Boring!

Watching paint dry would be more exciting than listening to this boring guy!

Arizona Truck

Do you think this guy is a little upset?

Wake up! He's a communist!

The articles that I post is because I think they are of interest to someone else. By posting these articles doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with every—or any—opinion in the posted article.

Wake up! He's a communist! - by Erik Rush

Make no mistake: The political struggle currently ensuing in America has long since ceased to be one of well-intentioned citizens disagreeing over policy. This is a matter of devoted, mainstream, well-informed Americansresisting the subjugation of our nation by communist operatives and their coalition of deceived supporters and committed acolytes.

 Even the reader who is new to this column will have observed the increased intensity of political rhetoric over the last two years. Prior to the 2008 election, voices warning against a Barack Hussein Obama presidency may have been background noise to the casual news consumer; after all, every candidate has their detractors.

 Over the last 20 months, between the actions and policies of the Obama administration and developments that have taken place as a result of same, the background has become very much foreground. The machinations and designs of the administration have carried more urgency, and their words have become shrill. Likewise, terms like "progressive" and "socialist" have increasingly been replaced with "Marxist," "communist" and "totalitarian" by their opposition.

 Obviously, if only a few fringe types were employing such potent terminology, it could be easily dismissed. With hundreds of thousands of Americans mobilized, millions blogging and organizing, an emergent arm of the press dedicating itself to stifling the momentum of this government and even some conservative Hollywood celebrities coming "out of the arsenal" to join their voices with these, however, the gravity of these expressions cannot be ignored.

 Like a host of pundits and legions of voters, I was appalled and indignant over the reaction of the political left and Republican elites to Republican Christine O'Donnell's primary win over Mike Castle in the Delaware senatorial race. Leading off the litany of unfounded tripe with which the left assailed Ms. O'Donnell were the tired, nebulous accusations of her being too extreme. Within hours of this, I was treated to the very same indictment of the tea party-backed GOP candidate for the Senate in my state, via a television advertisement.

 So is nationalism now more "extreme" than communism? Because nationalism is what we need, and communism is what we're getting.

 You want extremism? How about the president appointing yet another anti-capitalist radical in Elizabeth Warren as the non-titular head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while circumventing Senate confirmation, to occupy an office devoid of political regulation? A woman who claims that capitalism doesn't work – which admittedly it tends not to when government regulates business into near-insolvency, overtaxes companies and individuals and makes minimum wage demands that artificially drive up consumer prices. 

 Thank God that so many Americans are finally realizing that people like Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama have, over time, maneuvered us into a position economically wherein it appearsthat capitalism doesn't work, so that they might make that very claim!

 Or, how about Obama signing executive order No. 13544, which officially adopted the Codex Alimentarius, a policy against which business interests have been fighting for decades? This one – a stealth proviso of Obamacare, by the by – is intended to bring access to all vitamins, minerals and natural health remedies and technologies under government control. This means that Washington can now classify all of these as "controlled" – like prescription drugs.

 You mean the communists don't care whether or not the American people want communism? Big shock, huh? Yes, the concepts of liberty, self-determination, and unalienable rights in particular are antithetical to the ideology of these posers.

 Back in 2007, I already knew that Barack Obama was a committed Marxist. Yet, only 18 months ago, many tittered merrily when I used the "c-word" – communist – to describe him and his lackeys. Now, although the left still reacts with incredulity and derision when conservatives use it, conservatives are using it, and with each passing week, fewer Americans think of its use as being "extreme."

 When what we eat, drink, drive, say, do for a living, how much money we make and where we live is dictated by our government, those who were dedicated liberal voters will grit their teeth because they're too arrogant to ever admit they were wrong. When pockets of the stunned, deluded variety of liberal voters finally put down their bongs and declare "Hey, man – you can't, like, do this to us! We have rights …" – they're going to catch a bullet in the head.

 Small consolation this will be to patriotic Americans, since we'll already be dead or in a gulag by then.

 To put it succinctly, our government is occupied by malevolent, treasonous slime, and it's going to take years to extricate all of them, even with a majority of Americans dedicated to the wholesale eradication of progressivism – which is an absolute imperative. This societal infection is so profoundly and fundamentally destructive that if I had my way, anyone willing to accept it would be stripped of their citizenship.

 That said, I don't always get my way, and conscientious Americans obey the law, even if progressives do not. Hopefully, this will not lead to our undoing. Were it not for the fact that so many Americans now know that which I have outlined here and have reacted accordingly, I shudder to think what the depth of my despair might be.

This article appears on World Net Daily.  Erik Rush is a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession." In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama's ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances. He is the author of several books; his"Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation" was a 2007 New York Book Festival winner in the "Best Nonfiction" category.

Obama wants unfettered access to your Internet activity

The articles that I post is because I think they are of interest to someone else. By posting these articles doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with every—or any—opinion in the posted article.

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-brief/51731-obama-wants-unfettered-access-to-your-internet-activity

Excerpt: Despite outrage over George Bush's limited ability to wiretap into American phone calls, Obama wants to take it a step further and be able to monitor every single form of communication any American citizen uses.

The same kind of authority the government has to wiretap into phone calls could be coming to Facebook, instant messaging, and every American's browser history, thanks to a push from the Obama administration.

The White House plans to introduce a bill into Congress next year that would give Obama the ability to tap into literally every communication any citizen makes online.

The move causes a whole new level of privacy concerns. After the outrageous uproar of the Bush administration's tapping into American phone records, privacy advocates should be all over this.

In a report on the New York Times, Center for Democracy and Technology VP James Dempsey was quoted as saying, "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

White House officials contend the move is necessary to combat terrorism. And based on the language of existing wiretap laws, most of these communications could already be monitored.

However some forms of communication, like Blackberry manufacturer Research in Motion's instant messaging service, are different. And that's what the government is now targeting. It also wants to change the wording of law to make it clear that Obama has full unfettered access to any sort of communication any American has with anyone.

Isn't this what China and a lot of other communist countries are doing with the Internet. We don't need Obama prying into our everyday lives and monitoring things about us, as according to "The Constitution" we still do have "First Amendment Rights" to speak. Here we have a new administration that refuses to protect our borders, files lawsuits against states and Sheriffs that try to enforce immigration laws that are identical to federal immigration laws. We are being invaded by all sorts of illegals coming into this country illegally and we don't have a clue as to how many terrorists are walking in here with them, but yet Obama thinks that monitoring our Internet activities will combat terrorism and be a help to Homeland Security. Sorry, but Obama and all his self appointed czars that he circumvented Congress by appointing them are at a complete loss as to the security of this nation and does not give a rat's butt about American citizen's, what they want, what they need, the economy or what it takes to keep our freedoms intact. ~~AMM

NRA mans up to Harry Reid

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/2/nra-mans-up-to-harry-reid/

Gun rights group smacks majority leader over Supreme Court votes

Excerpt: This week's hostage standoff at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland offers a scary reminder why it's important for Americans to be able to own and carry firearms. When the public is packing heat, it's more dangerous for deranged criminals to threaten innocent life because individuals can defend themselves. No organization does more to protect our right to keep and bear arms than the National Rifle Association, and when you go against the NRA, you get thumped. Just ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The powerful Nevada Democrat is reeling from the shock of not getting the gun group's important endorsement in his uphill re-election bid. NRAdecision-makers had to have some ice in the veins to make this call because Mr. Reid is no slouch on gun rights. He routinely deviates from his left-wing party line to vote pro-gun, and he played a central role in helping develop one of the nation's premier shooting ranges in Clark County, Nev.

What cost Mr. Reid the NRA nod this year was his lead role in shepherding far-left Obama nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan onto the Supreme Court. At the time of the latter's confirmation last month, the NRA made clear, "Ms. Kagan presents a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms," and it unloaded both barrels in trying to shoot down her lifetime appointment.

Rest of the story here

Why Michelle Came Home

The articles that I post is because I think they are of interest to someone else. By posting these articles doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with every—or any—opinion in the posted article.

I'm generally not a believer in conspiracy theories, but there's a lot of questions that needs to be answered considering the actions of Obama regarding some of his motives that we all are noticing taking place with him.

WHY MICHELLE CAME HOME - Interesting Sheppard Smith, Fox News.

"If you check President Obama's last trip over-seas, his wife left just after their visit to France . She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. Why is Michelle returning to the states when 'official' trips to foreign countries generally include the First Lady." Here's one thought on the matter. While in a Blockbuster renting videos I came across a video called "Obama". There were two men standing next to me and we talked about President Obama. These guys were Arabs, so I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following the President's recent visit to France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she could not go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq . I said "Why not,(?) Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia , Turkey and Dubai ." They said that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he is not allowed to bring his wife into countries that adhere to Sharia Law. Two points of interest here: 1) I thought it interesting that two American Arabs at Blockbuster believe that our President is a Muslim, 2) who follows a strict Islamic creed. They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world, acknowledging his religion. For further consideration, here is a response from Dr. Jim Murk, a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert on Islam. This is his explanation of what the Arab American's were saying. "An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices Sharia law, particularly Saudi Arabia where the Wahhabi sect is dominant. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe . She will stay home when he visits Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this includes, bowing to the Saudi King. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in the Arab world, because he was born to a Muslim father; he acknowledged his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus. Note that he downplays his involvement with Christianity, by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C. And occasionally attending the chapel for services at Camp David . He also played down the fact that America is a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has publicly taken the side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel and he ignored the National Day of Prayer, something no other President has ever done. He is bad news! He conceals his true faith to the detriment of the American people." --- Jim Murk, Doctor of Philosophy in Middle Eastern Culture & Religion. ACTIONS speak louder than words. Another interesting item regarding Sharia Law. Why has Barack Hussein Obama insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials of the 911 Muslim Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America ? If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted and sentenced to death, by LAW, Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States , would be required to sign their Death Warrants. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if they are sentenced to death by a Civilian Court . Recently, Muslim Jihadist, Army Major Hassan slaughtered non-Muslim, soldiers at Ft. Hood , Texas rather than go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims 'could not and should not kill fellow Muslims.' Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama's insistence on civilian trials, to make sure he doesn't have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States , not sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and murdered over 3,000 U. S. Citizens on 9/11? Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN by his RELIGION to authorize the execution of Muslims? Think about that! Open your eyes, ears and mind to who the President is, how he behaves and what he is doing.

Go vote in NOVEMBER

Obama’s auto policy: All in the Democratic family

By: Timothy P. Carney 

Senior Examiner Columnist

May 6, 2009

President Barack Obama’s auto industry policy promises to heighten the influence of lobbyists and to open the door to ethical transgressions and even outright corruption. By naming as car czar a financier who is also a Democratic fundraiser steeped in cozy business-government relationships, and by replacing the traditional bankruptcy procedures with the will of politicians, Obama has injected Detroit with all the elements of crony capitalism.

Auto czar Steve Rattner, 56, a top Democratic fundraiser, is an old hand at leveraging political influence into profit, as shown by the business dealings of his hedge fund, Quadrangle Group.

One Quadrangle client was New York City’s pension fund — an arrangement at the heart of recent federal convictions for illegal kickbacks. Federal authorities charged that a “senior executive” at Quadrangle — Rattner, according to the Wall Street Journal — met with a consultant who was looking for places to invest the city’s pension fund money. A short time later, the city invested in Quadrangle, and Quadrangle cut a check to the consultant, who has since pleaded guilty to taking illegal kickbacks.

Quadrangle is not under investigation nor has it been accused of wrongdoing in making the payment, but New York’s comptroller is looking into whether the firm failed to disclose the payment.

Rattner, it turns out, is also the personal money manager for New York City’s Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In Washington, Quadrangle also seems to play politics for profit. Quadrangle paid $160,000 to the K Street firm Navigant Consulting from February 2005 through the end of 2006 to lobby Congress, the White House, and the Department of Labor on a handful of bills regarding asbestos litigation and compensation.

What was Quadrangle’s stake in asbestos legislation? The firm didn’t return a phone call seeking an answer, but it’s not too hard to deduce. Many hedge funds invested in companies damaged by asbestos lawsuits. These funds then lobbied for legislation that would alleviate some of the liability the companies faced, thus boosting companies’ stock value.

Alternatively, a hedge fund could make the opposite play: Watch a vulnerable company’s stock rise as prospects improve for asbestos legislation, then short the company and lobby to kill the bill. Sometimes the lobbyists just acted as intelligence gatherers. A Wall Street Journal article in December 2006 explained the dynamic: “Some hedge funds, which tend to choose riskier investments that can yield high returns, saw the troubled asbestos companies as attractive. To weigh the value of their investments and decipher bankruptcy-court actions, hedge funds hired teams of analysts and researchers. When Congress began considering legislation to bail out the industry, the funds hired lobbyists to assess its prospects.”

So Rattner understands how public policy can create private profits. It should come as no surprise, then, that his auto plan involves upending bankruptcy law and precedent in favor of a system in which the winners and losers are chosen by politicians or their appointed “czars.”

Rattner and Obama have decided that the United Auto Workers union should get 55 percent of Chrysler. At the same time, they’ve attacked many of Chrysler’s secured creditors — who, in a regular, nonpoliticized bankruptcy, would be repaid in full — for resisting this deal. In a federal complaint, these administration targets alleged: “The government exerted extreme pressure to coerce all of [Chrysler’s] constituencies into accepting a deal which is being done largely for the benefit of unsecured creditors at the expense of senior creditors.”

For the foreseeable future, Chrysler will be on the federal dole, both directly and indirectly. The Obama-Rattner plan puts UAW in charge of Chrysler, which is good news for the Democratic Party.

UAW’s political action committee spent $13.1 million last election cycle, a slow year for the union’s political arm. Of the PAC’s $2.3 million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more than 99 percent went to Democrats. Of 42 Senate candidates to get UAW money, only one was Republican, and that was Arlen Specter.

The union’s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.

So, here’s the arrangement: You pay your taxes, the Obama administration funnels some of the money to Chrysler, whose profits enrich the UAW, which in turn funds Obama’s re-election.

Predictability, precedent and the rule of law have been replaced with the fiat of politicians. Chrysler could become a pass-through entity from taxpayers to the Democratic Party. And in charge of it all is a Democratic fundraiser. Boss Tweed would be proud.

Ex Car Czar

Date: September 18, 2010 8:37:59 AM PDT YOU JUST KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING BEHIND THE WHOLE AUTO TAKEOVER. Chrysler Railroad story Sooner or later it will all come to light! Chrysler's Railroad This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.  Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM. The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM. Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this list of dealerships'. Not true! The  Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens.  Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed?  Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The  Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you? Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky "coincidence," we're certain. Then comes another really wacky "coincidence." On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas, North Louisiana, and  Southern Missouri. It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier.  These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one! While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing? Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made up. Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Workers union!  Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry. As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in our back yard. There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation into this. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Car Czar No More An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasury Secretary  Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York....Uh-oh!  But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.  And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!  Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family." Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,".....as Tim Geithner likes to say! SOOOOO, HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?.. Check it out at the following websites.....      www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html   www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-theDemocratic-family-44414452.html This goes beyond corruption in high places - to gross criminal actions on the part of our government! I hope you will spread this far and wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that transparency we were promised......followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators! What a crooked government, we have!!!!!  Vote 'em all out...November, 2010!                                   I still want to know, why can't I be the Car Czar?

Our political establishment wears blinders and ignores the threat!

The articles that I post is because I think they are of interest to someone else. By posting these articles doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with every—or any—opinion in the posted article.

Important: Our political establishment wears blinders and ignores the threat
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/14/needed-a-second-opinion-on-shariah/
Excerpt: It is time for a "Team B" approach to Islamist ideology. The strategy has worked before, against a similarly determined threat to freedom. In 1976, George H.W. Bush, then director of central intelligence, invited a group of known skeptics about the strategy of detente to review the classified intelligence regarding Soviet intentions and capabilities. The point was to provide an informed second opinion on U.S. policy toward the Kremlin. The conclusions of this experimental Team B study differed sharply from the government's regnant theory. The skeptics found that, pursuant to its communist ideology, the Soviet Union was determined to secure the defeat of the United States and the West and to tyrannize the globe. Thus, not only was detente unlikely to succeed, but national-security policies undertaken in its pursuit exposed the nation to grave danger. The study was particularly persuasive to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who would use it not only to challenge the detentist policies of the Ford and Carter administrations but to build the strategy that ultimately brought down the "Evil Empire." Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women. We consequently have joined a group of security-policy practitioners and analysts in subjecting this ideology and its adherents to a new Team B study. Our assessment challenges bedrock assumptions of current American policy on combating (and minimizing) what the government calls "extremism" and on engaging (and appeasing) Shariah proponents who claim to reject terrorism. These proponents are described, wrongly, as "moderates" because they appear content to achieve their patently immoderate designs through political-influence operations, "lawfare" and subversion. Participants in the study constitute a rich reservoir of national security experience drawn from military, intelligence, homeland security, law enforcement and academic backgrounds. Our study does not perfectly replicate the Team B work of a generation ago. We have not been encouraged by our government, which, under administrations of both parties, has been immovably content to wear its blinders. Nor have we been invited to review classified information. These, however, have hardly been insuperable obstacles. What Americans need to know is ready to hand in the public record. The problem isn't access to information, it is coming to grips with what available information portends for our security. Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates - figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world's largest liberal Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama - who embrace the Enlightenment's veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On that side of the divide, Shariah is defined as but a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society. The other side of the divide is dominated by "Islamists," who are Muslim supremacists. Like erstwhile proponents of communism and Nazism, these supremacists - some terrorists, others employing stealthier means - seek to impose a global theocratic and authoritarian regime, called a caliphate. On this side of the divide, Shariah is a compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to wage jihad to install and to which the rest of the world is required to submit. For these ideologues, Shariah is not a private matter. They see the West as an infidel enemy to be conquered, not a culture and civilization to be embraced or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of government like ours to coexist peacefully with the end-state they seek.

Jane Fonda Memorial

After more than 40 years, the Viet Nam Veterans of the United States of America raised a phenomenal amount of money to memorialize another one of Hollywood's loyal American citizens who went out of her way to aid and abet the enemy and congratulate them on their treatment of US POW'S!
 
This memorial says it all.

I  get teary eyed when I see this.

Dreams

Dreams...

We all have 'em ... Here's mine... 

Nov 2010 Borders .... Closed ....  Language .... English ....  Culture .... Constitution ....  Bill of Rights and the BIBLE! NOVEMBER 2010 "CHANGE" IS COMING  We the people are coming!  I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

‘We can sustain another terrorist attack’

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/120335-we-can-sustain-another-terrorist-attack
Excerpt: As a patriotic American, I hope the Washington Post über-journalist misquoted President Obama in his upcoming book discussing the president's thinking behind the war on terrorism. Reading advance excerpts earlier today, I came across the following quotation attributed to the president: "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger." How dare the president opine that "we can absorb a terrorist attack”? This isn't a gravel spill or an overturned apple cart in which no one gets hurt. No, we're talking about an act of terror, an act of murder in which innocent people are killed simply because they woke up one day and decided to drive to work, take their children to school or otherwise go about their daily lives. (Well, I suppose. Chicago absorbed 303 shootings and 33 murder victims in July. Not sure it made the city stronger, though. There will be those who say that if the attack took out Washington, DC, it would help. ~Bob.)

Essay: The Choice

Essay: The Choice

It doesn’t matter who the candidates for the US House of Representatives are in your district, or who the candidates for the US Senate are in your state (if one of your seats is up for election this year). It’s very easy to decide who to vote for.

Here’s a handy guide.

• If you approve of the job the US Congress has done for the last four years under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you should vote for Democrats for the House and Senate to keep the same leadership in charge. If you disapprove of the job the Reid-Pelosi Congress has done, you should vote for Republicans to give the Congress new leadership.

• If you believe you and the country are better off now than in 2007 when the Democrats took control of the Congress, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If not, you should vote for the Republican candidates.

• If you support the restructuring of our healthcare system passed this year (called “Healthcare Reform” by the Democrats who voted for it and “ObamaCare” by the Republicans who opposed it) you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you oppose the new healthcare law, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you support keeping taxes at their present level, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you support raising taxes to their old levels, before Bush became president, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.

• If you think the record deficits of the past two years under President Obama and the Democrat Congress are a serious problem for the future of the country, you should vote for the Republican candidates. If you think record deficits and massive increases in government spending are a good thing, you should vote for the Democrat candidates.

• If you are among the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Taxes, who are thus benefited by government spending and taxing other citizens more, you should vote for Democrats. If you pay taxes, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you approve of the government bailout and takeover of GM and Chrysler, you should vote for the Democrat candidates. If you think government taking over large sections of the economy is a bad idea, you should vote for the Republican candidates.

• If you think the huge “stimulus” bills have helped the economy, and the deficits are worth it, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you believe that President Obama is a strong and experienced military leader who can win the war in Afghanistan, stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and keep the country safe from terrorists, you should vote for Democrats. If you don’t think so, you should vote for Republicans to provide balance in Washington.

• If you think that open borders and unlimited illegal immigration are not a threat to Americans’ culture, standard of living and safety, if you approve of the US government suing Arizona over its immigration law and if you think creating incentives to give citizenship to “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented workers” (take your pick) is a good idea, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you think that ever-larger government, growing numbers of public employees and large increases in government employees’ pay during a recession are bad for the economy and a danger to liberty, you should vote for Republicans. If you support increasing the size and cost of government every year, you should vote for Democrats.

• If you think we need more regulation on small business, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the increasing burden of regulations on small business is one of the things that are killing job growth, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you think our current economic problems, which started under President Bush and the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2007, are all Bush’s fault, you should vote for Democrats. If you think the policies followed by President Obama and the Democrat congress over the last two years have made the economy worse, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you think parents should be able to chose what school to send their kids to, you should vote Republican. If you think they should go to whatever school the government says, you should vote Democrat.

• If you think America should be more like European high-tax, high welfare countries, you should vote for Democrats. If you think America should be more like it always was, you should vote for Republicans.

• If you are for shutting down international trade through trade barriers and high tariffs, and are willing to accept the damage to the economy to support the unions in certain industries, you should vote for Democrats. If you are aware that free trade always increases economic activity, and that the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill in 1930 turned a recession with 9% unemployment into a depression by 1932 with 25% unemployment, as international trade collapsed, you should vote for Republicans. (Yes, this question is worded in a more biased manner than the others, as so many people are ignorant of basic economics. See this column by the brilliant economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell, for a fuller explanation of how killing trade kills jobs:http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/4258-Unhappy-Birthday-Hawley-Smoot.html. Better yet, read his terrific books Basic Economics and Applied Economics.)

• If you thought Republican scandals in 2006 were a good reason to vote Democrat, then you may want to consider the growing list of Democrat scandals since then, including among others Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, William Jefferson Clinton, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Jesse Jackson. Jr. If you think Speaker Pelosi has done a good job of eliminating corruption and “draining the swamp,” as she promised, you should vote for Democrats. If not, you should vote for Republicans.

Of course, you may come down on different sides on different questions. No problem, just put all the “Vote Democrat” reasons on one list and all the “Vote Republican” reasons on another list. Then give each reason a value of three for “highly important,” two for “important” and one for “not important.” Add up the totals and vote for the candidates of the party with the highest score.

Don’t let local considerations or the individual candidates sway you from your course. This is a watershed election. The fundamental transformation of America into something different than it was or was intended to be, promised by President Obama and the Democrats, is well underway, and will likely be irreversible if they continue to hold all power after November. Do you think that’s a good thing, or do you want to keep the America we grew up in? That’s the choice.

Permission to forward, post or publish this piece is granted by the author. Permission to edit it to reflect your own views is not granted—write your own damn essay!