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.

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