WARNING:
The content of this blog has not been approved by the Obama administration and is deemed by the Department of Homeland Security to be a 'rightwing extremist' website.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Even More 'Audacity' from Obama

The fact that the left is becoming frustrated with the lack of unity among Senate Democrats when it comes to passing health care is obvious from the events in the last couple of weeks. Various concessions have been made in an effort to bring enough Democrat Senators on-board in order to reach the magic number of 60 votes, all to very little avail. The latest effort, the Reed compromise, not withstanding.

So it comes as no surprise that the left, given who, and more to the point, what they are, have turned to more coercive tactics to strong arm the holdouts. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, made himself a visible target very early on when he pledged that he would not vote for a health care bill which contained any semblance of a public option. Lieberman has been playing the political game with the big boys for a very long time and since he was a Democrat, was surely aware of the type of attacks which would be leveled at him. And until recently, the attacks he has endured have been of the typical nature. Now, some on the left have begun to take the attacks into vulgar and unethical territories, calling into question Lieberman's fidelity to his Jewish heritage and taking aim at his wife. Neither of which surprised me very much, as they are both very good examples of the left being true to what they are, 'rat bastards'.

Despite all of the audacity, treachery, and deceit from this White House in the last eleven months, I can still be surprised, however, by the depths to which Obama will stoop to advance his agenda. Like this from the Weekly Standard.

"While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson's demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line."

"Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a 'naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson's vote.' They are 'threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?' asked the Senate staffer."

"Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security."

Playing politics with our strategic national security goes way beyond the typical parameters of dirty political tricks which have become a familiar feature of American politics, it is nothing less than treason.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

A Letter to the President


Harold B. Estes, Master Chief Boatswain's Mate, USN (Ret.) proudly served his country during WWII in the south Pacific, and continued to serve after the war was over, a total of 23 years. He is a past president, chaplain, and National Director Emeritus of the Navy League of the United States, Honolulu Council. The BMC Harold Estes Leadership Award is named after him. As Sean Hannity would say, he is "a great American".

Chief Estes recently wrote an open letter to President Obama. While many active duty members of the military, when asked for an opinion of President Obama's performance as 'Commander-in-Chief', might simply say, "He's my Commander-in-Chief", and leave it at that. But, since Chief Estes is retired, he loaded all guns and let Obama have it.
Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
  • " We're no longer a Christian nation"
  • " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes



This letter is making the rounds in e-mails and has been confirmed as being correctly attributed at snopes. com.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Shocker: Sparkman Killed Himself


Almost from the moment that the body of census worker, Bill Sparkman was found back in mid September, the left had pointed the bony finger of indignation directly at the right. Sparkman had been found in rural Kentucky, hanged from a tree, hands bound with 'duct tape', with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest. The left was predictably quick to jump to the conclusion that extreme rhetoric from right wing political commentators was at the root of the motivations of the killer or killers.

On Sept. 24th, a Democratic Underground blogger, zulchzulu, published a piece entitled, Handy Guide to how Republicans and Fox News are responsible for Census worker being hanged.

"We need to absolutely expose Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, CNN's Lou Dobbs, Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and the legion of others parroting right-wing lies for trumping up this nonsense and getting people to now commit murder in a hideous fashion."

It now appears that the American left, ostensibly the smartest people in the room, believed exactly what Sparkman wanted them to believe. After a two month investigation, police officials have concluded that Sparkman killed himself. Sparkman needed his death to look like murder and was relying upon the left's predictable pattern of 'rushing to judgement' for political gain to help him sell the deception.

The left could have been spared this embarrassment if only Janet Napolitano had done her due diligence as the Homeland Security Czar and seized control of this investigation. She could have recruited Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to oversee the investigation in order to ensure the desired outcome. After all, if these people can make the 350 years of global warming known as the 'Medieval Warm Period', and sell that scientific fraud to the world. Surely, they could have handled covering up a little thing like a suicide.

Actual Global Temperatures (1000 CE - 2000 CE)


IPCC Global Temperature Fraud (1000 CE - 2000 CE)

Friday, November 20, 2009

Pray for Obama, Psalms 109:8

The left is going nuts over a T-shirt that reads; "Pray for Obama, Psalms 109:8." So what's the problem? When you look up the passage, the full import of the message becomes clear;....or maybe not. It depends upon whether the reader is a Democrat, or a Republican.



Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post writes of the shirt;

"And Psalm 109:8 is just straight up memetastic, appearing on bumper stickers and T-shirts, all of which carry the benign sounding message, 'Pray For Obama.' But, as Gawker's John Cook points out, this is just one more in a 'long line of cheekily coded Obama death threats.' The verse in question reads: 'May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.' That leads fairly naturally into the Psalm 109:9, 'May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.' You know, in case you miss the point."


He goes on to quote fellow 'huffer' Frank Schaeffer, who seems to views the shirt as a reflection of every sinister right wing thought imaginable.

"It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right have coalesced into a group who truly want American revolution. If it turns out to be blood in the streets and death, so be it. It's not funny stuff anymore. They cannot be dismissed as just crazies on the fringe. It only takes one. You know, look at the Boston Globe article from a few weeks ago that says the threat level faced by the Secret Service has gone up 400%, higher than any other time in 52 years, for any president, Democrat or Republican. These are no jokes."

At least Schaeffer is right about one thing, there are plenty of us, myself included, who want this government reigned back within it's Constitutional parameters, and believe that the only way that is going to realistically happen is with another American revolution.

All of this paranoid hoopla was started by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.




The fact of the matter is that, taken at face value, the shirt is no more sinister than the numerous Bush countdown clocks that graced the pages of various left wing blogs during the Bush administration. Only verse 8 of Psalms 109 is referenced, not verse 9. It is only the desire of the left to demonize the right which compels them to make more of it than it is. What is really interesting is that the left is never at a loss to accuse the right of that which the left is very often clearly guilty. Take for example this shirt.


The shirt reads: "For Gods Sake ....KILL BUSH. Save the United States and the Rest of the World."

Or, how about a good old fashioned 'wanted poster'.

The left has been quick to point out the threating messages displayed on posters and signs carried by 'tea party' goers. They of course, are choosing to engage in their own particular from of partisan selective memory, as the following images clearly attest.













The next image is what appears to be a sheet of postage stamps featuring President Bush with a gun pointed at his head, and was displayed in an art gallery exhibit at Columbia College in Chicago.


The Bible is a wealth of sound council for every need of the human condition, including, determining which way to lean politically.

"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Barack, You Ignorant [Bleep]

President Obama finally broke his boycott of FNC by sitting down for an interview with Fox's Major Garrett while in Bejing, China. During the interview, which aired at 6 pm today on "Special Report with Bret Baier", the President proved once again that he is completely ignorant on economic matters.

"...if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of a recovery, that at some point, (d)uh, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that can actually lead to a double dip recession."

The amount of ignorance contained in this statement is stunning. If we keep adding to the debt?
What does he mean by 'if'? The Congress has done nothing during his administration but add to the debt, with plans to add more. There is no 'if' about it. Right now, the national debt now stands at $12 trillion, that's, $12,000,000,000,000; or twelve, thousand, thousand, million dollars. That figure represents 96% of our current GDP. The interest on that debt alone is $338 billion annually. Currently, the government is spending nearly twice what it is confiscating from it's citizens in tax revenue. The national debt is projected to rise to at least $16.2 trillion by 2012. But, that is not the worst of it! America's unfunded liabilities, that is the amount of money we have committed ourselves to spending with no idea of how we will get the money, is $106 trillion. The actual liability per citizen now stands at $335,000.00! Check it for yourself here.

Obama mentions the recovery. What recovery? A jobless recovery, is no recovery! The administration insists that it has saved or created 'X' number of jobs, (I say 'X', because the numbers are different depending upon the source in the administration), and the stimulus is creating jobs; but most of the permanent ones are being created in China! Of the US jobs that stimulus has created, 93% of them are government jobs, the greater portion of which will disappear as soon as the money dries up.

America has more than 200 hundred years of history, that includes economic history. We have watched as tax and spend policies have effected the economy. One does not have to have a masters degree in economics, it is an matter of simple observation. When taxes are high, the economy lags and the jobless rate is high. When the taxes are low, the economy roars and the jobless rate is low. Every time that the government has reduced taxes in an effort to improve the economic situation it has worked spectacularly. But, the Obama administration has increased taxes on the 'movers and shakers' of our economy, with plans to increase taxes on the rest of us by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The Obama administration is doing what FDR did during the depression, and there is every reason to believe that those efforts contributed to the depression lasting far longer than it would have had the government done nothing.

This administration has done everything that it should not have done, and nothing that it should have. If the American people have any confidence in this economy, it will be short lived. If the American people had any confidence in Obama, it is rapidly disappearing.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations


On the heels of the House passage of the health care bill on November 7, 2009, a date which will live in infamy, Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, has filed a motion to introduce the House bill today. The health care bill passed the House with only one Republican vote, so when Speaker Pelosi announced it's passage to a chorus of cheers, Democrats were in essence, cheering themselves. For what? For their stupidity, or their nerve?

The President, as well as other Democrats, have admitted that the Democrats have been trying to force this particular form tyranny upon the American people for decades. Heretofore, the freedom loving among us have had sufficient representation in the government in order to prevent it. No more. This bill passed despite the 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats that had the presence of mind to vote against it. But the American people recognized very early that our republic was in jeopardy, the tea parties and town hall confrontations being the most visable representation of the alarm felt by many. What is happening now has never happened in the lifetime of any living today. The tea party movement dwarfs the anti-Vietnam war movement of the sixties and makes the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' rhetoric of the Clinton years look like mere paranoia. One would be hard pressed to catalog the myriad of national, state, and local organizations associated with the tea party movement which have sprung up since Obama's election. This, plus the results of the November elections, should have given every Democrat in the House, each of whom is going to have to fight to keep his seat in 2010, reason to vote against the bill, yet only 39 did. So again I ask, did they pass it because they are morons, or did they pass it because of some hidden agenda or goal?

The Democrats admit that health care reform will not work. The fact that it will not work is self evident. Provide more, improve quality, and lower costs, all at the same time? It's not possible, especially with the government involved. Add to that the fact that 45% of doctors say that they will consider leaving the profession if health care reform becomes law, and you have the makings of a health care crisis which will far exceeding the current one. If only 25% of those doctors actually leave the profession, those doctors will be the ones who care. They will be the ones do not want the government telling them who they may treat, when they may treat them, and how they may treat them. The doctors who remain, will be those with the least concern for their patients. The flip side is that in the private sector, a persons worth, in terms of compensation, is determined by a number of factors, not the least of which is, the number persons available who are skilled in a particular profession. As there will be fewer doctors, the market value of the service performed by those doctors remaining will increase, along with the cost of health care. As there will be fewer doctors, and costs will dramatically increase as a result, health care rationing will be unavoidable.

Since Rahm Emanuel and former President Clinton agree that the goal of the health care reform is not necessarily to get it right, what is the goal? The same goal that these socialist statists have been striving for all along; power. Government programs are not so much about solving problems, which they never seem to do, as they are about exerting control. Political correctness and hate crimes legislation are not so much about protecting the vulnerable, as they are about crushing free speech through intimidation. Gun control is not so much about crime reduction, it actually has the opposite effect, as it is about disarming the people. Our founders never intended for our government to be the privilege granting, property confiscating, rights trampling, regulatory, tax and spend monstrosity that it has become. The statist have every intent to expand government power and control until Americans are nothing more than a society of serfs.

America is awakening from a long, ignorant slumber. We have made our objections known to our leaders and they have ignored us. We have gathered in great numbers in Washington to protest and they have mocked us. We have been here before. Two hundred and thirty three years ago fifty five brave souls pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in signing the Declaration of Independence. One line from that document stands out as one upon which we should seriously reflect today; “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” America finds itself today at exactly the same crossroad; will we choose liberty or will we choose tyranny?

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Fort Hood Attack Meets the Definition of Terrorism


The FBI barely had their boots on the ground at Fort Hood when Fox News reporting that the FBI was saying that the attack was not terror related. At that time there was no confirmation of the number of fatalities and wounded, the identity of any of the perpetrators, or even the number of perpetrators. There was virtually no information at that time upon which to comprehensively determine a motive for the massacre, let alone rule out terrorism, and yet, it was being reported that it was not terror related.

As more information became available we found out that this attack was the work of one person, Major Malik Nidal Hasan, a Muslim. A man who joined the military prior to the September 11th terror attack and was very much opposed to the war on terror as a war against his fellow Muslims. Col. Terry Lee (retired), who had worked with Major Hasan, told Fox News that Major Hasan had made several troubling statements in the past that point toward a possible motivation. Col. Lee quoted Hasan as saying things like, "Muslims have the right to rise up against the US military", "The Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors", and "maybe we should have more of these where people strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square."

At this moment, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone has just announced that Hasan, who previously been reported as having been killed at the scene, is in fact wounded and very much alive. Cone also said that he could not rule out terrorism as a motivation, but that he believes that the evidence does not suggest terrorism.

There seems to been a knee jerk effort to paint this attack as anything but terrorism. This is not surprising since we have a foreign policy 'woosie' as Commander in Chief. The last thing that the Obama administration needs is a horrific terrorist attack on a military base on US soil. At this moment, terrorism is exactly what it looks like. I have no doubt that an extreme effort is going to be made to define 'terrorism' in a way which would exclude this attack.

From the FBI's own website we found that the agency's own definition of terrorism is as follows:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
If all that we know right now turns out to be accurate, this attack appears to meet that definition. Further, since Major Hasan is in fact alive, we may find out much more about his motives in the coming days which may make it much more difficult for this administration to avoid the truth.

UPDATE 11/6/09:

The jihidi, Major Hasan, yelled "ALLAH AKBAR", (God is Great) just before he began shooting. The death toll now stands at 13 dead, 38 wounded. Hasan is the son of Palestinian immigrants who grew up and went to high school in Roanoke, Virginia.

Muslim groups across the country are coming out with statements of condemnation for the attack, decrying the frequent mention of the fact that Hasan was a Muslim, and insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. Really!

"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war." - Koran 9:5

"Whether unarmed or well equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons." - Koran 9:41

"Are you waiting for anything to befall us except victory or martyrdom?" - Koran 9:51


Of course, the argument that Islam is a religion of peace would be much more believable if the adherents thereof would stop killing people in the name of Allah. But, not all Muslims in the US are condemning Hasan's actions, some are actually praising him.

An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack.

Get Well Soon Major Nidal

We Love You

We do NOT denounce this officer's actions....

(H/T - The Jawa Report)

Despite the mounting evidence that this was a jihadi attack, a terrorist attack, the MSM is feverishly laboring to portray Hasan as a victim of combat related 'post traumatic stress disorder' (PTSD) or, that he did this because he feared going to war. Both of these assertions are completely absurd. Hasan had never been deployed, but was to be deployed. The "post trauma' did not as yet exist as he had not yet been in actual combat, nor would he have been, since he is a psychologist, and would have been assigned to a rear area. The MSM will continue to avoid the obvious until the story grows cold, and is replaced by other news.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Party 'Brand' Loyalty vs Ideology


The subject of party loyalty was brought up before this election with respect to the upcoming special election in New York's 23 district. Sarah Palin, favoring ideology over party, came out in support of the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman over the 'RINO' Dede Scozzafava on her facebook page. She was not alone. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), Dick Armey and Fred Thompson had also broken with the Republican party to endorse Hoffman. In response to what appeared to some as party treason, Newt Gingrich offered a substantively weak argument in favor of supporting the party candidate no matter what.

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”
This is the same old 'if we split the center right vote, the left wins' argument. Problem is, this attitude does not serve the conservative movement in all cases, and it certainly did not in this case. Scozzafava is not a conservative (she even endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative after she dropped out of the race), she should never have been chosen as the Republican candidate, and if she could have won the election, she would have done nothing to advance the conservative movement. Opposing her did more to advance conservatism in the Republican party than supporting her ever had any chance of doing. The polls prior to the election, as well as the actual election results bear this out. New York 23 is a Republican district in which Scozzafava, the Republican, was getting killed in the polls precisely because she was anything but a conservative. The final election results show that Hoffman, the third party candidate, lost the election by only 5 percentage points.

The lesson that the national Republican party should learn from New York 23 is that political ideology is more important that party 'brand' loyalty. The Republican party even ran ads against Hoffman, and dispite them, Hoffman still continued to climb in the polls. Hoffman may have lost the election, but he did much better than a third party candidate would have done under normal circumstances. If the GOP county chair in NY had actually chosen a conservative candidate instead of Scozzafava, who by the way, even received the unsolicited endorsement of the founder of the DailyKos, Democrat Bill Owens would have been conceding defeat last night. The fact of the matter is that it was Scozzafava, not Hoffman, who was the spoiler in New York 23.

The message to the GOP is reinforced by the election results in my own state of Virginia. Bob McDonnell ran a Reaganesque campaign. He ran as conservative. He ran on the conservative issues of primary concern to the voters. He ran a positive campaign. If you look at the election results map, it is easy to see how successful his campaign was. State wide, McDonnell won 59% of the vote, and in many counties, he got as much as 70% of the votes cast. Rather than spend time and effort on spinning the election results as a referendum against the Obama presidency, the GOP needs to understand it as a referendum in favor of conservative principles.

More Americans are conservative than moderate, or liberal, with 40% identifying themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates, and 20% as liberals. The likely voters who self identify as Republicans is approximately 1/3 of the electorate, the same is true of those who self identify as Democrats. This leaves approximately 40% of the electorate who are independents. Winning elections have always been about attracting the votes of those independents. The Republican party needs to finally get the message that the way to attract a winning majority of the voters in the middle is by remaining loyal to conservative principles before, during, and after the election. If Republicans do this, party 'brand' loyalty will never be an issue.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Vote Today!


Your Republic is Calling!

From now on, we all, every American, needs to come to the realization that every election is important. We must change our habits to accommodate a new mind set of being at the polls to vote every single time that they are open. No election is trivial. No race is too small. And remember, if you don't vote, you have no basis to complain. Make your voice heard, and make your opinion count.

The vast majority of America is center right. The left does not believe this. We have to prove it to them. If we wait until we no longer have the right to vote, it will be too late. Our republic is in peril, and it is up to those of us who value our freedoms and liberties to take a stand. Vote!

Sunday, November 1, 2009

FNS Interview with Rush Limbaugh

It is not often than Limbaugh grants an in depth interview. It's pretty rare. On today's Fox News Sunday, Rush gave one of the best interviews that I have seen him do. If you missed it, here it is.



The White House wasted no time in responding to the Limbaugh interview via David 'the commie' Axelrod on Face the Nation

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Guardians of the Republic


The photo at right is a close up of some peculiar 'tabs' and an odd American flag facsimile patch worn by an active duty member of the U.S. military serving in Mosul, Iraq. If you are unfamiliar with what these emblems refer, let me explain.

The 'three percent' tab and the flag patch identify him as a 'three percenter'. What is a 'three percenter'? During the American revolution, the active forces in the field fighting the tyranny of King George never amounted to more than three percent of the population of the colonies. Today, 'three percenters' are those who understand that America will lose the freedom won by the original three percent if we continue to allow the federal government to take our guns away from us.

Oath Keeper refers to an effort begun earlier this year, to remind active duty members of the military, veterans, of their oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, heavy emphasis on the word 'domestic'. Oath Keepers understand that their allegiance is to the Constitution, not the politicians; this includes the President. Oath Keepers members acknowledge that there are orders which they will not follow.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrant less searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

The Oath Keepers Mission Statement declares;

"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."

Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, is a former member of Congressman Ron Paul's Washington, D.C., staff, as well as a graduate of the Yale School of Law and a former Army paratrooper disabled during a night jump. Rhodes began Oath Keepers on March 2, 2009 on Blogger. I became aware of them on March 14th. The efforts of Oath Keepers became phenomenally successful and by Oct. 20, they had officially moved to their new dot org site. Up until now, Oath Keepers had been fortunate to slip under the liberal radar, with the notable exception of the Marxist front group, Southern Poverty Law Center, which said that they were a "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Now, the moonbats are sounding the alarm, (see here, and here) including Chris Matthews.



Oath Keepers membership numbers in the thousands. Now that the left is aware of them, and will unwittingly give them all the press that they deserve, look for their ranks to rapidly swell to the hundreds of thousands. The MSM is good for something after all.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Because Their Lips Are Moving

Nobody enjoys being lied to. Unfortunately, it happens way to much these days. Back in 2002, a University of Massachusetts study found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies. A 2001 study found that compulsive liars tell about 200 lies a day. While it is a disturbing trend that dealing with liars on a daily basis is becoming 'usual and customary', it has ever been the case in the arena of politics.

To achieve an unprecedented control over Americans, a la health care reform, the Democrats have pushed credibility to its limits. Democrats have lied from beginning to end in this debate. They have lied about the number of uninsured in America. They have lied about health insurance providers profits. They have lied about their intent to cover illegal aliens in their plan. They have lied about their intent to cover abortions in their plan. They have lied about the cost of health care reform. They have lied about our ability to keep our current plans. They have lied about health care rationing. They lied when they said health care reform would lower health care costs. Seems that the only thing Democrats have not lied about is that they want a government run health care plan, for us, but not for them. Congress will be insulating themselves from the government run plan they will be forcing upon the rest of us. They have been fairly dishonest about that as well, at least by omission.

Americans have not been decieved. A new Rasmussen poll shows that most Americans are not buying the hype.

If the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats passes, 57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. That’s part of the reason that just 45% support the plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% are opposed to it. Those numbers include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed. Just 18% say passage of the congressional plan will reduce costs, while only 23% believe it will lead to better care.

Voters under 30 are most likely to support the health care proposal while those over 65 are the least supportive. Just 36% of senior citizens favor the plan while 58% are opposed. Those figures include just 19% of senior citizens who Strongly Favor the plan and 47% who are Strongly Opposed.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Stealth Tyranny

Obama promised transparency. He promised that piece of non-emergency legislation would be available for public review online for five days before he would sign it. To date, not one bill has been so displayed. On Jan. 21st, the administration released the following announcement:
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. …"

The reality is that they have made no attempt what-so-ever to keep this promise. Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, only two days after it was passed. Obama signed the S-Chip expansion bill only three hours after passage. Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill one day after passage. At this point, for one to give Obama any benefit of doubt with respect to his sincerity in making these promises, would betray the fact that one is a moron.

Right now, democrat leaders are laboring behind closed and locked doors to engineer a take over of one sixth of the U.S. economy.




How could anyone consider this acceptable? They would not be doing this in secret if they believed that the people would really approve of the end result. They are doing it in secret in order to avoid any public backlash which might cause some legislators to get cold feet. They intent to craft a bill, make sure that they have all the democrat votes they need to pass it, and ram it through before any of us even have a hint of what is in it.

Obama said, "Openness will strengthen our democracy..." That is a true statement, but then again, strengthening our democracy is obviously not he object of the exercise. The expansion of power is! Tyranny is! In a free society, tyranny cannot be easily imposed openly. It is done through deception, and if not through deception, then behind closed doors.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

How the Left is Actually Helping the Right


One would have to be living in the wilderness for the last several months in order to be unaware of the war that the left is waging against certain conservatives. The White House has declared war on Fox News Channel. MSNBC continually goes after Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Coulter as if they were the 'axis of evil', as do the liberals throughout the blogosphere.

It seems that the more the left decries their enemies the more popular they become. Despite the efforts of the White House to paint Fox News as a primary source of disinformation, and something other than a legitimate news outlet, Fox's ratings continue to climb.

Fox News' Glenn Beck show, which only began airing on January 19th of this year, now draws more viewers than all three of the competing time slot shows on CNN, MSNBC, and HLN.

While negative press typically has a correspondingly negative effect on popularity, that is not always the case. There are many instances in which negative publicity can have a positive effect on popularity. Many times negative publicity, such as a musician who has gotten into trouble with the law, has an indirect relationship to their currently marketed work, in such cases, negative publicity can increase sales. In other instances in which it is the product or service which is the subject of the negative publicity, such as a book or movie review, sales would be adversely effected.

Since this is generally the case, and since the negative press is directly attacking these conservative commentators products and services, why isn't the negative publicity negatively effecting their popularity? Well, it may have to do with risk. Negative advertising used against a politician works because their is risk involved in ignoring such advertising. The same is true with a product or service, the consumer risks his money, and in some cases, his safety, by ignoring the negative publicity. However, in the case of negative publicity against conservatives, the consumer need only risk a little time, usually at his discretion and leisure, to verify (or dismiss) the negative claims which the left presents against conservative commentators and Fox News.

So, if Rachel Maddow says that Glenn Beck is exploiting the tragedy of 9/11, or if Keith Olbermann attacks Glenn Beck for his part in bringing about the resignation of Van Jones, the public risks relatively nothing in deciding for themselves if such claims are accurate. And there in is the rub, because the public is obviously doing that, and are concluding that the negative publicity is substantively wanting. In the final analysis, it all boils down to credibility.

It seems to this observer, that the liberals are actually helping conservatives to get our message out, and while that is certainly their intent, we are nonetheless, very appreciative of their assistance.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Obama Cannot Unite America With Walls

From the 9/12 March on DC, Rev C.L. Bryant from Grand Cane, LA.



Obama promised to change the way Washington operates. He has reaffirmed it. Obama promised to bring left and right together. He has widened the divide. He promised an open and transparent administration. He has created a dark and secretive monstrosity, with little or no public oversight. He is building walls, and forcing Americans to choose a side. What will he and the socialist elites in Washington do, if we do not choose the side that he wishes us to choose?

H/T: Darla at ResistNet.com

Monday, October 12, 2009

Max 'Bogus' Health Care Reform Bill

Throughout the health care debate, Democrats have characterized Republicans as the 'party of no', largely because Republicans won't get with the fraudulent Democratic health care program. How fraudulent that program is in reality has become very apparent. The stated major goals of health care reform are:
  • Help the 49 million uninsured acquire adequate health care coverage
  • Reduce the cost of health care for all Americans
  • Americans who like their current health care coverage would be able to keep it
  • Health care reform legislation must be deficit neutral

The more we learn about the Baucus bill (hereafter referred to as the 'Bogus' bill), the more we realize that it falls far short of meeting these goals.

1). Help the 49 million uninsured acquire adequate health care coverage.

This number is, of course, an arbitrary one at best. The actual number of the uninsured in America is undetermined. I have heard numbers as low as 30 million, and as high as 49 million. So, granting then what has not been proved, we accept the 49 million figure with the understanding that 17 million of those are individuals who are financially well off enough to pay as they go, 18 million are young and healthy and choose to opt out, and 12 million are foreign nationals.

By the CBO's own estimate, the 'Bogus' bill would leave 25 million still uninsured by 2019. Since the 'Bogus' Bill will only cover roughly half of the uninsured, the door will be left open for further legislation down the road, like say, nationalized health care.

2). Reduce the cost of health care for all Americans.

The 'Bogus' bill will not reduce the cost of health care, in fact in will significantly increase it. First, the bill pushes off about $35 billion in Medicare costs onto the state governments, which in turn will pass those costs onto the taxpayer.

The bill will also levy a 40% excise tax on insurers who offer benefits in excess of $8,000 per individual plan and $21,000 per family plan; and as inflation increases in the coming years, more Americans will find themselves subject to the tax. There will also be taxes on health care devices and other services. The bill will mandate a requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions. Insurers also expect reductions in Medicare payments. All of the foregoing additional costs, providers will be forced to pass on to consumers in the form of increased premiums. A new study by Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates that the 'Bogus' bill will increase the health care premiums for a family of four by $4,000 by 2019.

3.) Americans who like their current health care coverage would be able to keep it.

Many Americans who currently have health insurance, and like it, will be forced leave it for a government approved plan, or pay a penalty. The bill will also gut Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Medicare Advantage Plans. Currently about 10 million Americans have an HSA, and one in five seniors are on Medicare Advantage.

4.) Health care reform legislation must be deficit neutral.

Despite the CBO estimates that the 'Bogus' bill would cut the deficit by $81 billion, the numbers are deliberately misleading. The CBO says that the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years (2010 - 2019), but the most expensive portions of the bill do not go into effect until 2013. If one estimates the cost over ten years beginning with the actual full operation year (2013 -2022), the bill will cost $1.3 trillion. The $81 billion figure comes from the projected cost offset from Medicare cuts. These Medicare cuts were authorized in 2003 and they have yet to be implemented. It is unlikely that Democrats would actually risk implementing these Medicare cuts, and if they do not, the 'Bogus' bill will end up costing $2.2 trillion between 2013 and 2022. Either way, the bill is not really deficit neutral.

I know that it seems amazing that the Democrats who claim to care so much about Americans in need of help, would propose a bill that offers so little help, and does so much harm. But one must remember what the real goal of the Democrats is, namely, a government run health care system. By screwing health care reform up so badly now, it presents a future opportunity for a public option redux.

Backdoor provisions.

While not a stated goal of health care reform, the bill can be used to force Americans to give up their right to own a gun. Through an 'unhealthy behavior' provision already in the bill, Americans could be denied coverage, or pay much higher premiums for coverage, if they own a gun for self defense or hunting. What constitutes 'unhealthy behavior' is yet to be defined by legislators, but why would Democrats , who have long had wet dreams about removing our second amendment rights, let a golden opportunity like this pass them by? To force Americans to bend the knee at their altar, and remove their wherewithal to effectively oppose them , all with one piece of legislation, of course they would do it.

Other sources: Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Nobel Prize is Worthless Now


Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!

Apparently this was all that was in the heads of the Nobel Committee when they made their selection for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. In choosing Barack Obama as this years recipient, the Nobel Committee has now devalued the Nobel Prize to the point that it means absolutely nothing. Even the Nobel committee's citation is nothing less than an admission that Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, was awarded the prize not on the basis actual accomplishments, but rather, on the prospect that he would achieve laudable accomplishments. Yes, that's right; 'hope and change'.

President Obama beat out a record number of nominees, 205 to be exact, many of whom had actual achievements to their credit. Among the top contenders are two individuals who have actually put their very lives on the line, Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Chinese dissident Hu Jia. Regardless of how you feel about the contribution offered by either of these two individuals, at least you can say that they have done something. What has Obama done? With so many, much more worthy contenders in the mix, it makes the awarding of the prize to Obama seem extremely suspicious, and many are naturally asking, why Obama? Is it intended as a consolation prize for the Olympic Committee debacle? Is it a bribe to prevent Obama from taking action in against Iran? Is it meant simply to encourage Obama to continue his current totalitarian course in America? Or, is it something even more obscene, something comparable to affirmative action?

Regardless of what the motivation of the Nobel committee really was, Obama does not deserve this award, and he knows it.

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled."

"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action."

Obama ought to be both embarrassed and insulted. A better man would refuse it. But not Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm. After all, the prize is more than an award, it comes with $1.4 million. Bling! Bling!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Government Run Health Care or Jail?


According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, an individual who fails to pay the penalty for not buying health insurance will face action from the Internal Revenue Service. On top of the penalty for not buying insurance, which could be as much as $1,900 (but it's not a tax), violators could face a $25,000 fine and one year behind bars. From Politico.com.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign(R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don't believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

"We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment," Ensign said. "That seems to me to be a problem."

Ensign's argument, however, wasn't persuasive to the committee -- which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

So, if you do not have a health care plan, the government is going to make you buy one, whether you want to or not. If you do not buy a heath care plan, the government will fine you up to $1,900. Not just any plan mind you, you have to buy a government approved plan. If you already have a health insurance plan, but it is not a government approved plan, you will have to purchase an approved plan or be fined. So much for "if you like your health care plan you can keep it". Liars!

In either case, if you do not do as the government commands, you will be fined, and if you refuse to pay the fine, the government will charge you with a misdemeanor and penalize you further with more fines and possible jail time. What started out as a means to help the 49 million uninsured in America has taken on a life of it's own, and is now mutated into a way for the federal government to inject itself into the lives of every American with respect to health care.

Americans will no longer have the right;
  • to choose to buy health insurance or not.
  • to choose the health care plan that we think is best for our needs.
  • keep the plans and doctors that we already have.
  • reap the rewards of youth or healthy living by virtue of the fact that payments for coverage will be far more than the actual services received.
  • to choose high deductible coverage even if we can afford it.
Of course, if you choose not to give up these rights, you can go to jail, where you will have free room and board, free health care, and free cable TV, all on the tax payers dime.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Playing the Race Card to a Frazzle



"It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile."

Certainly, you remember this quote from Janeane Garofalo, the de facto leader of the 'hate America first' crowd. She was not always a left wing nut job, she grew up conservative in a conservative family. Always outspoken, in college she was expressing her conservative viewpoints when a friend said to her, "You're an a**hole!". Assuming that her friend was criticizing her political views rather than her disposition, she changed her political views. Her disposition on the other hand, has not improved much. Garofalo begins her shows by greeting her audience with, "If there's any tea baggers here, welcome, and as always, white power."

I cannot imagine any American patriot soiling his/her hard earned money on one of her shows. Garofalo can spew more hatred of America in fifteen minutes, than most liberals could hope to do in a full day. Here are a few more of her more notable quotes:

  • "Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, `Oh my God, you`re insulting me.` That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, `We`re here, we`re queer!` -- that`s what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."
  • “When Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off. The right-wing media is trying to marginalize the peace movement.”
  • "These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there."
  • “I say at this point, for different reasons, Bush and Hussein are both very threatening to world peace and to deny that is to be incredibly naive.”
Garofalo crawled out from under whatever rock she calls home last night to appear on the show of fellow mudslinger, Bill Maher.



Now, we are having a civil war in this country. We have been having one for a very long time, we just have not started shooting at each other yet. In this conflict I understand that the other side will use any tactic which they deem to have a reasonable chance of success, so also, will we. Yet, they have been playing the race card for several months, and any reasonable tactician would have come to the conclusion by this time, that it is not going to work. But then again, I have never accused the left of being reasonable.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Now, That's Educating!

I am not a very big fan of Conan O'Brian, but this is a good bit.



The characters of Sesame Street must be big fans of the Glenn Beck show!

H/T: Black and Right

Wednesday, September 30, 2009