One Year On, President Obama Still Can’t Find a Church

More than a year after he arrived in Washington, President Obama, amazingly, has not yet been able to find a church. You really can't make this stuff up. From ABC  News:Obama quit Chicago's embattled Trinity United Church of Christ months before taking office in 2008 and has not formally joined a new one in his new hometown.

But sources familiar with the president's personal life say Obama remains a faithful Christian while in the White House, practicing his beliefs regularly in private with family and the aid of his BlackBerry.

Four questions: 1) What's so hard about finding a church? 

2) How do you worship God with the aid of your BlackBerry?

3) Does Obama have the Deity's private email or IM handle?

4) Does God have his?

Then again, maybe the reason he hasn't found a church is that he's having a hard time finding a speaker as imbued with the true spirit of Christianity as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  After all, it's pretty hard to top this message of love:

Let's have your thoughts.

The Axis of Idiots

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief."

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace.. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Semper Fi,

J.D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

Obama's Stunning Admission

-- by Tom Bevan 

There's been a remarkable amount of coverage of President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat today, but I haven't seen anyone focus on the President's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation (Video):

The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.[emphasis added]

If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were "snuck in" - presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists - that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats' legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn't. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care - the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So it's a bit of shock to find out now - from the President himself, no less - that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year (the House passed its version in late November, the Senate on Christmas Eve Day) contained language that would have violated this pledge.

Teleprompters and Bingo

President Barack Obama speaks to 6th graders in Virginia Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010, using teleprompters. A man without words of his own!

Obama SOTU Bingo Card

Mark off any words that Obama uses in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night.

Be Cautious About Giving Info to 2010 Census Workers

WARNING: 2010 Census Cautions from the Better Business Bureau

With the U.S. Census process beginning, the Better Business Bureau

(BBB) advises people to be cooperative, but cautious, so as not to  become a victim of fraud or identity theft. The first phase of the  2010 U.S. Census is under way as workers have begun verifying the  addresses of households across the country. Eventually, more than  140,000 U.S. Census workers will count every person in the United    States and will gather information about every person living at  each address including name, age, gender, race, and other relevant  data.

The big question is - how do you tell the difference between a U.S.  Census worker and a con artist? BBB offers the following advice: 

** If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a  badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag, and a  confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their  badge before answering their questions.  However, you should never  invite anyone you don't know into your home.

** Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify  address information.

Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking  information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the  U.S. . Census.

REMEMBER, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ASK, YOU REALLY ONLY NEED TO TELL  THEM HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE AT YOUR  ADDRESS..

While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information,  such as a salary range,

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT YOUR FINANCIAL  SITUATION.

The Census Bureau will not ask for Social Security, bank account,  or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations.  Any  one asking for that information is NOT with the Census Bureau.

AND REMEMBER, THE CENSUS BUREAU HAS DECIDED NOT TO WORK WITH ACORN  ON GATHERING THIS INFORMATION..  No Acorn worker should approach  you saying he/she is with the Census Bureau.

Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail, or  in person at home. However, the

Census Bureau will not contact you by Email, so be on the lookout  for Email scams impersonating the Census.

Never click on a link or open any attachments in an Email that are  supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.

A Little Tongue in Cheek Humor

This is funny and would be even funnier if it was true!

Gun Laws

You're sound  asleep when you hear a thump  outside your bedroom  door. Half-awake,  and nearly paralyzed with fear,  you hear  muffled whispers. At least two  people have broken into  your  house  and are moving your  way. With your  heart pumping, you reach down  beside your  bed and pick up  your shotgun. You rack a  shell into the chamber, then inch  toward the  door and open it. In the  darkness, you make out two  shadows. One holds  something that looks like a  crowbar.  When the  intruder brandishes it as if to  strike,  you raise  the shotgun and fire. The blast  knocks both thugs to the  floor.  One  writhes and screams, while the  second  man  crawls to the front door and lurches  outside.  As you pick  up the telephone to call  police,  you know  you're in trouble.  In your  country, most guns were outlawed  years before,  and the few  that are privately owned  are so  stringently regulated as to make them  useless.  Yours  was never registered.  Police  arrive and inform you  that the  second burglar has died.  They arrest  you for First Degree Murder  and Illegal  Possession of a Firearm.  When you  talk to your attorney, he  tells  you not to  worry: authorities will  probably plea the  case down to manslaughter.  "What kind  of sentence will I get?" you  ask.  

  "Only  ten-to-twelve years," he  replies, as if that's  nothing.  "Behave  yourself, and you'll be out in  seven."  

The next  day, the shooting is the lead  story in the  local newspaper.  Somehow,  you're portrayed as an  eccentric  vigilante  while the two men  you shot  are  represented as choirboys.  

Their  friends and relatives can't  find  an unkind  word to say about them.  Buried  deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge  that both "victims" have been arrested numerous  times.  

But  the next day's headline says it  all:  "Lovable  Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to  Die."  The thieves  have been transformed from career criminals into  Robin  Hood-type pranksters.   As the  days wear on, the story takes  wings.  The national  media picks it up,  then the  international media.  The  surviving burglar has become a folk  hero.  Your  attorney says the thief is  preparing to sue  you, and he'll probably win.  The media  publishes reports that your home has been  burglarized several times in the past and that  you've been critical of local police for their  lack  of  effort in apprehending the  suspects.  After the  last break-in, you told your  neighbor that you'd  be prepared next time.  The DA uses  this to allege  that you  were lying in wait for the  burglars.  A few months  later, you go to trial.  The charges  haven't been reduced,  as your  lawyer had so confidently  predicted.  When  you take the stand, your anger  at  the  injustice of it all works against  you.  Prosecutors  paint a picture of you  as a mean,  vengeful man.  It  doesn't take long for the jury to  convict  you of all  charges.  

The judge  sentences you to life in  prison.  

This case  really happened.  

On August  22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England  , killed one burglar and wounded a  second.  In  April, 2000, he was convicted and is  now serving a life term.  How did it  become a crime to defend  one's  own life in  the once great British  Empire ?  It started  with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This  seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols  to minors or felons and established that handgun  sales were to be made only to those who had a  license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded  licensing to include not only handguns but all  firearms except shotguns.  Later laws  passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of  any weapon by private citizens and mandated the  registration of all shotguns.  

Momentum for  total handgun confiscation began in earnest after  the Hungerford mass  shooting in  1987. Michael  Ryan, a mentally  disturbed man with a Kalashnikov  rifle, walked  down the streets shooting everyone he saw.   When the  smoke cleared, 17 people were  dead.

   

The British  public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of  "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was  the objective even though Ryan used a  rifle.)

  

Nine years  later, at Dunblane ,   Scotland ,  Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to  murder 16 children and a teacher at a public  school.

  

For many  years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as  mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the  press had a real kook with which to beat up  law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after  week, the media gave up all pretense of  objectivity and demanded a total ban on all  handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry,  a few months later, sealed the fate of the few  sidearms still owned by private  citizens.

  

During the  years in which the British government  incrementally took away most gun rights, the  notion that a citizen had the right to armed  self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.  Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to  people who were threatened, claiming that  self-defense was no longer considered a reason to  own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers  or rapists were charged while the real criminals  were  released.

  

Indeed,  after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was  quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the  law into their own  hands." All of  Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,  and several elderly people were severely injured  in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the  consequences. Martin himself, a collector of  antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed  or stolen by  burglars.

  

When the  Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned  handguns were given three months to turn them over  to local  authorities. Being  good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn't were visited by police and  threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they  didn't comply.  Police later  bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns  from private citizens.

How did the  authorities know who had  handguns?

The guns had  been registered and  licensed.

Kind of like  cars. Sound  familiar?

 

WAKE UP   AMERICA ; THIS  IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT  THE SECOND  AMENDMENT IN  OUR  CONSTITUTION.

 

"..It  does not require a majority to prevail, but rather  an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush  fires in people's  minds.." --Samuel  Adams

Quote of the Week

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity, or simply marvel at their ability to form words."

~~ columnist Burt Prelutsky

Now for the rest of the story

Could become very interesting. Were they invited is the question and is there a cover up for some reason?

Does anyone here look familiar??

I knew there was a "Paul Harvey" version to this story!!! (You know the line....and NOW the rest of the story)

See the white guy in the white suit?  Now see the blond with the white dress!  See the guy in the middle huuuummmm.

This picture was taken 6/9/05. It seems Obama has known these two phoneys for awhile, at least when he was a Senator. They're getting all this press now as "party crashers" and the secret service is taking heat.  Funny how this has not come out in the press isn't it!

No wonder the couple who crashed Obama's State dinner keep insisting they were invited guests.  They know Barry from way back when he was still an Illinois Senator.  Is Obama trying to throw the Secret Service under the bus?

Tareq and Michaele Salahi  snapped the pic above with Obama at a "Rock The Vote" event on June 9, 2005. 

Michaele Salahi is getting quite a ribbing in the press for lying about being a Redskins cheerleader, but Tareq is the more interesting of the two to me.

He has ties to Palestinian terrorists. Tareq is a board member of the ATFP- American Task Force on  Palestine , which has quickly scrubbed it's site of the fact.  Thank the Lord for Google cache.

And just who are the ATFP? The ATFP has ties to Chicago, ties to Muslim radicals, ties to Hamas, and ties to Saudi Wahhabists. It is arguably the American wing of Hamas. The group's co-founder is Rashid Khalidi, the guy purported to have helped finance Obama's Harvard education and who was also instrumental in getting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. During the Beruit war, Khalidi was a PLO spokesperson. After the war, he came back to teach at the University of Chicago . He is a virulent critic of Israel, and a strong supporter of Fatah terrorist Yassar Arafat. Obama has referred to Khalidi as someone who challenges his "own biases.."

Why do the same dubious tentacles seem to continually surround Obama?  The fact that the ATFP is scrubbing information on Salahi from their website suggests possible damage control coordination between the ATFP and the White House.  If the ATFP was acting independently, there would be no reason to scrub Salahi's name from their site.  It looks like Salahi was an invited guest to the dinner, that he was "outed" and the administration had to come up with a rational excuse for his presence.

The Secret Service has already apologized for the incident, but they may clear their names if the Salahis start singing. If someone with ties to the American wing of Hamas can get face to face with the President without the Secret Service realizing it that is a major security lapse.  However, if Obama's people knowingly allowed Salahi in and are now throwing the Secret Service under the bus to cover themselves, that would be a major  scandal.

Some in Congress are calling for an investigation 


Something is VERY fishy in the White House.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/crashers.asp

Let Me See If I Got This Right

If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you will get shot.
 
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

If you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get a job, a driver's license, social security card, welfare, food stamps, credit cards, subsidized rent or loan to buy a house, free education, free health care, a lobbyist in Washington; billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language, the right to carry your country's flag while you protest that you don't get enough respect and, in many instances, you can vote.

I just wanted to make sure I had a firm grip on the situation which our elected officials have chosen to do to ruin this country!
 

Sleep Easy America -- Feds Terrorists Watchlist Nabs Cub Scout

We as a nation have become to politically correct as we don't want to hurt someone's feelings but it's alright to allow terrorists to board planes and kill innocent. My take on it is this: we should be profiling where the terrorism is coming from. As everyone out here in the real world knows, these attacks are coming from extremist Islamic men between the ages of 20 to 41. So we should be watching anyone that fits that description when they board a plane. If they have a problem with being profiled, then let them walk to their destination and the world will be a little safer.

"Mikey Hicks," said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. "It's not a myth." Michael Winston Hicks's mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name "was on the list," she recalled. 

As we've reported before, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI's terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg's bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Even today, thousands of people who aren't terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft.

It's one thing when an adult gets the run-around at an airport, because he or she has a name identical or similar to someone the FBI is watching. As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) "automatic selectee" list -- its list of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency's machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel -- is based on people's names, not on physical factors like age. 

Obama TSA Nominee Erroll Southers Calls Pro-Life Advocates Terrorists in Video

Obama TSA Nominee Erroll Southers Calls Pro-Life Advocates Terrorists in Video

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 11, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Barack Obama's nominee to head the agency charged with keeping American travelers safe from terrorism thinks pro-life advocates are terrorists. A new video shows Transportation Security Administration nominee Erroll Southers including pro-life advocates in a list of terrorist groups.

The new video from 2008 shows Southers responding to a documentary-style interview question about terrorist organizations.

The documentary asked Southers, "Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the U.S."

Southers explained, "Most of the domestic groups that we pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion, they are usually survivalist type in nature, identity oriented."

"Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian identity oriented," he continues.

Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, has put a hold on the nomination of Southers to head the TSA, and the new video is likely to expand opposition to his nomination.

Erick Erickson of the Red State blog posted a response to the video blasting Southers for his targeting of pro-life advocates and Christians as terrorists.

He said there is "new and far more troubling information about Mr. Southers caught on video. According to Erroll Southers, pro-life Christians and our support of Jews is a bigger threat to national security than Al Qaeda."

"Southers, in 2008, said he was more worried about 'Christian identity' terrorist groups inside the U.S. than Islamic terrorists. What are 'Christian identity' terrorist groups? White-supremacists naturally. The KKK. And the Southern Baptist Convention," Erickson added. "Southers identifies pro-life groups and anti-government activists as particular problems."

Erickson also applauds DeMint for stopping the nomination.

"Had [he] not put a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to be the head of TSA, he might have been confirmed by the Senate without any serious digging into his background," he said.

The Obama administration has twice come under fire for linking pro-life advocates to terrorism.

Last May, details emerged about a terrorism dictionary the Obama administration put together in March. The "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," was essentially a terrorism and political extremism dictionary for the Obama administration's internal use.

The March 26, 2009 document features numerous definitions and the headline "antiabortion extremism," appears on page two of the eleven-page manual.

The Obama administration calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.

The definition reads: "A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities."

That followed a report the Department of Homeland Security sent out saying pro-life advocates were right-wing extremists.

In that document, the Department of Homeland Security warned law officials about a supposed rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the poor economy and presence of a black president could spark problems.

According to the Washington Times, a footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis say the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "rightwing extremism in the United States."

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning said.

Does Massachusetts Hold the Key to Stopping ObamaCare?

The best opportunity to defeat ObamaCare may come from, ironically, Massachusetts.

In the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Republican State Senator Scott Brown could become the key vote to stop nationalized health care.

With Senate Democrats controlling 60 votes, Republicans were unable to muster the 41 votes needed to block the anti-gun health care bill when it passed the Senate on Christmas Eve.  But the bill must still be voted on by both the House and Senate, and the Senate is scheduled to reconvene on January 19 -- the same day as the special election in Massachusetts.

How big of an issue is health care in this election?

Scott Brown told Politico: "If you feel that Washington and the health care bill that they're proposing is systemic of the problems in Washington and the failure to understand average people anymore, then you vote for me because as the 41st senator. I can stop a lot of this stuff in its tracks.  I can actually force them to go back to the drawing board."

Ordinarily, a Massachusetts Senate race is a cinch for Democrats, who dominate state politics.  But a recent Public Policy Polling poll shows Brown up one point against his opponent, anti-gun State Attorney General Martha Coakley!

Should Scott Brown pull off a win, the ObamaCare legislation would die instantly as Democrats will have lost their 60th vote.

As state Senator, Brown is considered one of the most conservative Republicans in the Bay State -- supporting issues like concealed carry of firearms and earning an "A+" rating from the state pro-gun group, Gun Owners Action League.

His opponent is the type of radical anti-gunner people have come to expect from Massachusetts.  Late last year, Attorney General Coakley filed a brief urging the state Supreme Court to uphold a law requiring firearms to be kept under lock and key when not in use. 

The choice for gun owners in this race could not be more clear -- and the stakes could not be higher. 

After telling gun owners for a year that they had nothing to fear from the national health care bill, Democrats in Washington finally admitted that that was a bald-faced lie.  So they stuck a bunch of language in the most recent version of the bill supposedly addressing the gun problems (which they claimed for so long did not exist!)

But the new language does not prohibit the FBI or the BATFE from trolling the ObamaCare medical database in search of medical reasons to disqualify citizens from owning firearms.

Already, the Department of Veterans Affairs -- which operates its own nationalized health care system -- has denied around 150,000 veterans their Second Amendment rights based on the opinions of doctors, and not on the basis of any criminal conviction.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg should the health care bill pass for the rest of the population.

So you can see how important this Massachusetts special election on January 19 is for the nation. 

It is also clear that concerned citizens from all over the country should do all they can to get Scott Brown over the finish line.

This is a very expensive race, and Scott's opponent has so far out-raised him significantly, as she's raked in millions of dollars from ObamaCare supporters. 

And, even though Scott is carrying the Republican message that will likely dominate the 2010 Congressional elections, news reports indicate that the Republican national committees have shown only token support.  That must change, and change quickly.

Sure, Massachusetts is normally a safe Democrat state -- but these are not normal times.  This race is winnable.  Scott Brown was down by 31 percentage points in November, but he is now effectively tied in the latest poll.

There are several action items that can be taken by people from every state:

1. Visit Scott Brown on the web at http://www.brownforussenate.com and make a generous contribution.  And, please make sure all your contacts know about the importance of this race. 

2. Contact National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn at info@nrsc.org and urge him to pull out all the stops to elect Scott Brown.

3. Email Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at info@gop.com and deliver the same message.

4. Of course, if you live in Massachusetts, vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday, January 19. 

Together, we can strike a blow to anti-gun national health care -- and send a powerful message to Washington -- by scoring a win in liberal Massachusetts.

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool

Here's where we're at on socialized health care.  The House and Senate have passed ObamaCare bills, but the two versions are very different.  So, the bill can't go to the President until they iron out the differences.

Make no mistake about it.  This legislation moves us down the road towards socialism, and it will result in even more gun owners being disqualified from owning firearms.

We need to regroup and renew our efforts to kill ObamaCare -- an outcome which is still very doable.

Now, repeat this phrase over and over:  A MORAL CESSPOOL.

If we are going to defeat the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation, these words are going to have to be repeated millions of times over the next month. 

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

Why is this refrain so important?  There are several reasons why, but consider this:  Throughout this fight over ObamaCare, Senators have lied about guns... they've lied about the deficit... they've lied about the costs of health insurance premiums and how the bill will affect senior citizens.  They have lied over and over to their constituents about all these issues.

That's why it's time that we tell Democrat Senators how corrupt their vote for ObamaCare really was.  Obviously, they won't agree.  So let each Senator make the argument that, "I am not a crook."

That argument never wins elections.

Already, Democrat Representatives and Senators are either switching parties or announcing their retirements.  They know the American people are disgusted with the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. Congress -- a situation that has become obvious to anyone who watches the nightly news. 

Consider the following despicable practices which were perpetrated in order to push ObamaCare through the Senate last month:

1. Lies

* For months, Senators claimed there were no anti-gun provisions in the ObamaCare legislation.  But everyone knew they were lying.  So last month, a provision was inserted into the Senate bill which claims to allay the concerns of gun owners -- but leaves the most important problem unremedied.  If they weren't lying to begin with, then why try to fix what they claimed wasn't there?

* Senators are now insisting that the current Senate health bill protects the rights of gun owners, even though this version would still allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information.  This could result in millions of Americans -- who are suffering from PTSD and other similar conditions -- being put into the NICS system and denied the right to buy firearms.

2. Bribes

* A $100 million bribe to treat Sen. Ben Nelson's state different from all others, in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote.

* A $100-300 million bribe to treat Sen. Mary Landrieu's state different from all others, in exchange for Mary Landrieu's vote.

* $10 billion for community health centers operated by groups similar to ACORN, in exchange for Sen. Bernie Sanders' vote.

* A bribe to Sen. Max Baucus in order to treat Libby, Montana, different from any other town.

* A bribe to Sen. Chris Dodd consisting of a $100 million medical center in Connecticut.

* Bribes to Sens. Kent Conrad, Brian Dorgan, Bill Nelson, etc., etc., etc.

* In fact, there are so many bribes in the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill that the bribe-meister himself, Majority Leader Harry Reid, publicly bragged that if your senator doesn't have a bribe in this bill, it "speaks poorly" of him.

3. Extortion

* Threats to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship because of his opposition to the government run "public option."

4. Fraud

* Senators are claiming that the Senate-passed version reduces the deficit, even though:

a. $247 billion of the bill's costs are being snuck through in separate legislation; 

b. The "savings" rely on $465 billion of Medicare "cuts," which no one believed were achievable; and

c. The "savings" rely on making new taxes take effect 3-5 years before any of those tax monies are spent.

* Senators are claiming that the bill would make Medicare solvent -- but this claim can only be made by fraudulently double-counting the effects of the phony Medicare cuts.

* Senators are claiming that health care costs would be brought under control, when the government's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that costs would go up $245 billion.

* Senators are claiming that premiums would be brought under control, even though the Congressional Budget Office found that policies under the "exchange" (i.e., those policies which you would have to buy, under penalty of law) would be 10-13% more expensive than if Congress did nothing.

5. Secrecy

* The final version of the 2407-page bill wasn't revealed until less than 48 hours before Congress began voting on it.

Do You Remember 1987?

Thought  you might be interested in  this forgotten bit  of  information.......... 

 It  was  1987! At a lecture the other day they  were playing an old news video  of  Lt.Col. Oliver North  testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during  the  Reagan  Administration. 

 There  was Ollie in front of God and country  getting the third degree, but  what he said was  stunning! 

 He  was being drilled by a  senator,  'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000  for a home  security  system?' 

 Ollie  replied, 'Yes, I did,  Sir.' 

 The  senator continued, trying to get  a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just  a  little  excessive?' 

  'No,  sir,' continued  Ollie. 

  'No? And  why not?' the  senator  asked.. 

 'Because  the lives of my family and I  were threatened, sir.' 

 'Threatened?  By whom?' the  senator questioned. 

'By  a terrorist, sir' Ollie  answered. 

'Terrorist?  What terrorist could  possibly  scare you that  much?' 

'His  name is Osama bin Laden, sir'  Ollie replied. 

 At  this point the senator tried to repeat the  name, but couldn't pronounce  it, which most people back then probably  couldn't.  A couple of people  laughed at the attempt.  Then the  senator continued.  Why are you  so afraid of this man?' the  senator  asked. 

'Because,  sir, he is the most evil person  alive that I know of', Ollie  answered. 

'And what  do you recommend we do about him?' asked  the senator. 

'Well,  sir,  if it was up to me, I would  recommend that an assassin team be formed  to eliminate him and his men from  the face of  the earth.' 

The  senator disagreed with this approach,  and that was all that was shown of the  clip. 

By the  way, that senator was Al  Gore! 

Also: 

Terrorist pilot  Mohammad Atta blew up a bus  in Israel in  1986. The Israelis captured, tried  and imprisoned him.  As part of  the Oslo agreement with the  Palestinians in 1993, Israel  had to  agree to release so-called  'political  prisoners.'

 However,  the Israelis would not  release any with blood on their  hands.  The American President at the  time, Bill Clinton, and his  Secretary of State, Warren  Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners  be released. 

Thus  Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually  thanked us by  flying an  airplane into Tower One of the World   Trade  Center . This was  reported by many of the American  TV networks at the time that the terrorists  were  first identified. 

It  was  censored in the US  from  all later reports. 

 

Second Amendment: 2009 Gun Sales

It looks as if a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates exists after all -- but not the one gun-control crusaders claim. According to 2009 data, more guns mean fewer murders. The FBI's preliminary 2009 crime report shows that murders from January to June 2009 fell 10 percent from the same period in 2008. Granted, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but the number of privately owned guns rose in 2009 by about 2 percent. During the first six months of last year, national instant background checks jumped by 24.5 percent over the first six months of 2008.

According to one gun store owner, the problem, even amid the economic downturn, hasn't been keeping customers; it's been keeping up with customers. "For most of the year we couldn't even find guns to sell," says Kevin Miller of K&D Gunsmithing in San Bernardino, California. "The manufacturers don't have guns. They say sales are so high in the United States they can't keep up." Indeed, gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger, & Co. reported that first quarter 2009 production skyrocketed by 69.3 percent over first quarter 2008 levels. The most popular guns purchased were those most commonly used for self defense.

Hmm, gun ownership translating into personal safety and lower crime rates. Maybe our Founding Fathers were onto something after all.

Government & Politics If By 'Transparent' You Mean 'Secret'...

After much bribery and arm-twisting, the Senate managed just before Christmas to pass its version of ObamaCare by a 60-39 vote (amazingly, without a single GOP "aye"). Now, the bill heads for conference deliberation televised by C-SPAN, just as the cable channel offered and Barack Obama promised numerous times.

Or not.

Democrats let slip this week that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. That means even more liberty-stealing treachery can be slipped into the bill with little notice. Funny how the "public option" doesn't mean that the public gets to know what's in the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nevertheless had the gall to declare, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." In response, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto mocked, "Has a more false or awkwardly worded statement ever come out of anyone who has served as speaker of the House's mouth?"

In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).

Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."

Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.

The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret.