and mind of the candidates we have to chose from? I submit to you that the number of unqualified representatives, out numbers the the qualified. Why? There are several reasons, one we just don't pay attention, two, as Ben Franklin warned, when the people become corrupt, they only elect corrupt officials. You see, we are not living the standards needed to have a great working republic, therefore we can not or will not elect men and women with the standards to keep this great republic. Our Founding Fathers told us, plain and simple, only a religious, moralistic, virtuous people will be able to retain the principles that are needed for this Republic to survive. Are we going to pull his teeth, or just give him dentures?

The Founding Fathers also told us it was important to teach 3 things in our schools when they passed the Northwest Ordinance, 1,Religion, 2,Morality, and 3, Knowledge. Yes religion, a nondenominational religion that promoted 5 fundamentals. 1, There exists a Creator who made all things and mankind should recognize and worship Him. 2, The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong. 3, The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other. 4, ALL mankind live beyond this life. 5, In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one. This position was set forth in the Northwest Ordinance, which was voted on and passed by the same congress that approved the Constitution, the same year as they approved the Constitution. Washington re-emphasized this ordinance in his Farewell Address, both Franklin and Jefferson had a hand in its writing, and Samuel Adams stated that this group of basic beliefs which constitute "the religion of America is the religion of all mankind. So when Obama says we are not a Christian Nation, you know he does not know anything about the matter. This separation of Church and State only is to keep the state from telling us which Church we worship in.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Not American Tradition, Not America.

I am not a fan of the American Civil Liberties Union, but in this case I believe they took the right side.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (filed April 9, 2004 in the United States) is a lawsuit filed on behalf of an unknown party by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government. The unknown party, an Internet service provider, was subject to National Security Letters (NSLs) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation requiring the release of private information and under a gag order forbidding any public discussion of the issues. In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was dismissed by Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006) because Congress amended Section 2709 in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-177, sec. 116, 120 Stat. 192, 213 (2006).
On the recommendation of the Second Circuit, the district court considered the amended law in 2007, in Doe v. Gonzales. On September 6, 2007, Judge Marrero struck down the NSL provision of the revised Act, ruling that even with limited judicial review granted in the amended law, it was still a violation of separation of powers under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. This is not yet enforced, pending a possible government appeal.


A heavily redacted page from the original lawsuit. LOOKS LIKE THIS IN THE CASE OF******************WE DO FIND****************ON THIS DAY OF 06/04/2004
***************************and therefore******************* swore to me Judge*********************
You get the idea, everything relevant is blacked out.

Because of the secrecy rules involved, the government would not let the ACLU disclose they had even filed a case for nearly a month, after which they were permitted to release a heavily redacted version of the complaint (like that would do them any good, nothing is readable) According to government secrecy rules (the National Security Letter provision, [Section 2709] of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, [ECPA]) the ACLU still could not disclose which ISP was served with the request to produce documents.
This prompted the ACLU to challenge the secrecy law itself, and they sued to invalidate the NSL provision of the ECPA. Introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and enacted in 1986, the bill permitted the FBI to obtain customer records from telephone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations.
The ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution because
Section 2709 failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court and
Section 2709 prohibited the recipient of an NSL subpoena from disclosing that he had received such a request from the FBI, and outweighs the FBI's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations.
The government agreed in principle with the ACLU's claim that the recipient of the subpoena can challenge it in court, and because the matter of specified judicial process remained in question and directly affected other present and future cases, the Court found the NSL section to be in need of review.
[edit]Court finding

The Court subsequently found section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional. It reasoned that it could not find in the provision an implied right for the person receiving the subpoena to challenge it in court as is constitutionally required.
The finding of unconstitutionality essentially dismisses any claimed presumptive legal need for absolute secrecy in regard to terrorism cases. The USA PATRIOT Act is affected only if the limits on NSLs in terrorism cases also apply to non-terrorism cases such as those authorized by the Act. The government was expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and until the district court ruling is reviewed, the secrecy procedures of the NSL remain in place.

This is part of the Patriot Act that was not explained to us just like the parts of the health care bill and the Finance Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Like so many things, yet our President sees no harm in revealing how many war heads we have and what kind they are, things that our enemies love to know. Like the governors from Minnesota and Texas and about 12 other governors who have recieved NSL's, I too fear where our government is taking us, I hope that those Governors do acknowlege that they have recived these letters and allow the people of their respective states know that the current administration not only will not protect US citizens, it will not allow us to protect ourselves. I take as example the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, this is nothing less than an attempt to take away our Second Amendment Right To Bare Arms. Look at what they did in England, they have taken away their hunting rifles, in the past they took their hand guns. One resident, Tony Martin had been robbed several times in a couple months, he lived rural enough that there were not police close or neighbors so finally he shot one of the robber when they were in his house. He got life in prison for premeditated murder. Just because he planned to protect himself and his property. Now the sentence has been reduced, but he is still in jail and being sued by the burgler. The burgler who was killed was 16 years old and had around 20 breakins on his police record. The other guy was in his early 30's and had 34 convictions on his record. I guess they don't have a three times and your in for life law in England. If you think removing guns from the public make us safer, look at England and Australias crime rates after guns are confidiscated from honest citizens. Violent crime up 30 plus percent. All crime up close to 40%. YoU DO THE MATH. From my cold dead fingers.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

CIA Agent speaks out.

Popcorn time, watch and listen three times at least

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Islamic Jihad coming our way soon.

I have added bold lettering and enclosed some of (my) aside statements that I felt were of importance. When you hear people talk about how we have brought this on ourselves by invading Muslim countries or taking advantage of them for their oil, I ask you to point out they have been in jihad since 641 A.D. I don't think Exxon Oil started this back then and I don't believe the U.S.A. was sending diplomatic statesmen there with threats of any kind either. This is an ideology contrived by a murdering pedophile named Muhammad.

A short history of ISLAMIC JIHAD an Ideology not a Religion
and how it is affecting us, the U.S.A. and the WORLD

“Dhimmi” is the Arabic word for “subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death,” according to Giselle Littman whose pseudonym is Bat Ye’or, which means “daughter of the Nile” in Hebrew. (Giselle Littman was born in Cairo Egypt, her citizenship was revoked in 1955, became British by marriage and now lives in Switzerland, where she does research and publishes books and articles, mostly about Jews in Egypt and the subjugation of Christians and Jews by Islam.)

Dhimmitude, according to Littman, is the dysfunctional state in which the entire Muslim world known today exists. Furthermore, this dhimmitude is a result of a 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic that has reduced once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations to a state of dysfunctional dhimmitude. Many civilizations,” she goes on, “have been completely Islamized and have disappeared. Others remain as fossilized relics of the past, unable to evolve.” It is an English derivative of dhimmi.
Littman further explains the meaning of dhimmitude: “I have called ‘dhimmitude’ this condition of ‘subjection with protection’ of non-Muslims in their own countries, obtained by the cession of their land to the Muslim ruler. Subjection, because the infidels submit to the Islamic law which expropriates them, and protection because this same law protects them from jihad and guarantees limited rights under a system of discrimination's that they must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery or death.”
Her understanding of jihad is that it “represents a unique ideology of continuous and universal religious war. People unfamiliar with its history might believe that it remained an abstraction. Quite the contrary; in the course of one century, beginning
in 641 after jihad armies had already conquered Arabia and advanced into the surrounding areas, Islamic conquests expanded over Christian lands from Armenia to Portugal. By the second decade of the eight century, Muhammad bin Qasim’s jihad campaigns had extended the Muslim empire to Sind, on the Indian subcontinent. Other conquests in Byzantine and European lands followed in the next centuries. The newly conquered countries around the Mediterranean had been populated by Christians, with large Jewish minorities. Waves of colonists form Arabia followed the Muslim armies of occupation. These settlers gradually became majorities through the occupants’ policy of colonization, land dispossession, fiscal oppression and, at times, slavery and deportation.” ( As in the example of the three workers at the publishing house who were killed because they printed Christian material in Turkey last week, they also use violence.)
While dhimmis may view jihadic subjugation as oppressive, Muslims think otherwise. They believe in mandatory jihad and because dhimmitude rules are justified by Islam’s sacred texts, Muslims cannot criticize it. “The oppression and persecution of the infidels, including Jews and Christians, are the rightful punishment deserved by the infidels for refusing Islam’s truth.” Muslim conquerors over the centuries have been aided and abetted by Christian leaders who have colluded with them because of inter-Christian dynastic and religious rivalries and personal ambitions.” This pattern, Littman contends, persists today, with France as the leader among European nations that together collude with Arab powers (e.g., encouraging immigration and multiculturalism on the European continent) to obtain need petrol resources. This collusion, which started in 1973 during the devastating Arab oil embargo (which Littman calls “the snare”), is transforming Europe into a dhimmitude continent.
During the process of Islamization of “powerful Christain civilization spread over the Middle East, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Anatolia, and Southeastern Europe,” three important factors emerge as fixed components of jihad policy, says Littman, as follows:

1. “The gradual erosion of resistance within the societies targeted but not yet conquered by jihad, concurring with their growing economic weakness due to the tribute required for the Muslim overlords’ renewal of the truce. During and after their subjugation , their demographic decline followed as a result of warfare, massacres, slavery, abduction of women and children, and deportation, until the situation stabilized. (Forced Political Correctness.)

2. The insecurity caused by the constant mass immigration of foreign populations and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another, hostile to the indigenous inhabitants. ( Millions of illegals who ignore and break our laws at a much higher rate than our citizens. Illegal students who carve up computers given them in the class room to use, to learn, they just don't care, it is free and their parents don't care they do not pay taxes to replace the damaged equipment.) (The removal of borders, and national pride.)

3. The emergence of powerful collaborationist parties economically and politically linked with Muslim rulers.” (President who attended Muslim school?)
Reply
Reply to all
Forward

Saturday, April 10, 2010

They created the problem, let them bail themselves out!

I received a letter the other day, one of those 'Important Time Dated Information' ones we seem to get so often. This was my reply, I think you know why.

Citizen For Freedom
4435 N.State Highway 37
Winnsboro, TX. 75494
Joseph L. Larson

April 10, 2010

To; College Republican National Committee

I received your survey (request for money) and once again I am astounded by your inability to grasp facts. I can no longer support the Republican Party, I neither have the money to do so, nor the inclination. The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party have fallen so far from the Constitution of this once great nation that they should be ashamed of themselves. You have taken every opportunity to spend other peoples money in ways that are both wasteful, but also totally with out the right to do so. There is no place in the Constitution where you are given the right to spend my money, or anyone else's. You can spend your money how ever it pleases you, but what is mine is mine. Under the republican party taxation has grown. To say, but not as fast as under the democrats is a joke, waste and government growth is government growth and waste. I have joined www.goooh.com and if I should be able to support anyone, they will get my money. It is our intention of replacing every representative in congress with someone we can trust. As for the health care bill we intend to see it reversed and make it law that government can never have say in our health care. We will educate the American people to the insidious practice of the two parties working hand in hand to steal our freedoms, our money and our country. You have to be blind not to see the tide turning, how can you expect anyone to believe you are the party of reform, first your senators won't even agree to a 1 year moratorium on pork spending. Yes, pork spending, that nefarious historical waste of tax payers money for things like Murthas' airport, and you want us to vote for people who openly admit they want to practice this? Grow up and get a brain. We don't trust either side and for good reason. Now you bring Newt back with another Contract with America, when you never honored the first one. Do you think college kids can't figure this one out? There are few representative we are going to keep, very few. The only way for you to be a viable party was to listen to the voice of God and make law according to the Constitution. You do neither, so you get no support. None of us are blindly giving money to support a party, when the party does not support America. Look at S.S., Washington had to spend the money in the fund, just because they can't stand to see money not being spent, why did we not hear about the bad choices being made in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack until it was too late, do we need to hire watchers to watch the watchers? How do you explain $300 hammers and $500 toilet seats. We are going to explain it to you at the polls. The finale straw has been the attempted destruction of our Christian beliefs, the restriction on our moments of prayer in public places, we are not turning the other cheek any longer. IN GOD WE TRUST, NO OTHER.

JOSEPH L. LARSON
Citizen For Freedom

Friday, April 9, 2010

Davey Crocket understood what a congressman needs to know.

From "The life of Colonel David Crockett
By Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884

DAVEY CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied:
"I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began:
"Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied: "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said: "Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today." He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
This story reflects the reason the constitution was written, why as guideline for our government and our congress it is the best guideline we have, and when the lines are streached and even as we have seen lately, broken, we can no longer vote for those who favor mis-treatment of this paper, of this document written in the blood of our forefathers and our men and women in uniform today.
Joseph L. Larson

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Joe Wilson had it right, LIAR!!!!

Here IS what we have to look forward to. This is from HR 3200 the bill passed was 3590 but most everything here is found in 3590 and more, Government paid abortions, yes, Obama lied again, his executive order does not exclude abortion from the government health care bill.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

UNHOLY SUNDAY IN WASHINGTON DC. Obama Style

The budget for the federal government has never, I repeat never been balanced under a democratic congress. The years when Clinton was president he had a republican house and congress. The truth which any economist worthy of the name will tell you, it normally takes 6to8 years for the economic policy of an administration to affect the economy. So Clinton road the ground swell of Reagan and Bush Senior, the economy was starting to fall late 1999 and early 2000, then with the war, GW did not have a chance to make the needed changes. Then he fell into Barney Franks "Freddy Mack Fannie Mae" screw up. Then his big mistake was the TARP bailout. Bailouts only work if the plan has a plan to retire the the money inserted in the economy. There was no such plan and Obamadinejad keeps spending what does come back to the treasury. Hyper inflation is around the corner. Why employers are not expanding and hiring is simple, they see the no track brain of this administration and know where it will end up. If they have to bite the bullet, they are making sure it is a small caliber bullet. I for one do not intend to trust congress with my bank account as you will have to do if the health care bill passes. That is part of the deal, read the bill, I am not making this up. Now with the report from the N.E.J. of M. showing 43.6% of doctors saying they will be forced to leave medical practice if this bill passes, we are looking at 30 million potential new patients and just about half as many doctors. Your next appointment will be in 6 or 7 months. Hopefully. Kind of sounds like Canada to me. I bet you really like the idea of doctors getting paid bonuses if they can get a little old lady to sign up for assisted suicide. Hey gramps, your sitting in my sunlight, go die somewhere. Not in front of me though, yuck, you might fill your pants. Look at the lady with cancer Obamadinejad brought out on stage, what a hoax, she has care, good care, and they are not going to put a lien on her house. In fact the hospital director stated he was confident her bills would be taken care on, through state medicaid or as a charity case. Lets not forget anything that requires the feds to impose a tax on you is unconstitutional anyway. The 16th amendment was passed illegally, in a secret meeting with less than a quorum present. Excise tax is the only tax the feds are allowed to charge per the constitution. Our founding fathers knew that taxation led to the downfall of every great nation and empire in history. Don't listen to the drive by media, they are all owned by members of the Tri-lateral commission and they do not have the best interests of America in mind. I have been studying this since 1974, I saw this day coming, I was at Gresham, Tigerton, I was around at Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge, Waco. the time has come to put a stop to the ruining of our nation. If you don't agree, then move.
FOOT NOTE: As you can tell this was written before the vote on Sunday, but the results of this atrocity will be the same, voted on or not.

Monday, March 22, 2010

The battle can be won

Since September 10 2008 to March 10 2010, 18 months, in order to keep up with the spending of this administration. Bernanke has broadened the monetary base of U.S. currency from 850 billion dollars to 2.1 trillion dollars. That is 2.5 times as much cash floating around out there. That means that every dollar you had in the bank in September of 2008 is now worth $0.40. The health care bill passed Sunday, if the benefits started right away it would require enough capital that the presses would have to fire up again to print the 90 Billion dollar price tag. That means in ten years time the cash floating around out there by double what was there is 2008. Thats not counting the 2.5 times already out the door. We are talking at least 3 trillion dollars instead of the 850 billion when it started in 08. Now your $1.00 will be worth about $0.25 give or take a penny. This was what they were doing in Germany in the 30s when Hitler started all his social programs. They had a 500,000 Mark note that in 1921 would buy a new house, by 1937 it would not even buy a loaf of bread. Bernanke made the statement, we will never run out of money, we can just print more. Everytime the presses roll, you dollar becomes less valuable. Is this the democrats fault, yes to some degree, is it the republicans fault, yes to some degree. But the main fault lies with us, the citizens, we have failed to pay attention and failed to hold our congress and president accountable. Here and there a good man or two would come along, (good women too) but we let the bad ones keep running because they brought pork barrel packages home. Guess what? The money in those pork barrel deals was yours to start with. The government does not own anything, they can not give you anything with out taking it from you first. When the government pays for it, you pay for it, but you don't even get to select what color it will be. Now I know before I write this, there are going to be many naysayers out there in blog land. That is ok, here is the deal. I hear GWB blamed for getting us into a war we did not need to be in, there is some truth to that. If Bush 1 had not listened to the U.N and finished what he started, we would not have had to go back. However, this drive-by media hype that there were no WMDs in Iraq is Bull$$#*. I have a family member who was there before we went back the second time, he found chemical WMDs that nearly killed him. They were never disclosed as the administration was trying to discover who had manufactured them, what country sold them to Iraq. I admit Rumsfeld was a bad choice to lead this war, but it is a difficult thing to wage war without collateral damage. (killing innocent civilians) Especially hard when the enemy embeds itself among them and does not wear uniforms. That is why when they went in so fast they by-passed many units the units went to civilian clothing and came in from the rear causing casualties that could have been avoided. Point being they had WMDs, they could be easily delivered to our population centers. They, the Islam leaders including Iraq's president were intent on killing us. As they still are. Jihad has been planned for several hundred years, this is not something that just came up in recent years because we supposedly have been mistreating these people as some would have you believe. King Richard of England, (during the time frame we read of Robin Hood) was off at the Crusades. Where the crusades were and who they were against was Muslims in the Middle East. Remember also no administration with a democrat controlled congress has ever balanced the budget. Clinton had a republican congress. Does that make republicans better? No, that means when the executive branch and the legislative branch are of different parties all they do is argue and nothing gets done in Washington. And that my friends is when the American people win.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Health care thats good for America

MEDICAL ALERT! MEDICAL ALERT!, 90 % of congress men and women have been infected with the deadly virus known as Swine Barrel Flu, commonly known as pork barrel waste. There does not seem to be immunity for either party. Eventually everyone sent there catches it, and there is only one cure. Remove them from their duties and allow them to come home. This illness has grown to pandemic porportion and has infected the whole country. We must act immediately, we are at fault and only we can provide our government with a health care plan that will save us trillions of dollars. We must start recycling elected officials at the soonest opportunity. We must become more compassionate, no longer can we fail to do the right thing, give congress the health care plan they deserve, save them, as they can not do it themselves. Restore health to Washington in November, VOTE FOR THE NEW GUY. The above announcment has not been approved by either party.
Symptoms usually manifest as a serious hearing disorder, often failure to hear the voices of constituents, even when more than 50% of them are calling out the same words, "NO TO HEALTHCARE" Also there becomes a perverse tendency to tell lies, even to their co-representatives. More serious is the inability to know themselves, when they are lying. There is often an uncontrollable desire to spend other peoples money, as well as a tendency to blame someone else for their own short sightedness. Some of them have been known to commit criminal acts as they become delirious with the fever of unlimited power. These are the easily treatable cases. However some become very adept at hiding their illness. This is why in order to be sure we stamp out this virus, we will have to do the humane thing and remove them from the day to day exposer by bringing them home from Washington and send others not yet exposed to the pig headed infection that is so rampant in our nations capitol. Some of them will have to be quarantined at state facility often referred to as 'THE CROW BAR HOTEL' for as long as it takes to be 'CURED'. Normally that period of time is equal to the time frame they were exposed to the virus. There does seem to be, certain members of congress and the senate who have a natural resistance to the virus, study shows that it appears to come from an exercise they perform nightly and quite often during the day. They do deep knee bends and while they are down there, they pray for guidance, this seems to work very effectively

Sunday, February 21, 2010

OBAMAS OBSTRUCTION BEGAN FIRST DAY IN OFFICE

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489
- - - - - - -

PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.

(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009.

The EXECUTIVE ORDER HE REVOKED 13233 of November 1, 2001 ( see Sec. 6 above)

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.

(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

As you can see the ability to over ride a President invoking executive privilige is neatly removed from the books. This gives Obama freedom to pick and chose what information can be released to the public, including his legal status as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. It will be much harder to examine the records of future President. Is this Transparant policy in action?

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Why Big GOVERNMENT Won't Work

The premis of BIG GOVERNMENT is to do more, provide more, be the end all to every problem. History has shown us that under free enterprise this nation has out-grown every other nation in the world. Under free enterprise our standard of living out paced every other country in the world, more people were employed, more people had health care, more people could afford "extras" boats, second cars, snow mobiles, personal watercraft, vacations, wide screen TVs. Why? Because industry when it has access to "CAPITOL" (money, loans) expands, When industry expands it hires more employees, it offers extended hours of work each week, it rewards employees with pay increases and other benefits. When industry can not find capitalization, it grows stagment, when equipment wears out it does not replace it, reseach is cut back, then hours are reduced, next jobs are lost.
Big Government, means large payrolls, Large Payrolls mean higher taxes, higher taxes means less money for the extras, less money for the extras means less need for expansion of business. Less expansion means fewer New Job, therefore less taxable income. When government starts to compete for the available money, (borrowing money, selling treasury notes, etc.) it reduces the capitol needed for buisness to expand, it reduces the incentive to create more just to pay more tax. Money is only a good as what is behind it. (used to be the gold standard)if there is no product to represent our money, (Hard Goods, cars, finished lumber, houses, things that are produced from the ground) Then the money has no value, it is only paper. Government, even big government does not produce any hard good, therefore it should not be in compitition for the available money. Government need to get out of out lives, it need to learn to live in a restrictive budget. It needs to reduce wast, it needs to start seeing itself has the problem, and we need to quit turning to our government to bail us out. Be responsible for yourself and your family. And remind our government it can not out-grow the other sectors of out industry.

Monday, February 8, 2010

One less, but not forgotten.

Today 02/08/2010 John Murtha died. He had been an elected official of the United States congress for manY years. My first reaction, I am sad to say, was, this should be a big help to those who are trying to save this country from bankruptcy. I have to admit I am not and never have been a JOHN MURTHA FAN. In fact I dispise his dishonesty, his corruption of his trust as a representative of our rights and future. He stole by "legal" means taxpayer monies and built his own personal multibillion dollar airport. On a rare week besides his own plane which he takes to D.C. there may be 3 or 4o other flights that actually land at this airport. He has double talked about military support, in armament, in benefits to returning vets, and he has held up improvement of support for families who lost their bread winner while fighting on behalf of the rest of our country. John Murtha will not be remembered for what he truely was, like so many of our politions he will be made into something he never was, or at least in the last years of his life. He will be honored as an American hero, when in fact he should be remembered as a thief in disguise, wearing a congressional headband instead of the noose he deserved. I do hope that somewhere along the way he has made peace with GOD, BECAUSE IN THE END, IT IS GOD WHO WILL MAKE THE JUDGEMENT THAT COUNTS.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

2nd. breath In the Second month of HIS 2nd. year.

The great liar has stepped up his attack on the American citizen. He went to the enemy,(Republican Retreat) and denied their assertions of his mishandling of the economy, health and his eagletarian manners. The part that made me sad was the fact that very few of the congressional members used what he said as talking points or even admitted they thought he was wrong. The republican party is not the party of conservatives, they have become centrists and are as guilty of betraying the public interests as the liberal left. Floyd Brown has mounted an impeachment action and I am thinking this is our real and only hope. Even Jeb Hensarling who has argued the fiscal waste in our federal government made me feel angry and defeated when he said he liked and respected president obama (capitalization left out on purpose). There is no room at the Inn for obama and company. This county was founded with Christian Principals as the basis of its existance. But a belief in God is reflected in what you support and I am not seeing action showing stated beliefs. It is time for those who are for Christian morals and FREEDOM from government monopoly to rise up and say no more! NO MORE! NO MORE!IT IS TIME FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TELL THE WORLD, WE ARE NOT GOING TO KNEEL TO YOUR WISHES ANY LONGER. WE HAVE GROWN FROM OUR HARD WORK AND WHAT WE HAVE WE HAVE EARNED, IT IS OURS. IF YOU WANT TO GROW, WE WILL HELP, IF YOU WANT A HANDOUT. SORRY OUR HANDS ARE BUSY CREATING AND WORKING FOR OUR FUTURE.

John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, all would have told Barry to shut up and resign by now. If indeed they would have allowed him to run at all.

Obama has taken a tried and failed trail to spend our way to finacial growth, to create jobs, just as was tried during the "GREAT DEPRESSION" as Secretary of the treasury, Henry Morganthau said then, addressing congress,
never has so much money been spent, so much debt created in the history of the world and nothing gained. After nine years of C.C.C. and W.P.A.and other make work programs THERE WAS NO GAIN IN THE RECOVERY FROM DEPRESSION.

Then, as now, there was no plan to retire the money pumped into the banks and all that does in the end is create inflation. The cycle just repeats its self. This time the amount of fiat(printed with no backing) money is so huge it will creat SUPER INFLATION and send the U.S. INTO A TAILSPIN. There is only one answer, vote out evey one you can, replace them with new people, new people you select, not the puppets given to us by the political machine. Change the names and the faces.

Also, IMPEACH OBAMA NOW. I don't know about you, but I am tired of being told I am too stupid to take care of myself

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Voters Spoke In Mass. Ring The Bell, Round Two

For those who don't know, no government program ended the recession of 29, and no government program will end this one. What ended the "29" was a war. A war that pulled Americans together, not driving wedges in to class division, not creating "race" issues that were slowly disappearing until "government" brought all the old players out and propped them up as examples that did not really portray where we were. Not, for sure, spending our Grandchildren's future away. There will always be rich and poor, there will always be different looking people with different racial and geographic history. There will always be people who are driven and those who are laid-back. There will always be those who strive and those who float along. But there will never be total agreement what is best for all. But we do have choices, you can support what the founding fathers created, or you can leave, go where your utopia exists. But you can not blame others for what happens if you did nothing for or against it. Obama wants a socialist country, he can move, I'll help him pack. He wants to spend lots of money, he can get a loan at his bank. I won't co-sign. This is not about health insurance, it is not about taxes, it is not about race, nor is it one party over another. IT IS ABOUT REMAINING FREE! It is time to replace our congress, if you wear your underwear too long, it starts to stink, after awhile, "YOU" DON'T NOTICE, BUT PEOPLE AROUND YOU DO! Change congress, vote out the stinkers and never leave the new guys in long enough to start smelling. Two term, 'term limits' no special retirement programs, what they get we get, or what we get they get. It is not because Obama is a democrat that I disagree with him, it is because he just does not relate to the real world, he is still in ALINSKY LAND.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

WITH OBAMA SIGNING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US.

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



Geert Wilders
Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders, whose film "Fitna" warns that Islam is threatening Western civilization, will be tried for a "hate crime" in the Netherlands.

Wilders previously was banned from Britain – a move later overturned in court – because of the subject of "Fitna," which features Quranic verses shown alongside images of the 9/11 terror attacks, the 2004 attack in Madrid and the 2005 attack in London.

The film calls on Muslims to remove "hate-preaching" verses from the text of their holy book.

Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, has been living under 24-hour protection from police since 2004. Al-Qaida has called for his murder.

According to a report from the Christian Institute, a ministry promoting Christianity in the United Kingdom, a court ruling this week removed the last obstacle to Wilders' trial, dismissing his objections to the prosecution.

The report said Wilders' lawyer argued his client should not be prosecuted for discriminatory statements since the Dutch superme court last year found that insulting a religion did not automatically "imply an insult to its believers."

A lower court, however, concluded the provision did not mean Wilders could not be put on trial based on charges that originated from complaints filed by Dutch lawyer Gerard Spong on behalf of several clients.

The report said Wilders' remarks included suggesting Muhammad should be tarred and feathered and expelled from the Netherlands and declaring no Muslim should be allowed to enter the nation.

Prosecutors originally chose not to file any action against Wilders, the report said, citing their conclusion the comments were "in the context of societal debate." But the case was resurrected after a campaign urged people to complain to the courts.

Wilders has called the prosecution an "attack on freedom of speech."

"In this country, you are apparently allowed to criticize only if you are politically correct in how you express yourself," he has said.

Blogger Diana West wrote on Wilders' website, "It is not just the repression … of Islam that Wilders is outspoken about… He is equally if almost singularly outspoken about the political remedies necessary to halt the extension of Islam's law. Such remedies include stopping Islamic immigration and deporting agents of jihad. These are simple measures any democratic state that wished to repeal Islamization would take. … It is a political trial, then, in the worst sense, that we are about to witness. And it is about more than the future of freedom of speech. The trial of Geert Wilders is about the future of freedom."

Wilders' 17-minute documentary, "Fitna," meaning "strife," likened the Quran to Adolf Hitler's manifesto, "Mein Kampf."

Early critics had expressed fears the Wilders film would show a copy of the Quran being destroyed, but the ending offered a slight surprise.

As someone leafs through the Quran, a sound of tearing is heard.

"The sound you heard was from a page [being torn out] of the phone book. It is not up to me, but up to the Muslims themselves to tear the spiteful verses from the Quran," text on the screen reads. "Stop Islamization. Defend our freedom," the film concluded.

Wilders has received numerous death threats. His police protection has been in place because of the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, the director of a film that exposed violence against women in Islamic societies.

Since the Van Gogh murder, the government of a nation proud of its liberal social attitudes has cut back on generous welfare programs to immigrants and made Dutch-language classes mandatory for newcomers.

Van Gogh's film, "Submission," was written by Wilders' former political ally, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Societies dominated by Islam, in the meantime, have been working at the international level to ban any criticism of Islam globally.

A plan is being pushed by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to "protect" Islam from what they perceive as criticism.

The resolution, pending in one form or another since 1999, originally was called "Defamation of Islam." The name later was changed to "Defamation of Religions," but Islam remains the only faith protected by name in the proposal.

The proposal is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

However, the latest vote on the nonbinding proposal came just weeks ago at the U.N. and showed falling support, with 80 votes in favor of the proposal, 61 against and 42 abstentions. A year ago there were 86 yes votes, and two years ago the support came from 108 votes.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

AND OUR PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THEM

Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.

America as the last man standing

'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. (Hard to believe)

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
(Discrimination on the level of absurdity) (Seen in Saudia Arabia in 1974)

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War..

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

MORONIC IMBICILIC IDIOTS

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775.
You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broken and broke.
FAILURE TO KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY

Social Security was established in 1935.
You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broken and broke.
FUNDS WERE STOLEN FOR PORK PROJECTS

Fannie Mae was established in 1938.
You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broken and broke.
RAPED WOULD BE A BETTER DESCRIPTION

War on Poverty started in 1964.
You have had 45 years to get it right;
$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred
to "the poor" and they only want more.
GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WANT A MILE. GREED BEGATS MORE GREED.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965.
You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broken and broke.
INTITLEMENT PROGRAMS BEING USED BY PEOPLE WHO NEVER PAID IN (illegal aliens)

Freddie Mac was established in 1970.
You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broken and broke.
EMASCULATED WOULD DESCRIBE FREDDIE MAC

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence
on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of
$24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.
You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
DIESEL FUEL IS WHATS LEFT AFTER MAKING GASOLINE, NEW CAFE STANDARDS WILL REDUCE GASOLINE PRODUCTION THAT WILL REDUCE DIESEL SUPPLY AND DRIVE TRANSPORTATION COSTS UP, COMPANIES WILL FAIL, MORE UNEMPLOYMENT, HIGHER COST OF GOODS AS A RESULT. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES WILL BE OFFERED AS A SOLUTION, INCREASING THE PROBLEMS WE ALREADY HAVE.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down
our throats while overspending our tax dollars!!!
Thats "OUR TAX DOLLARS".

Now you are borrowing the future of our grandchildren with rampent spending that has to be paid, either in TAXES or by giving those lenders CONTROL of OUR COUNTRY. Moron does not begin to convey the contemp we have for you.
SEE OUR RATH AT THE POLLS NEXT NOVEMBER.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED
WITH A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Thursday, January 7, 2010

BARBARA GETS HER EARS BOXED

Read the letter sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer from an Alaskan
Airlines pilot below.

Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer on June 18,
2009 as she admonished Brigadier General Michael Walsh because he
addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing.

This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for
Alaska Airlines named Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he
were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!

Babs: (Babs- I love it.)
You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for
using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the
military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of
superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a
person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the
world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the
U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders,
traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered),
criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but
many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all
at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution,
in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want
American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could
honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"?
None? One? Two?


Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your
abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general
shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered
the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank
check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and
comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by
the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front
of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and
arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish
behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or
shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the
unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing
stock of the nation.

What I am writing, are the same thoughts countless millions of
Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time
to convey them. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that
politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will
bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that
person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to
corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and
your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are
all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing
Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was
given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.
And you were offended by "ma'am"?

OVER WHOS' DEAD BODY?

Legislation Still Under the Radar Would Devastate U.S. Gun Ownership Rights

September 30, 2009 by Bob Livingston

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.–President Barack Obama in San Francisco at a 2008 fundraiser.
While high profile issues like passage of a healthcare reform bill and cap and trade energy tax are getting front page headlines and top billing by television talking heads, be very wary of stealth legislation slowly working its way through Congress to restrict gun ownership.
Passage of either of two bills, HR 45 (also known as Blair-Holt Firearm Licensing and Record Sale Act of 2009) and S 1317, would be a devastating blow to Second Amendment rights.
HR 45, introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, would make it illegal to own a gun unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a driver’s license and Social Security number.
Additionally under HR 45, a person buying a gun would have to undergo both a physical and mental evaluation before making a firearm purchase. It also would require guns be secured from access by children under age 18, and would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to check compliance.
S 1317, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenburg, would give the attorney general the right to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. A third bill, HR 2647, contains a companion clause to S 1317 that gives the attorney general the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch lists.
And who are the terrorists? In Obamaworld it’s not the Islamo-fascists flying airliners into buildings, planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or strapping bombs to their waists and setting them off in crowded areas.
No, because in Obamaworld, the word terrorism no longer applies to those who were once called terrorists. And those who used to be considered terrorists no longer commit acts of terrorism. No they commit man-caused disasters. The word terrorist, at least in its past usage, has been dropped from the lexicon.
Today’s terrorists, according to those now in power in the United States, are people in flyover country who believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, and that the Second Amendment actually means that people are free to own guns without restriction.
Our own country’s Department of Homeland Security issued an assessment earlier this year warning law enforcement of a possible rise in home-grown terrorism from “right wing extremists.” And who are those rightwing extremists? The assessment tell us: “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
As we’ve reported before in related stories here and here the current administration is no friend to gun owners.
And what does Eric Holder—attorney general for the United States and the person who would under S 1317 be granted the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch groups—think about guns?
Following are few of his quotes that have appeared in various newspapers over the last few years:
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”
“The second amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia.”
“To further strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to track those suspected of terrorism or other criminal acts in this country, Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.”
Holder’s boss, the president, is equally unfriendly to gun owners. Writing for Gun Digest last October, gun lobbyist Richard A. Pearson called Obama an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. You can read his article here.
Some of Obama’s own quotes, as they have appeared in various publications, will back this up:
“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”
“The package (legislation passed in the Illinois Senate) closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We’re eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family. We’re limiting handgun sales to one a month. We’re calling for handgun registration. It’s very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don’t know how many weapons he has purchased.”
Without a doubt, the current administration is the most anti-gun administration in our nation’s history. Don’t let the hullabaloo over healthcare and cap and trade cause you to let your guard down.
And be sure you cling to your guns and religion. They may soon be all you have.

Bob Livingstonis an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 39 years. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.
Email this author | All posts by Bob Livingston

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT BOB LIVINGSTON IS NOT AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING, YOU ARE EITHER A CONSERVATIVE OR YOU ARE A LIBEREAL. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. JOSEPH LARSON

Saturday, January 2, 2010

ARE YOU WATCHING THE SHAME OF OUR CHANGE?

About The Author
Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union

If saner minds rule the day, the “Flying Dutchman” will replace Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Jasper Schuring, a vigilant passenger on Northwest Flight 253, is the only part of our airline security “system” that “worked,” contrary to Napolitano.

Schuringa saw the glow of fire in row 19, and assumed someone was trying to blow up the plane. “I just jumped over all of the seats” and “jumped to the suspect,” he told CNN. According to The Washington Post:

Jasper Schuringa, an Amsterdam resident, lunged toward the fire in Row 19, jumping from one side of the plane to the other and over several other passengers. He burned his fingers as he grabbed a piece of melting plastic held by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused Saturday of trying to bring down the passenger jet with a homemade explosive device.

It’s highly doubtful that Napolitano or the President would have jumped as quickly to Schuringa’s conclusion about Abdulmutallab since he’s not a returning war vet, a cop, or employed by Fox News.

Napolitano wrongly profiled our returning military veterans as potential right-wing “terrorists,” but she and Obama are opposed to profiling actual terrorists. She was wrong again when she told us “the system worked.” But as before, she claims she was “taken out of context.” The President expressed his confidence in her after admitting that the system failed.

Obama is right—“human and systemic failures” allowed the massacre of our military at Ft. Hood and the latest terror attack inside the United States.

It was the election of 2008.

A na├»ve electorate fell for Obama’s fraudulent promises of “hope and change” facilitated by his media sycophants: Obama was the most brilliant politician of the century.

The fundamental question ignored was: In what way was this “brilliant politician” committed to “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”?

How can brilliance be reconciled with so many senseless “mistakes”? To name a few:

A schizophrenic policy that prosecutes “an act of war” as a common crime
Pursuing a military court martial of Navy Seals for allegedly roughing up a captured terrorist but dismissing a victorious case of voter intimidation against the “New Black Panthers.”
Extending an open hand to our sworn enemies while backhanding our closest allies, Great Britain and Israel.
Appointing numerous tax cheats who’ve had to withdraw.
Appointing a self-professed communist, Van Jones, the “Green Czar.”
Appointing White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who resigned after disclosing that one of her two favorite philosophers is Mao Tse-Tung.
Appointing a “Science Czar,” John Holdren, who thinks the Constitution permits forced abortion.
Appointing a “Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, who wants to apply the “Fairness Doctrine” to the Internet, ban hunting, and give animals standing to sue.
Appointing a “Safe-Schools” Czar, homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, who
promoted sexually explicit and inappropriate books to 7th graders, and is a fan of a notorious pedophile.
Obama’s relationships with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and with his own America-damning preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
Closing Guantanamo Bay detention center, sending suspected terrorists back to the battlefield or into the United States civil justice system.
Nominating a director of the Transportation Safety Administration, Erroll Southers, who looks forward to “joining” the TSA with a major union.
Is it incompetence, or are these the calculated decisions of a “brilliant” politician who wants to fundamentally transform the United States into his socialist image with the help of “brilliant” political appointees who share his beliefs? Is merely well-intentioned bumbling behind the increasing government control of our lives, destruction of our economy, emasculation of our national security, and redistribution of our wealth?

Each time Obama or one of his political appointees commits a colossal blunder, Obama’s political spinomatics drag out their George W. Bush punching bags, while puzzled critics dismiss the formerly “brilliant” blunderers as being in over their heads. Are they inept or conniving? Either is intolerable.

After allowing another Muslim terrorist to breach airline security, the administration is imposing new “security” regulations that treat innocent travelers like terrorists instead of treating terrorists as unlawful enemy combatants.

Obama should have instructed the FBI to take Abdulmutallab to Guantanamo Bay for questioning and confinement instead of a federal lock-up in Detroit where he’s enjoying his “right to remain silent.”

Presidents from Washington to Roosevelt knew the difference between common criminals and war criminals. Presidents dealt with them accordingly, either by lock-up in a military brigade until the war ended, or execution upon conviction by a military tribunal.

If Napolitano and Obama are serious about finding and fixing “the vulnerabilities in our systems that allowed this breach to happen,” they should repent of their policies that are fundamentally changing the United States to our detriment. Better yet, lead the way by resigning.

It’s the best way to correct fraud in the inducement of a presidential election.