Archive for the ‘Patriot’ Category

For those unfamiliar, Ted Nugent doesn’t shy away from sharing his opinions on myriad controversial political topics — from gun-rights to homosexuality, from religion to the military.

The veteran rocker recently said at a Republican event that, ”The whole world sucks, but America still sucks less.” He followed up the assertion by clarifying, “But with this administration, we are catching up,”

The Detroit native caught up with Mike Broomhead’s team at KFYI-AM in Phoenix for yet another bombshell of an interview. We warn, the following clip contains graphic language. Still, many will find Nugent’s trademark no holds barred attitude on politics a refreshing change of pace.

Among his more piquant revelations, Nugent believes that having Tim Geithner sever as Secretary of The Treasury, bearing in mind Geithner’s “tax cheating,“ is like having Jeffrey Dahmer ”in charge of a children’s playground.”

He also said that “welfare is slavery” and that we have “American hating maniacs” in our government.

Perry, Romney to speak in SAN ANTONIO.

By Abe Levy

Republican presidential hopefuls Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney will be in San Antonio this week for the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, but for the first time in its 112-year history, no one from the White House has committed to making an appearance.

Officials with the nation’s largest combat veterans association said they have about 8,000 registrants, many of whom are battling airport cancellations from Hurricane Irene to make it to the downtown Convention Center for Monday’s kickoff.

That’s when Perry is scheduled to take the stage. By custom, he was invited as governor of the host state. Conference leaders said they have asked him to appear as state governor — not as a presidential candidate — because his invitation went out before he announced he was seeking the GOP nomination.

On Tuesday, Romney is set to speak. Several months ago, when invitations went out for speakers, the former governor of Massachusetts was at the time the lone presidential candidate to have announced, VFW officials said. The group’s policy is to invite only announced presidential candidates.

“No matter what, we take heat for it,” said VFW spokesman Jerry Newberry. “When President Clinton spoke one year, we caught heat from members. When President Bush did, we took heat. Same with President Obama. But we’re a diverse organization, and we don’t care what party (speakers) come from.”

Adding to the frustration is not having Obama or any of his representatives accept the group’s invitation. The organization is noted for its advocacy of veterans’ rights, especially health care and military benefits, both of which are on the chopping block in talks about reducing the federal budget.

“When the President is unable to attend, it has always been customary for the White House to choose a high-level administration official as an alternative speaker,” wrote Richard Eubank, the group’s national commander, in a statement.

“It is an insult of the highest magnitude that for the first time in the history of the VFW, the White House has apparently decided that this great and iconic organization of combat veterans and all of its members are not worthy of its notice by not at least offering a first-tier speaker from the administration.”

Obama is scheduled to speak to another veterans organization, the American Legion, on Aug. 30 in Minneapolis for its annual national convention. It has an estimated 2.4 million members and is made up of both combat and noncombat veterans.

The VFW’s national gathering will last four days, concluding Thursday after a series of seminars and business meetings designed to prioritize issues for its estimated 2 million members.

The convention will include free health screenings, the election of new officers and appearances by Mayor Julián Castro; W. Scott Gould, the deputy secretary of Veterans Affairs; and former U.S. Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway.

Still, their chief concern is that the federal budget will cut benefits that veterans have relied on. And they’re leery about reports that the military retirement program is under review for an overhaul, including the idea of offering a 401(k) plan instead of the well-established guarantee of a salary after 20 years of service.

“Those discussions could very well impact the health and welfare of our veterans and military families and their future,” Newberry said. “Can veterans be assured their entitlements are going to be there for them? Can our military members at war for such a long time be reassured that they’re going to be taken care of?”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Perry-Romneyto-speakin-S-A-2144593.php#ixzz1WRu66kH6

By American Vision.org

We have seen now how America was originally settled with nearly all governmental sovereignty vested at the local level. This was the legacy of Christian culture, and the better part of it. Early Americans did not have to worry about their wealth and freedom being voted away by alleged representatives far removed by hundreds of miles and two or three levels of government. We have also seen that this ideal of freedom has been lost gradually over time at many junctures, and always in the name of something like “the common good”; but more importantly, we have seen that these several creeping tyrannies were enabled and empowered by that one main instance of centralizing power, force, and money at the federal level—the Constitution of 1787. Nevertheless, whatever the causes are ultimately, it is easy to see that we today have nowhere near the freedom of our ancestors. The question, now, is how to get back to that level of freedom.

In this section, I intent to discuss the new mindset we need, some hurdles to overcome, and some practical actions to take toward restoring local freedom and local sovereignty. By “local sovereignty” I mean freedom of local governments from the dictates of higher levels of government. We must return to local control, and free local institutions from the bands and shackles of the federal and state machineries that entrap locals with grant money, encroachments on power and local decisions, licensing, and regulations. By the similar phrase “local freedom” I mean freedom of individuals from the same encroachments and impositions by their own local governments.

First, there are many hurdles in the way of gaining this freedom. The enemies of freedom have always been those who stand to profit from the public coercive systems. These people—either for the sake of some form of prestige or money (or both)—will consistently scheme and legislate to benefit themselves. These lusts exist at every level of government, but also in the hearts of individuals. So, the remedy for restoring freedom to the local level will mean confronting the many, many ways in which both individuals and government leaders have entrenched themselves in public funding based on taxation. Whether this manifests in publicly-funded construction contracts, public education, exorbitant pensions for public employees, union privileges, grants from higher governmental agencies, or a myriad of other versions of the same evil, the path to freedom means stopping these appropriations and redistributions of money, and derailing the long train of abuses of individual freedoms resulting from the alliance of the plunderers who want the money and the elites who think they can plan our lives better than we can and that they have a right to do so.

The problem ultimately is as much personal and individual as it is political. In this regard, the local and state levels are microcosms of the larger plundering going on in Washington, D.C. right now (with the exception that state and local governments have the formal inconvenience of having to balance their budgets); but local government themselves are a reflection of the lusts and corruption that local individuals choose to allow. Local governments often suffer under corrupt officials, constantly seeking to borrow more money, and constantly seeking grants from State and federal governments. But often the people themselves either agree with taking, taxing, or borrowing more money, or they are oblivious to it and don’t care.

So here’s the hard truth: if you agree with the appropriations (but perhaps you say “only at the local level”), then you’re complicit in a corrupt system that stretches all the way to Washington. Don’t talk about freedom and fiscal responsibility when you make multi-million dollar exceptions for yourself, your business, your industry, your union, your police and fire, or your local schools. Obama’s not the problem; you’re the problem. Until you address this problem, you have no moral authority in regard to people doing way over your head. On the other hand, if you are merely oblivious to the problem or don’t care, then you’re still culpable and complicit by your complacency—and you can bet that the liberals and statists just love you for it, for it helps them get their scheme across with less opposition. It’s been said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. I agree, although I would add that anyone who sits there and does nothing can’t be considered a good person to begin with. We need to confront both corruption and complacency, which is to say we need to wake up and take responsibility, take action.

Knowing that the problem begins with the individual heart and stretches all the way up to Washington, we’ll need to confront all levels at the same time. But we must concentrate our energy and focus on the areas in which we’ll have the greatest effect—ourselves and our local governments. We have already addressed vitally-needed personal lifestyle adjustments in education and the welfare State. We have emphasized the “don’t take the cheese” principle in those areas for individuals. Now it is time to focus on that concept at the level of local government. We must work to avert all public expenditure, debt, and taxation in local government, as well as all accepting of grants from higher governmental bodies. This is the first step in returning to anything like true local sovereignty to America—her counties must be free of strings attached to all higher agencies. But since that level of freedom does not yet exist, nor will it exist completely for the duration of the process of arriving at it, we must still attend as need be to State and national politics until we reach the desired position locally. We can’t take the chance of complacency at the back door where the Feds can creep in while we’re distracted with only local matters. Even when we achieve the goal locally, however, we cannot rest until surrounding counties, and then the vast majority of counties in the State have reached a similar level of understanding and practice of local sovereignty—for until a majority of counties exist that are willing to assert their freedom simultaneously against higher governments, the few that arrive at near local autonomy will always be exposed to the weaknesses attending their tiny-minority status. In other words, we’ll need a lot of free counties voicing their “nullifications” and independences at the same time, or else the federal government could simply ignore it and squash it with little repercussion. We need mass decentralized (yet legitimate) resistance so that no central authority can easily or effectively answer it. So, until we reach a time in which a growing number of America’s 3000+ counties care more about freedom than State and Federal aid, we must be vigilant in guarding our work and prayers toward that goal—for they are never safe from the threats of violence, force, defamation, and theft from above.

In short, anyone wishing to start a truly grass-roots, bottom-up movement for restoring local sovereignty is going to face multiple levels of opposition—from the higher levels of government, from the vast mainstream media leftist-propaganda machines, from entrenched Statism even in local media such as newspapers, corporate forces that use government to stop comeptition, and also from corrupt local officials. We must be prepared to meet all of this with truth, unwavering commitment to freedom, courage, and yet calmness, confidence, and kindness.

Second, we need to affirm this new vision of decentralized power. This vision must be deep and we must commit to it thoroughly. The vision of mass decentralization was actually voiced in this country at a crucial time by the famous economist F. A. Hayek. Nearing the end of World War II, he noted that western civilization was going to need to be rebuilt, and that this task would have to be done amidst an atmosphere in which Communism thrived as a powerful force, the forces and ideas behind National Socialism and fascism were still very strong, and academia was (as it still is) strongly socialist or even communist throughout the West. Hayek argued in his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, that any attempts at rebuilding along the lines of any large socialized, nationalized State would be doomed to failure sooner or later. His important conclusion was this:

We shall not rebuild civilization on the large scale. It is no accident that on the whole there was more beauty and decency to be found in the life of the small peoples, and that among the large ones there was more happiness and content in proportion as they had avoided the deadly blight of centralization. . . Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government . . .Where the scope of the political measures becomes so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag. I believe that here the experience of the small countries like Holland and Switzerland contains much from which even the most fortunate larger countries like Great Britain can learn.  We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fit for small states to live in.[said, “The purpose of meetings is not to record events, it is to protect people.” Go for everything you can find or have a desire to get.

Second, then start a blog or website dedicated to making your local government as public and transparent as possible. You can be as detailed or selective as necessary, as long as it’s honest and open. Post everything you can. Show any clear connections, show every cent that is taxed, how it is assessed and collected, how it is spent; show every cent borrowed and who profits from borrowing against future taxation, and who holds the bond. Show how much elected officials and public employees of all sorts are paid, and what their public pension benefits look like. This is all perfectly legal. WordPress and Blogger are absolutely free and easy to use. It would be great to have at least one such website dedicated to ultimate transparency in each of America’s 3000+ counties. It would better to have several in each county. Variety, choice, and competition will make them better and more effective. These would make fabulous projects for students; but really, anyone could do this, and everyone should.

Then, add video. This can be done merely on a YouTube or other video site’s channel, or better yet, embedded in a website. Record meetings, obtain interviews with officials whenever possible. Some local governments already record their meetings and post them themselves. The point is to have a clear and open public record, and get the word out to as many people, and make everything about local government as accessible and understandable to as many people as possible. This will lead, eventually, to the election of board members, judges, sheriffs, assessors, collectors, etc., who better represent a greater percentage of the population, and better represent local values; it will increase accountability; and it will help end corruption, self-serving, and waste. Taxes will decrease in many localities, choices will open up, people will be freer.

You should know that these ideas and these tactics are being upheld and implemented already with success. Some counties are beginning to assert local sovereignty against State and federal encroachments. For example, the local town of Sedgwick, Maine, recently declared absolute sovereignty over its local food supply. They were tired of state and federal regulations of local meat, raw milk, etc. So they declared their right and determination to be free of the tyranny: their new ordinance says, “[O]ur right to a local food system requires us to assert our inherent right to self-government. We recognize the authority to protect that right as belonging to the town of Sedgwick.” They considered State and federal regulations as “usurpation of our citizens’ right,” and went on to declare, “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” This was applied also for “any corporation” that would try to interfere. The town argued that these claims to local sovereignty are supported by the Declaration of Independence, the Maine State Constitution, and other Maine statutes. They reserved the right even to secede completely if necessary in the face of a contest.

That Sedgwick, Maine ordinance is currently being used as a model to resist federal regulation in many other municipalities. These will certainly lead to court battles and possibly intimidation from higher governments, but the fact that they exist and people are advancing them shows that the vision for local sovereignty is growing and can be implemented. The fight is only begun, but it has begun.

This is true in other areas as well, as some local counties and even States have declared that they will not honor Obama’s Health Care Act, but have declared it null within their jurisdictions. Some States have declared all federal firearm laws null and void within their boundaries, for guns or ammo manufactured there. There are at least a dozen or more areas in which States currently are nullifying Federal laws. And as this precedent becomes more prevalent in States, it will only make moral sense to extend it to counties. Local sovereignty, county sovereignty, will grow more viable as well.

This is, after all, the foundation of American freedom: the first American declaration of independence was not that of 1776, but was written by a single county. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, formally declared independence from Great-Britain on May 31, 1775, saying that “the Authority of the King or Parliament, are annulled and vacated.” They proceeded to set up an interim government all by their lonesome, until (as they expected) the rest of the Colonies should catch up.

Cases of local freedom—individuals asserting control over corrupt local officials—are occurring as well. In one case, a small town council in South Carolina had very quietly been paying itself an extremely rich pension package. When a few local business owners found out, they were outraged. At least one council member was opposed, and the businessmen approached him with a plan. They then showed up impromptu at a council meeting with video camera running. They got them members to confirm the terms of the rich package, and then asked for a show of hands on the council of all those who disapproved of it. The lone honest member of the council jetted his hand high, and the rest were caught on video exposed. The businessmen then simply thanked the council and left with the video. The council was so scared that it called a recess and chased the inquirers into the parking lot, trembling, asking what there were going to do with the video! They knew good and well.

In a similar case, a seventeen year-old kid exposed the appointment of a school superintendant whom a school board tried to rush through because he would be a big spender on behalf of the district. By simply showing up at both the interview process and the board meetings with a digital recorder, the corrupt thugs were caught, and were trembling in fear.

Another local contact of mine has been fighting these kind of battles for several years. He’s watched his community deteriorate with a combination of Federal Section 8 housing and corrupt local investment trusts, much of which came about only after an influx of “free school lunch” programs and Title 1 status gained for local public schools to receive massive federal aid. There is much to discern and sort out here, but the bottom line is corrupt local fat cat officials using government grants to empower and enrich themselves. And they are protected by liberal politicians above them, for several reasons. My contact said he started attending board meetings to record what was said. Very early on, one of these fat cats approached him with suspicious questioning and threatening demeanor—essentially threatening to wreck his career. The man is now very paranoid, because he has seen how deeply the corruption goes in his area, and how serious some of the insiders are about keeping it that way. There is work to be done here.

Another man wrote me telling how he won a seat on his local commission because the local conservatives were raising taxes and spending like crazy. He simply took a strong “TEA-party” stand against spending and corruption, and he was elected—despite overwhelming opposition from the local papers, labor unions, and even the local Chamber of Commerce. The local Chamber opposed him because it was dominated by big businesses that favor big-government for their corporate welfare. In other words, the local Chamber itself was corrupted by the forces of wealth redistribution. It had taken the cheese, and was now entrapped. My friend won the election nevertheless, but still faces an uphill fight against complacent and complicit officials, and, as he put it, “the grip that federal grants place on local units.”

There are some successes out there. But there are currently many challenges. One of the good things about seeing how deep and real the challenges are is that we realize how much more entrenched, powerful, and worse it must be at the higher levels, certainly in Washington, D.C. The nature of the problem is exactly the same; it’s just magnified at the national level. If we can’t dismantle tyranny locally, you can forget it happening in D.C. But this is what is encouraging about the successes we’re seeing: we in fact can have an effect locally, and many people are. There is a lot of work to do, and a lot of hill to climb. It will take time. But remember, we are planning for our grandchildren. It is time to start, get busy, and get a steady pace of reform.

It begins with people caring about the problem. It advances when people get focused, study, and explain the problem. It succeeds when they take action on the problem. This is county rights in action. It will only work when you get involved. For people can only be free if they will be responsible and courageous.

Turn Your Sound On

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM&feature=player_embedded

The Patroit Update

http://patriotupdate.com/

July 19, 2011

In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service— Michelle Obama.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

This unprecedented number of attendants is more than any First Lady in U.S. History.

Retired USAF MSgt says:

July 19, 2011 at 8:02 am

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Servant List and Pay Scale

The First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants (that’s 22 attendants to be exact)

1. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special-2Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) (This is community organizing at it’s finest.)

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.

FRIENDS…..THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION????? WELL…..MOST OF US ARE.

I GUESS IT’S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT’S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????

At a recent gathering, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal thought she was complimenting me by saying, “you’re my favorite Republican.” She was surprised when I replied, “I not a republican, I’m a conservative.” I don’t think she understood the difference, and nervously asked me, “well, you’re not a Tea Party member, are you”? I said, “I am.” The conversation ended there.

She’s a woman I like and respect. I think she feels the same about me, or least she did before that conversation. She’s not stupid or uneducated. She’s a professional with a Masters degree. In fact, she’s like most liberals I know. The typical liberal has a stereotypical view of what defines conservatives, republicans and Tea Party members. To liberals, they’re all the same and represent everything they stand against, or at least they think so until they’re asked some direct questions. They’re usually astonished to learn they’re not as liberal as they thought they were. Quite often, they actually turn out to be conservatives, they just didn’t know it.

Here’s some questions to ask them:

1. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
2. Do you believe America is a nation of laws, and everyone should be held to the same standard, regardless of class, race or religion? Or, do you believe some in our society deserve special treatment under the law because they’re rich, poor, politically connected, black, white, Hispanic, etc?
3. Do you believe as our founders did that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from our creator? Or, do you believe our rights come from the government?
4. Do you believe as our founders did that the purpose of the government is limited to the preservation of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the other powers granted to it by the people in the constitution? Or, do you believe the government can vote itself any power it deems appropriate no matter what the constitution says?
5. Do you believe the money you earn from your job or business belongs to you, as well as the property you buy with the money you earn? Or, do you believe the government has the right to your money and property, and someone in Washington should decide how much of it you should keep based on the adage made famous by Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
6. Do you believe that as long as you earn your money honestly and break no laws, there should be no limit on the amount of money you make? Or, do you believe as President Obama said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money?”
7. Do you believe all Americans should have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their individual ability, intellect and work ethic? Or, do you believe all Americans should have equal outcomes regardless of their ability, intellect or work ethic, and the government should redistribute the wealth of those who succeed to those who don’t in order to level the playing field?
8. Do you believe America is a sovereign nation with borders, and we as a nation should decide which foreign nationals to let in and who we deny access? Or, do you believe there should be no borders and anyone who wants to enter our country is welcome, with or without permission?
9. Do you believe the government should spend no more money than it takes in? Or do you believe we can just continue to borrow money from other countries without worrying about the National Debt?
10. Do you believe the government spends too much money? Or, do you believe Americans are taxed too little?

You’ll find most liberals who answer these questions honestly will find themselves on the conservative side of most of these questions, usually anywhere from 7 – 9 of them.

So why do they think Republicans are sub-human, conservatives are Neanderthals and Tea Party members are a bunch of racists and crazies? Because that’s what the mainstream media has been selling as objective news coverage. Most people are busy earning a living and taking care of their families. They don’t have the time or interest to dig very far for the truth, so they read the New York Times and watch Katie Couric and think they’re getting unbiased news coverage. They have to look further to find out they’re not getting objective reporting, and too many people are not willing to take the time.

But have faith, my fellow conservatives, things are changing. Recent polls have shown less and less people are getting their news from network television and the main stream newspapers. More and more people are getting their news from cable and the Internet, and the cable news they’re watching and trusting more than any other is Fox News, and it’s not even close.

So print this post and keep it in your pocket and the next time you’re at a family gathering or discussing the world with some liberal friends, whip this little quiz out and put some people to the test. You may not change them into conservatives overnight, but at least you can shine some light on who they really are. They might even learn something!

Americans are at a crossroads.  Decisions must be made.

We, as a nation, need to decide, are we representative of the rugged individualism and independence or do we, as a whole, roll over and say “somebody needs to care for me, because I cant do it myself.”

We, as a nation, need to decide whether we will continue to be the policeman of the world, or do we say, “we cant do this anymore, sorry, folks, have at it amongst yourselves.” “Create what you like, regardless of what that might be.”

We, as a nation, need to decide if we want to have employment and self-determination or do we just want to go on the government dole.

We, as a nation, need to decide that being “An American” is a good thing and instills pride at the thought, a unique and successful experiment in a Republican form of government, or do we say, we are just another “member nation” of the World.

We, as a nation, need to decide if we wish to be more energy independent or do we rely on the rest of the world and their whims and simply buy energy.

We, as a nation, need to decide if we are a sovereign nation, with laws and rules created for our citizens or do we accept another’s rules and laws.

We, as a nation, need to decide who our allies are and build those ties to unbreakable, or do we simply keep sending funds, which we do not have, to anybody, regardless of their opinions of America.

We, as a nation, need to decide if we have the requisite fortitude to carry on as America, or do we say that we are too wishy-washy to make up our own minds about anything and the rest of the world needs to tell us how we think.

We, as a nation, need to decide, that as a mixture of all nationalities, our allegiance is to America alone, or are we just a landmass that hosts expatriates from all other nations of the world, with loyalty to their origins.

The time has come, no longer can we bury our heads in the sand.  We must decide.  As has been said MANY times before, “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”

We, as a nation, need to decide, Are we, or are we not, PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

In my last article (Part 3) I evaluated the two presidential candidates from the 2008 Republican primary, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, giving Romney the edge on both his business experience and his governorship. Today we will look at the remainder of my favorite candidates, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, and Allen West, ending with a ranking of my favorite five potential candidates.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. Huntsman gave the vice-presidential nominating speech for Sarah Palin, and has all but been endorsed for a presidential run by John McCain. To most of America Huntsman is an unknown. He has been an insider in Washington since the 1980s serving in the Reagan, G.H.W Bush, and G.W. Bush administrations as (respectively) White House Staff Assistant, Deputy Secretary of Commerce then Ambassador to Singapore, and Deputy US Trade Representative. He is currently serves in the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China.

He was Governor of Utah for two terms, winning the second term with almost 78% of the vote. The Cato Institute rated him the top governor on tax policy, and the fifth highest on overall fiscal policy. During his administration Utah was listed as the best run state government by the Pew Center on the States.

His business experience includes an executive with the Huntsman Corporation, an international Chemical Company with annual revenues topping $8 billion and over 10,000 employees; and CEO of Huntsman Family Holdings Company. He has also headed major philanthropic organizations including the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the Utah Opera, Envision Utah, and The Family Now Campaign.

His stand on fiscal matters, taxation, and business is strongly conservative. He is more mixed on his social positions, being strongly conservative on abortion, and gun rights, but he has liberal positions on climate change, same sex domestic unions, the Department of Education, and the Obama Stimulus. He signed Utah up in the Western Climate Action Initiative, basically a western states cap and trade arrangement. He has shunned the Tea Party conservatives but has broad appeal to old school Republicans.

Sarah Palin The candidate for vice-president on the 2008 McCain ticket has a strong appeal to deeply conservative Republicans, the religious right, Libertarians, and the Tea Party movement. The fact that she shared the ticket with McCain has given her some standing with moderate and old-line Republicans.

Upon becoming Governor of Alaska, Palin embarked on two gutsy missions: To clean out corruption in Alaska politics and to cut spending; she did this with gusto rooting out criminal activity and cronyism not just from the state government, but even within her own party. She pared back government programs, size, and waste starting with getting rid of the perks of the office of the governor.

Besides being governor, Palin served on the town council, then as mayor of Wasilla, and as a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission.

Her time on the commission gave her a good practical insight into natural resource issues. Her political position is solidly conservative on both fiscal and social issues. She has experience in operating family businesses and has worked as a correspondent on Alaskan TV Stations. She has shown a great sense of fiscal responsibility and is business friendly.

Because of her run for vice-president, authoring two books, hosting an excellent documentary series on Alaska, being supportive of and responsive to the Tea Party movement, and being a frequent topic of conversation and controversy on talk shows and news commentary she is now well known. In fact, she might be too well known; she is as disliked by the left as she is liked by the right.

While I really like her positions on all the issues, she doesn’t have the level of leadership that most of the other candidates have, and certainly not the degree of financial education and experience of most of them.

Allen West  The newly elected congressman won his seat on the strength of Tea Party support. Some would point to this, his only elective office, as being not enough political experience. However, one does not work as a battalion commander in a war zone without learning a lot about practical politics. He holds a master’s degree in political science from Kansas State and a master’s degree from the Military Command College in political theory, military history, and military operations. So is probably better versed in political processes and institutions than 90% of congressmen.

He served twenty-two years as a commissioned officer in the military including both Gulf Wars serving in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He earned a bronze star, Meritorious Service Medal (2 oak clusters), Army Commendation Medal (2 oak Cluster, Valor Device), Army Achievement Medal (1 oak cluster), Valorous Unit Award, Air Assault Badge, and Parachutist Bade, as well as ten service medals. After his retirement he worked as a high school history teacher, a college ROTC instructor, and a regional director for a military consultancy to the Afghan army.

West is both a fiscal and social conservative. He sees the last fifty years of liberal social programs and policies as trapping the poor in a culture of welfare and dependency. He has an overriding respect for the U.S. Constitution and is a deeply committed patriot. He has probably the clearest understanding of any person in Congress of the Muslim religion and the threat of both conquest by migration and conquest by aggression that exists from the radical elements of the faith. He has great clarity of thought and a direct and unapologetically sincere mode of speech. He is a motivator and is himself very motivated – he is able to think on his feet, does not need a teleprompter, and is unafraid of debate and discussion.

So the way I rank my favorite five candidates is:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Allen West
3. Sarah Palin
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Jon Huntsman

I could happily support a ticket that has any two of these five on it, but feel the strongest ticket would be Mitt Romney and Allen West, because they nearly perfectly complement each other with their individual strengths. Romney is excellent in economics, business, fiscal responsibility, Administration, and practical day to day politics. West is excellent in international politics, national security, the military, crisis management, and Middle East issues, a critical gap in the current administration.  It is important that the ticket have truely qualified candidates, that they form a strong team, and that they appeal to voters accross the broad spectrum of Republican politics.  To win the must pick up independents, Libertarians, and Democrats.

If this ticket should come about, I could see Palin as Secretary of Interior, Huntsman as Secretary of State, and my preferences for Huckabee include chairman of the FCC (this wouldn’t be possible if he still has ownership in radio and TV stations), or as a white house assistant for reducing government, combining and eliminating cabinet positions and moving functions that belong to the states back to the states, or as transitional Secretary of Education or Energy to transition the department out of existence.

The final segment, part 5, of this series of blogs, will look at those not on my list who are considered or are considering becoming candidates.

Politics and religion are important and dangerous topics, and they often have an impact on each other. It grates on me to hear a candidate disparaged for his religious beliefs. There is not much that is more un-American than to do so. Religious intolerance within the Christian community threatens the power of Conservatism.

Polls show that 82% of Americans identify themselves “Christian.” This large percentage of believers belong to or attend literally “thousands” (according to adherents.com) of different denominations from the largest, Catholic, to the smallest single-congregation denomination. An outsider might ask, why so many different kinds of Christians? The answer is simple, beginning with the protestant reformation to the current day, believers have compared their church to the writings in the Bible; and often when doing this they discover some discrepancy, so they split off and start a new church that they feel is modeled more on that of the Biblical description of the church Christ organized during his mortal ministry.

Some of these splits have come about due to disagreement over such things as the mode of baptism, the necessity of baptism, the version of the Bible that is used, the way tithes and offerings are collected or administered, predestination vs. free will, the use of products such as alcohol, makeup, or meat, the use of musical instruments, female preachers, and many more such items.

Even with these divisions, the basic doctrine of Christianity remains in these churches. I studied religion in college, and I read a great deal on contemporary religion. I have not found any denomination that does not have certain basic beliefs as part of their doctrine:

• Jesus of Nazareth was the only begotten Son of God; He lived without sin, gave Himself to pay for the sins of all humans, and is the Savior of the World, the only way back to God
• The First and Greatest Commandment – Love God with your might, mind, and strength
• The Second Greatest Commandment -Love your neighbor as yourself
• The Ten Commandments

These are certainly not the only commonality between Christian denominations, but it is sufficient to illustrate that a Christian who proclaims belief in Christ is a Christian. If I believe that baptism by emersion in a requirement, and you do not, that difference does not give me the right to say you aren’t really a Christian. Whatever else you believe, because you believe in those four items above, nobody can rightly say you are not a Christian.

Religious tolerance means that you give each person the right to worship and serve God in the way they believe is right, whether it matches your belief or not. There is a limit on this tolerance in that the United States Constitution and the body of law resulting from it, including those from state and civil governments, is the only law allowed to deal with mandatory fines, seizure of property, incarceration, physical punishment, or execution for wrong doing. Other than that each church has the right to allow in or remove from membership whomever they wish and to conduct their worship and church business how they choose. And each member has the same right to participate or not.

Each Christian attends the church of their choosing because they believe it is the best church for them, or because they enjoy the fellowship, convenience, or programs. It is not fair to others to say they are not Christian because they don’t see religion in exactly the say way we do. Jesus told His apostles, “For he that is not against us is on our part.” All these churches believe the four things listed above, they are on our part.

As long as they honor the Constitution and obey the laws of the land, a candidate should not be criticized for being a “born again”, Catholic, Episcopal, Mormon, or an unaligned Christian. With the same Constitutional stipulation mentioned in the previous sentence, the same is true for non-Christian religious bodies as well. It speaks well to a person’s character that they respect t and honor their religious beliefs and are kind to others in theirs.

We need to honestly throw away religious bias and select candidates on the strength of their record, education, public service, their stand on issues, and their personal character. In the next of this series, I will exam the three candidates most know for their religious beliefs: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman.

Call to Arms, this is a crisis, Egypt is burning ready to explode. What does this mean to America, our economy, our national security, our gas, our food, our personal lives…

Patriots, do you know what the price of gas is at this very second, $3.00, $3.05, $ 3.09… what about the price of oil/barrel? Do you recall not to long experts prediction $5.00/gal gas in 2012, well if oil hits $150.00/barrel the way things are going, we’ll see $5.00/gal sooner than you think, if oil hits $200.00/barrel that equates to $8.00/gal. gas., congratulations Barack we caught up to Europe.
Why is no one talking about the price of gas, complaining as they screamed bloody murder durring the gas price fiasco under GW’s watch. Now we have a real boody crisis on our hands. If oil tankers are not permitted to pass through the Suez canal we are cooked! What do we do now? Huh?

President Obama and all the left wing nuts have been wanting this crazy wacko green alternative Ethanol, marzolla oil, castor oil, any thing but fossil fuel, yet we are more dependant than ever with our oil rigs silent in Pacific, in the Gulf. We have inland in the northwest a gold mine of shale oil, Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil.

Yet we are checkmate, Barack’s little buddies, the EPA, the Dept of Interior and Enviorment Wackos have us hog tied. For how long are we going to put up with this bull crap! Do you see our destiny our future in alternative fuel, all I see right now is the horizon. Get real if we were serious in getting off of fossil fuel we would of done it in the 70′s, the first taste of long lines, sorry, “NO GAS”, odd, even numbers. there was no nitro, volatile countries boiling then.

We have been kept hostages by our very own government, case in point. Do you know we have natural gas fields in the United States that translate we be the Saudis of the world, yet the EPA will not give us drilling rights to this natural resource. Whose side are these fruit loops on!

Here is what I say, we get on our ponies, make the charge, flood WASHINGTON, SEAR THEIR LINES Make calls to Barack, every legislator, “Demand with Boldness we be an oil free nation!” We have been hood winked by the Green team, they have come up with empty tried ideas, solar and wind power is not the answer, look to Europe and see for yourself. France has taken on American Power/Nuclear Power, this is just BIZZARO WORLD! Lets ignite the fuse, make those calls, demand that we truely rid ourselves of the middle east tentacles, let us not waste our natural resources in our own back yard.

If we hesitate, we wait and see what happens in Egypt, all fizzles out do we say Whew! That was too close for comfort and go back sitting on our hinnys. Do you want another death grip on your very lives, if so do nothing, wait til gas prices reach $5.00…$8.00… $10.00/gal….

Edited by Sully, 912 News on Feb 4, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

 JANUARY 31, 2011

By PAUL KENGOR

 Who is this Neanderthal, sniffed the journalistic elite. On Jan. 29, 1981, barely a week into Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the world got a no-nonsense education on how Reagan’s America would differ from that of his predecessor. During the first press conference, ABC’s Sam Donaldson asked the new president about Moscow’s aims and intentions. Throwing diplomatic double-speak to the wind, Reagan calmly explained that the Soviet leadership had “openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”

Reagan continued, explaining that the Soviets considered their relativistic behavior “moral, not immoral.” This was something that the United States needed to “keep . . . in mind” when doing “business” with Moscow. The assembled Washington press corps responded with what National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen described as “an audible gasp.”

Reagan’s rejoinder was deemed a crass outrage. The journalistic elite sniffed, Who is this Neanderthal? A Washington Post editorial lamented the “indiscriminate quality of some of the things being said.” This sudden “good-vs.-evil approach risks missing what legitimate opportunity for honorable accommodation there may be.”

In the ensuing weeks, America’s leading journalists—perplexed, offended—repeatedly pressed the new president for clarification. And so Reagan would clarify, again and again, saying of the Soviet leadership: “They don’t subscribe to our sense of morality. They don’t believe in an afterlife; they don’t believe in a God or a religion. And the only morality they recognize, therefore, is what will advance the cause of socialism.”

All this was too much for CBS Evening News. CBS’s grand old anchor, Walter Cronkite, got the opportunity to confront Reagan during a March 3 interview. Cronkite told Reagan that the president’s views seemed too “hard line toward the Soviet Union.” He noted that “there are some who . . . feel that you might have overdone the rhetoric a little bit in laying into the Soviet leadership as being liars and thieves, et cetera.”

Reagan did not back down. He noted that he had merely responded truthfully to a question from a reporter about “Soviet aims.” On that, said Reagan, “I don’t have to offer my opinion. They [the Soviets] have told us where they’re going again and again. They have told us their goal is the Marxian philosophy of world revolution and a single, one-world communist state, and that they’re dedicated to that.” The president harkened back to the Soviet version of morality: “Remember their ideology is without God, without our idea of morality in a religious sense.”

Cronkite seemed befuddled and bothered. He described Reagan’s words as “name-calling,” and he expressed concern that this would make “it more difficult” to sit down with Leonid Brezhnev and the Soviet leadership.

Yet Lenin declared in 1920: “We repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. Everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.”

Reagan had it right, and he took that insight, and self-assurance, into a two-term presidency where his goal was to win the Cold War and defeat that evil system.

Alas, there was a golden moment at the end of that first press conference, unseen by the public or cameras. It was shared years later by Richard Allen. When the press conference was finished, Reagan, who recognized the weight of what had happened and was unfazed, called over to Mr. Allen and asked, with a grin: “But Dick, the Soviets do lie and steal and cheat, don’t they?”

“Yes sir, they do,” Mr. Allen replied. Reagan smiled and said, “I thought so.”

In January 1981, the world needed a leader who indeed thought so, who dared to say so, and who was willing to do something about it.

Mr. Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, is author of “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” (Harper Perennial, 2007) and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century” (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2010) .

I saw a political cartoon today that has Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty or give me civility.” The apparent point being that civility is a limit on liberty. There is a saying that people in the old west tended to be rather polite, because everybody was armed; to the degree that is true, people voluntarily limited the offensiveness of their speech as a matter of prudence. The reality is that anything that governs any action is a limit on liberty, which is why the Founding Fathers held the idea of limited government as a basic tenet of the foundation of our republic.

There is a balance that should be maintained between complete freedom to say and behave in any way a person chooses and in civility and polite behavior. Politeness and civility come from a person’s upbringing and the social culture of society.

When I was a child, in the 1950’s, society was considerably more polite than it is today, not only in speech, but in grooming, dress, and general behavior. Men were careful of their personal appearance, were chivalrous, tipping their hats (everyone wore a hat), stepping aside to allow others to pass on the sidewalk, holding doors for women, children, and the elderly, and watching their language in public.

The big change to this came from the younger members of my generation in the late sixties and seventies. Inspired by left-leaning professors, it started with college students who refused to honor the draft, developed into opposition to the Viet Nam war; running counter to traditional patriotic support of our soldiers during time of war. This bloomed into the hippy era, drug culture, free love, abortion rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and a general anti-establishment philosophy. They rose up in a mass rebellion against pretty much every social and moral more of the time.

From the close of World War II, the Soviet Union was very actively working to foment this type of unrest through agents and contacts in the American Communist Party, the Socialist Party, labor unions, the universities, and the media. These have elevated extremism to mainstream politics via left wing groups from followers of Alinsky, SDS, Acorn, and various other “community organizations” and radical groups.

The McCarthy hearings of the early fifties identified some of this activity, but concentrated most on the film industry, where they were fairly successful in disarming that propaganda effort. The irony of the Soviet success in placing socialist plants and creating civil unrest was that, while they ended up succeeding beyond their original hope, it did not cause a push for Soviet style communism, but instead a push toward greater liberty; almost, but not quite, an anarchy type of freedom.

There were some very good things that came from all this. Freedom of speech and expression were given a greater emphasis than ever before. Women gained equality in the workplace and a greater say in the political and civic arena. Citizens became openly hostile toward public corruption and cronyism. Industrial pollution and toxic waste has been reduced by probably 90%.

Business has been changed from the type X labor/management conflict model to a more win/win approach. Families have switched from a rigid patriarchal style, to more of a partnership with greater parental involvement with children. All these are examples of the good that came out of this period of unrest.

However, there were almost an equal number of bad things that came from this period; it was a sort of a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation. The polite civility of our parent’s generation didn’t completely disappear, but it was badly damaged and greatly reduced.

The use of slang, poor grammar, and of aggressive, offensive, and threatening language greatly increased. Self-discipline and personal accountability have been replaced with selfish hedonism and victimization. The concept of earning respect was replaced with deserving respect. Our children have been raised to believe that competing is bad, and winning isn’t important; everybody deserves the same reward regardless of personal effort and performance.

Political correctness has created a society unable to address differences between cultures, races, or other social distinctions, while at the same time destroying the concept of the American social “melting pot.” We now have Afro-, Hispano-, Asian-, etc. Americans who believe the culture and values of their homeland or racial group is more important than their identity as Americans. We have inadvertently created a new type of segregation.

So in addition to the many good things, the history of the Baby Boomers and their children has created all kinds of bad fall-out. Examples are extremely high rates of birth out of wedlock, huge numbers of abortions, huge numbers of single parent families, widespread use of drugs, illogical environmental and social laws, great loss of heavy industry, tremendous growth in government and the taxes required to support it, and a less civil, more crude society.

A second irony is the left accusing the right of using violent rhetoric when the use of extreme aggressive violent language, hyperbole, rhetoric , and imagery has been an invention and mainstay of the left; they are now accusing a much more mild right, in particular the Tea Party and talk radio, of abusing freedom of speech with excessive use of violent language. For any liberal to make such an accusation is not only ironic, but also hypocritical.

Personally, I would like for people on all sides of the political spectrum to avoid aggressive language and instead endeavor to express their ideas and opposition with more accuracy and less emotion. I don’t think this will really happen, because the left is steeped in the concept of using every crisis to drive an emotional following to a loud attack on their opposition.

I recently stated that I dislike seeing the Republicans “playing nice” with the Democrats; and I definitely feel that way. I think the Republicans need to respect the right of the Democrats to their opinions, but I also think Republicans need to strongly counter those damaging and anti-American ideas.

Modern politics is more clearly than ever aligned between not just conservative and liberal, but right and wrong. The conservatives are simply right, and the liberals are simply wrong, and there is nothing in that to compromise. I would rather see congress unable to ever pass another law than to pass one more law that will hurt our country.

An example of left-wing civility

In the US most political conservatives are believers in the same Christian God. There are also good patriotic conservatives of the Jewish faith, as well as some other non-Christian faiths, or no professed faith at all. The greatest harm that can be done to conservatives is for us to become factionalized against each other, and the greatest danger of this is among the Christians themselves.

I have been exposed through participation, investigation, and friendship with people of many different denominations. There are some significant doctrinal and ritual differences between Baptists, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Mormons, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Adventists, various evangelical, and independent Christian churches, as well as many that don’t fit neatly into any of these groups.

There are more important common beliefs than differences among these people of faith. If we are to have the strength of unity within the conservative movement we must look past the differences and focus on the common beliefs and values, and more importantly from a political standpoint, on the common ethic and character we share.

All of these people believe that God the Father, the Creator of the cosmos including humankind, loves us as His children and wishes to reward us with eternal life and glory after this life. They believe that God sent His only begotten son, Jesus the Christ to teach of God and His will and to freely offer Himself up as a sacrifice to pay for their sins. Each of these denominations recognize that repentance, profession, baptism and membership do not in themselves save us, but that each person is saved based on the extent they accept the offering of Christ and yoke themselves (by spirit and heart) to Him.

More pertinent to politics and the good of the nation, each of these churches endeavor to instill in their members a love for fellowman, a desire to be faithful, kind, and of service. Those who live their faith are honest, hard working, fair-minded, moral, ethical, and worthy of trust; they believe in patriotism and obeying the law. This is all we need to know to determine their worthiness to be our leaders and representatives. It doesn’t matter what the details of their dogma and rites are when it comes to being a patriot or a public servant.

We must be willing to drop the discussion of who among us is or is not really a Christian, and understand that God knows the answer perfectly. We must stand by our belief in allowing people the right to worship, or not, as they see fit. We need instead to ask, “Does this person love America and respect the Constitution? Are they honest, moral, and principled? Do they legally, educationally, and experientially qualify for this office? Do they stand for conservative values and the Republican (or Libertarian) platform?”

As a teen I was upset with the way Catholicism was held against JFK. People should instead have looked at his patriotism, character, qualifications, and political positions. The same is true today of both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney; they are being eliminated by some conservatives because of their religious beliefs. Their denomination is irrelevant – their patriotism, character, qualifications, and political position should be the only consideration.

There have been at least 20 attempts to assassinate a US president, president-elect, or past president. Of these four succeeded, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. Two other presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were wounded in assassination attempts. There has been speculation since their deaths that Zachery Taylor and Warren Harding were assassinated by poisoning.

Fifteen of these were by gunfire, including all six of those in which a president was harmed. Three attempts were by bomb; in one case, the perpetrator changed his mind but was caught driving the car bomb, in another the disguised hand-grenade was prevented from detonating by the bandana being tied too tightly around it, and the third was disrupted when the plot was discovered by Saudi Secret Service.

Three times attempts were made to crash airplanes into the White House; one actually succeeding in crashing into the lawn, killing the pilot, one ended when the perpetrator killed the pilots then committed suicide, and one was stopped by brave passengers who refused to allow terrorist to carry through with their plot.

Only three attempts were motivated by domestic politics and three were attempts by foreign enemies. The attack on FDR’s party in 1933, was most likely not actually targeting the president, but was a successful mob hit on the Mayor of Chicago who was giving Al Capone trouble. In all other instances those attempting to assassinate the president were mentally troubled men (only two women in the whole group), often delusional, unemployed or marginally employed. Four attempts have been made by members of a cult or a domestic terror group, including the two attempts by women – one a Manson devotee and the other a Symbionese Liberation Front sympathizer.

These attacks have included sixteen against Republicans, ten against Democrats, and one against Theodore Roosevelt, former Republican running unsuccessfully on the New Progressive Party ticket. (He was shot in the chest prior to giving a speech, got up dusted himself off and gave the speech before going for medical attention. The bullet was never removed.)

In most cases the perpetrators used weapons that were illegal, transported them in a way that was illegal, and of course the act of attempting murder of itself was also illegal. A number of them were prohibited from possessing a gun, because they had criminal records. None of these laws in any way deterred them from moving forward with their plan. It is logical that this would be true, for once a person has settled on killing someone, any lesser law becomes irrelevant.

Beyond the ineffectiveness of laws another problem with trying to reduce violence by outlawing guns is that those who are set on violence have many options, as well as many illegal sources of obtaining weapons. For example, almost anybody can make a powerful bomb with simple readily-available ingredients. If a person is crazy enough to shoot a public figure and as many people around them as possible, wouldn’t they also be crazy enough to take a bomb or incendiary device into that same crowd and set it off, or drive a car, with or without explosives into the crowd? The result will be at least as bad as an armed shooter.

The difference is if the shooter uses a gun he must target each individual and if there is a policeman or an armed citizen present they can stop his attack by shooting the murderer; with the other options the slaughter is over before anyone can react.

My opinion is that we need to work on the root of the problem: 1) How do we keep people from concluding it is alright to murder someone, and 2) Why do we allow those who are unstable and unpredictable in their emotional and mental control to run freely in society?

I think that the trend toward an ethic where nothing is really wrong depending on the circumstances and away from traditional family and religious mores has created an environment that allows monsters to develop. There have always been psychotic and emotionally troubled people, but we have not always allowed them the freedom to make the terrible choice of bloodshed.

There has been much made of a pre-election campaign poster that pictured Democrats that were targeted for defeat by Republicans with the graphic of a crosshair to emphasize the concept of their being targeted. This symbolism has been used for years on political media by both political parties and individual candidates. Harry Mitchell used a photo with his opponent centered in the crosshairs – if only we had known he was attempting to incite murder, we could have had him arrested. At least according to the liberal hysteria coming from the left. I have probably a hundred photos of liberal and Democratic examples of what they are so eagerly condemning the conservatives and Republicans. A few are posted below.

This is a graphic used by the Democrats in the last election. Notice the targets on the states where they hope to defeat a Republican, or did they REALLY mean to kill a Republican? Absurd? Of course it is, but no more so than what they are saying now about the right.

A subtle hint of violence from a liberal protest march.

Satire, not hate from our liberal friends.

Why on earth was this person not arrested? No hint of left-wing inducement to violence here.

Aliens demanding their constitutional (what?) rights in Phoenix.

Lefties proudly desecrating the American flag. This is actually violence against America, but the left has no trouble supporting this right to free speach.

Since the left has been doing this kind of protest and campaigning for the last several years, and since they are saying this type of rhetoric causes crazies to kill, we shoud brace ourselves or an onslaught of mass assassination and murder. Of course the caveat is that it’s only bad if it does not reflect their view… Would the word hyprocrite be appropriate here?

The fact is that this type of protest and advertising does not cause deadly actions. In the United States there have been four presidents assassinated and twenty attempted assassinatiion of a president. Of these only three were politically motivated; the rest were all perpetrated by an unbalanced person with their own incomprehensible motivation. Interestingly enough, almost all of these were committed by a relatively young male, a loner, unemployed, with previouse social and legal problems, who acted alone. This sounds very much like the man who committed the outrage in Tucson. I don’t really want to mention his name, because that is what he apparently wants – fame.

Instead of dwelling on the murderer, or misplacing blame, we would do well to mourn the loss of Christina Green, Gabriel Zimmerman, John Roll, Dorwin Stoddard, Dorothy Morris, and Phyllis Scheck. Their love ones have lost them from this life, and we have lost an unknown number of blessings from their being taken. Let us remember in our prayers Representative Giffords as she fights her battle to regain her life, as well as Bill Badger, Ron Barber, Eric Fuller, Susan Hileman, George Morris, Pam Simon, and Mavy Stoddard all of whom were wounded by the killer. May God bless them all to have a rapid and complete recovery.

Read the rest of this entry »

Oct. 6, 2010 Donald Trump for President? Now doesn’t that make more sense than a Sarah Palin or an inexperienced Barack Obama who is failing miserably for a successful second term. By making deals with pharmas on health care he abandoned all principals of the bill and by hiring corporate people who favor corporate profits over safety Obama had blundered his chances of a second term.

Today there are rumblings of drafting Hillary Clinton as Vice President for 2012 to salvage the democrats staying in the Whitehouse for four more years and there are still two years with Obama left to ponder his failures. You could have predicted this happening because the DNC drafted Obama over Clinton and steered the votes his way.  Clinton lost due to an inner party campaign to promote Obama over Clinton that has ultimately bore them no fruit.

Obama forgot this campaign promises and has turned the country upside down with no hope of stimulating an economy and he is just treading water with more speeches.

His supporters and inner circle are leaving the ship knowing what is ahead in the mid-terms and are seeking their old jobs back. Poor cabinet choices, half made lame deals with corporate interests,Vilsack and ex-Monsanto lobbyist, Geithner and his ties to Wall Street added to a host of other mistakes that made this a terrible two years for the democrats.

Surely there must be a way to draft Donald Trump into a Presidency run for 2012 and he is the right man to do it. Get the economy going and get the China trade imbalance causing lost jobs here in check. Trump has even weighed autism events and in on vaccines and autism in the Sentinel:

From The Sun Sentinel

“In an interview, Donald Trump said he thinks the rising prevalence of autism is related to vaccinations of babies and toddlers, a topic that is hotly debated among parents and doctors.” Quoted from Lisa Jo Rudy of About.com (2007)

He is right on the money. If vaccines are making kids sick, you would think Obama would have done his homework and not double deal with pharmaceuticals.

Trump recently and with his infamous business acumen flushed out the real motives behind the Mosque at Ground Zero.  The Donald got tired of hearing all this fuss about this mosque, the vitrol and the hatred being demonstrated,  so he approached Imam Rauf to see if he could end the mad mosque caper by buying Rauf out.

Within hours Trump emerged with the information on CNN that we all were waiting for -why at ground zero and why a mosque from a former “two bit” real estate agent.

So Trump offered the Imam a good deal a percentage of a profit and what he paid for the building approximately 3 million dollars and offers to help him relocate to another prime spot. Why wouldn’t the Imam sell the old Burlington coat factory building?  The Imam thinks the building is worth 20 million and that came out in conversation with Trump’s strategic method of sizing up his opponents. He is brilliant and that is what this country needs- brilliance.

Trump is the man to run the country and if he could only wrap his head around the concept of being the most powerful man in the United States (which would appeal to him) there is no reason to run away from the idea.

The real estate mogul has been quoted in Fox News as saying ” For the first time in my life I am actually thinking about it”.   He added ” I see what has been going on with this country and it has never been worse”.  A recent poll showed that over 50 percent think he should run and he would run as a Republican.   The only problem is would he do the right thing, would he also make back room deals with the corporations and give them tax breaks that would tax the middle class even more?

His principals on trade with China are warranted and he has stated the disgrace for what China is being allowed to do to America.  As a businessman you can’t knock him out of the running in 2012 but perhaps he could be of great assistant to the next President to get this country back on track.

Tags: Trump for President, Donald Trump, Trump Enterprises, Donald Trump thinking of the Presidency, Trump for the Republican nomination in 2012, politics, business and politics.

Howard Dean calls Tea Party racist and unappealing to younger voters

If it’s a day ending in ‘y’, someone, somewhere, is calling the Tea Party racist.

On Tuesday, it was Howard Dean’s turn.

Speaking to students at Vanderbilt University, the former Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman said, “I think in addition to a bad economy, the Tea Party arose out of a discomfort with the demographic shift going on in this country,” according to an article at The Student Free Press. 

Claiming the Tea Party consists “…mostly of white people 55 years and older”, Dean said the movement is bothered by what he calls a demographic shift to ethnic and social minorities.  In other words – Tea Party activists are nothing but old, racist white people.

Dean offered no statistics or studies to back up his claim.

The former Governor also said President Obama was “…elected overwhelmingly by voters under 35 years of age” and that the President has not lost any voters to the Tea Party.

But an October study published by the New York Daily News tells a different story.  In a poll of over 2,200 college students, support for the President fell significantly since his election in 2008:

In the recent election, Americans soundly rejected the progressive, far-left agenda being pushed by the President and the Democrats, but Dean said the GOP needs to reject the conservative values that got them elected:

“The problem with Republicans in general is that they offend the younger generation with their attacks on gays and immigrants,” Dean said. “I don’t have much advice for Republican (presidential contenders) other than to abandon their right-wing social agenda.”

In 2008, many bought into the “hope and change” snake oil peddled by the Democrats.  Many people voted without thinking about the consequences of that vote.  Now, after two years, “hope and change” is turning into “franks and beans”, as people across the country see the results of Obama’s socialist agenda.

Dean also told the students that President Obama should not compromise with the Republicans.  One student agreed and said any such compromise would hurt the President in 2012.

Professor John Greer told the Student Free Press:

“Students got to hear a different take on the Tea Party and whether they agree with it or not is up to them,” Greer said. “But for them to be exposed to a different viewpoint is what this course is all about.”

Hopefully, the Professor will let students hear from a representative of the Tea Party.

Related stories:

Memo to liberals: We are not racists for opposing Obama

Poll finds majority of Republicans support Tea Party

‘Tea Party’ coloring book sparks death threats

GOP wins big in State legislatures

Liberal journalist compares Tea Party to Southern secessionists

The Wall Street Journal

NOVEMBER 29, 2010

Giving New Meaning to Living in the Office; Making a Point, Saving a Buck on Rent.

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and DANNY YADRON

WASHINGTON—Of the 94 incoming members of the House of Representatives, 90% are Republicans, nearly 40% have law degrees and about 35% have never before held elective office.

Oh, and at least 15% plan to bed down in their congressional offices.

It’s the ultimate I’m-not-a-professional-politician statement, reminiscent of the 1994 midterm elections, when a GOP House takeover led to a surge in House sleepovers.

Incoming Rep. Joe Heck (R., Nev), who plans to sleep in his office, checks one out in the Longworth building.
With voters again shunning Washington and fiscal excess, a number of incoming House members plan to demonstrate their scorn for both by camping out near their new desks. Many more are still undecided but may well join the sleep-sofa caucus.

“Since I’m here on a temporary basis, I don’t see any need to have a permanent kind of residence,” says Rep.-elect Joe Heck, a Nevada Republican, who was thinking roll-out cot when he looked at office space this month.

Earlier this month, freshman lawmakers drew lots and chose the three-room suites they and their aides will inhabit in one of three House office buildings.

For many of them, a key selling point was not proximity to the House chamber, where they’ll vote, but to the House gym, where they’ll shower.

Rep.-elect Tim Griffin, an Army reservist, stood near the gym in the Rayburn House Office Building and used some compass software on his phone to navigate the paths to potential offices.

“We want to get as close to Rayburn as possible,” Mr. Griffin, an Arkansas Republican, told an aide. “I’ve got to walk all the way down this hall in the morning.”

He settled on a suite in the Longworth building with plenty of space for the six-foot sofa he says will be his bed for the foreseeable future. “I don’t want to see you in your bathrobe,” Rep.-elect Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), a non-office sleeper, told Mr. Griffin as freshmen rushed about Capitol Hill looking at available offices.

Mr. Griffin plans to fly home to Arkansas and his family after the last vote each week.

Nobody seems to know for certain how many lawmakers currently dwell in their offices; estimates range into the dozens. The practice appears to crest after Republican wave elections.

In the mid-1980s, then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D., Mass.) rousted the office sleepers, including Texas Republican Dick Armey, who later became House majority leader and is now a booster of the anti-Washington tea-party rebellion. “The theory was the offices weren’t for sleeping,” says Stan Brand, who was House general counsel at the time. “They were for transacting business.”

Mr. Armey moved out briefly, then quietly started sleeping on his office couch again, according to a former aide.

After Republicans took the House in 1994, ending four decades of Democratic control, the number of office sleepers grew. The new speaker in 1995, Georgian Newt Gingrich, gave the practice his blessing.

House administrators supply desks, files, tables and chairs for the suites, each of which has a toilet and sink.

Overnighters have to buy their own air mattresses or cots. They can also stretch out on a government-issue couch. “We don’t provide any Murphy beds,” says Eva Malecki, spokeswoman for the Architect of the Capitol.

Cleaners do their work early enough in the evening, she says, that they shouldn’t interfere with snoozing congressmen.

The class of 2010 is arriving in Washington during the worst economic crisis since the Depression, carried into town atop a surge of anti-incumbent anger that swept many longtime Capitol denizens aside. For them, appearances and substance merge.

Freshman Todd Rokita (R., Ind.) was floored when shown a 600-square-foot, $2,000-a-month studio. He’ll sleep in his office instead. “I’m not doing this as a political stunt,” he says. “I’m doing this because I’m a cheap b—.” Most House members earn $174,000 a year and maintain homes in their districts.

“I don’t want to be comfortable in Washington because I need to get back to metro Detroit,” says Democrat Clarke Hansen, another office sleeper-elect. “Businesses are struggling right now. Families are struggling. I’m only in Washington to work.”

One veteran sofa extremist is Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who has camped out in his office two or three nights a week since 1993. In his failed run for Michigan’s governorship this year, he put out an ad showing him sitting on his couch in his plaid pajamas. Now he’s retiring, and hundreds of his constituents have let his successor, Republican Bill Huizenga, know they expect him to sleep on the sofa, too.

“I think back home there’s a sense of frugality and sort of a spartan element that this isn’t a place where you’re going to call home and get too comfortable,” says Mr. Huizenga. Still, he’s a bit cautious. He’s six-foot-one, and the Hoekstra couch is just six feet long. Maybe an inflatable mattress, he thinks.

Many freshmen, who assume their duties in January, are still pondering their sleeping arrangements. Others have no intention of sleeping on a sofa.

“I’ve slept in pup tents,” says Congressman-elect Allen West (R., Fla.), a former Army artillery officer. “I’m not sleeping in my office.”

GOP Rep.-elect Steve Womack, the mayor of Rogers, Ark., says he doesn’t want to impose on his staff if they stay past his bedtime or arrive before his alarm rings. “I don’t think my staff wants to see me in my pajamas necessarily,” Mr. Womack says. “And I’m not the prettiest thing to look at first thing in the morning.”

Rep.-elect Joe Walsh (R., Ind.) says he’ll live in his office. His wife, interior designer Helene Miller-Walsh, says he won’t. Mr. Walsh thinks it’s easier to live near his desk. Ms. Miller-Walsh thinks it’s unhealthy to never leave it.

“When I come to stay, I’m not walking around in fuzzy slippers in the office,” she says. Then there’s the whole image thing. “I just can’t tell my college-age kids that mom and dad moved back into the dorm,” she says. Mr. Walsh has yet to decide where to sleep.