conservOpunk

Nail Biting - Bad for you!!

2009-12-29T10:40:00.002-05:00

Dang, I do many of these bad habits myself - except smoking - I don't personally smoke, but fully support those who do. No one is subjected to more public disdain and unfair laws than smokers! I get the "no smoking on an airplane" but not in public and definitely not in a PRIVATE RESTAURANT or BAR. If an owner of a bar wants to allow smoking he should be able to. Period. It's all BS. Plus they tax the hell out of cigarettes and cigars so the Liberals should love them and give their users more freedom. Alas, this is not the case.

5 Habits to break in 2010

by Liz Vaccariello, Editor-in-Chief, PREVENTION, on Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:35am PST

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a bad habit (or three), and even if you’re not the resolution type, making one change this year can do wonders for your health, looks and self-esteem. Here are five common not-so-great habits, and how to break ’em for good.

1.) Bad habit: Nail Biting

Stop now: Biting your nails makes for ugly hands and over time can interfere with normal nail growth, damage the outer layer of your teeth, and cause nail deformities such as split nails. Harmful bacteria such as staphylococcus also live underneath nails—and you don't want to chew on that.

Break it: Go for a professional manicure once every 2 or 3 weeks, suggests Angelica Kaner, PhD, a clinical professor at Yale University Medical School, because when your nails look pretty, you'll be less likely to snack on them. At the very least, keep your nails trimmed short—you'll have less nail to bite, and that harmful bacteria has less space to grow. Nail biting is also a nervous habit that is often an expression of some deeper anxiety. "Ask yourself why you're feeling anxious," Kaner says. You can also try substituting a new, healthy behavior—instead of biting your nails, rub in a cuticle cream or oil.

Save money with home manicures

2.) Bad habit: Forgetting to Floss

Flossing helps prevent gum disease and keeps your teeth and gums looking good, but it may also stave off non-mouth-related diseases: A 2005 study in the journal Circulation showed that older adults with higher levels of four gum disease-causing bacteria in their mouths also tend to have thicker carotid arteries, which raise the risk of stroke and heart attack. That's scary business, because 90% of dentists say that most patients don't floss regularly.

Break it: Buy a floss-holding device, such as the Flossmate Floss Holder to make the process easier and faster. In an Indiana University study, 50% of previous nonflossers were doing so regularly 6 months after introducing floss to their routine; 85% of the new flossers used a holding device—only 15% preferred doing without the aid. Then incorporate flossing into your morning routine before or after brushing.

Surprising habits that protect your pearly whites

3) Bad habit: Late Night Fridge Raiding

Eating late at night in itself isn't bad for you, but chances are you're eating cold pizza instead of apple slices. Adding those extra calories does the late-night damage, according to a 2005 Oregon Health & Science University study. Snacking late at night can also exacerbate symptoms for those prone to heartburn, as lying down after eating makes it easier for stomach acid to flow into the esophagus.

Break it Boredom, not hunger, is of the root cause of late-night eating, says Pamela Peeke, MD, author of Fit to Live. Once the craving hits, focus on an activity that engages you until it's time to go to sleep, such as e-mail, a crossword puzzle, or meditation. It's also common for people to chow down while watching TV. In fact, a study from the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago found that people who were allowed to eat as many potato chips as they wanted ate 44% more chips while watching Letterman than while not watching TV. Keep your hands busy while you watch by folding laundry, using your BlackBerry, or knitting—that way you won't be tempted to break out the Ruffles.

Ate too much? Erase the damage with this simple plan.

4) Bad habit: Smoking

We don't need to remind you of all the health risks associated with smoking (heart attack, lung cancer, emphysema, and cancer of the mouth, throat, stomach, bladder, kidney, and cervix), but here's one you might not have considered: money. Lots of it. The cost of one pack plus taxes averages $4.49, so if you smoke a pack a day, you're turning a whopping $1,639 a year into nothing but smoke, ashes, and nice black spots on your formerly pretty pink lungs.

Break it: Ask your doctor about drugs that can help kick-start your quitting process and help you combat cravings and withdrawal. For instance, Zyban, an antidepressant, helps reduce psychological withdrawal symptoms such as frustration, restlessness, anxiety, and irritability. Chantix blocks the effects of nicotine on your brain, which helps reduce cravings. According to a study, 44% of smokers were able to quit after 12 weeks using Chantix, and another study showed that Zyban was nearly twice as effective as a nicotine patch in helping smokers quit.

11 biggest health sins

5) Bad habit: Sun Worshipping

Blame it on Coco Chanel—before she returned golden brown from a Mediterranean vacation in the 1920s, pale skin was in. But until the Morticia Addams look comes back in style, stick to self-tanning lotion: The sun's UV rays damage your skin's DNA, increasing your risk of skin cancer (not to mention sunspots, sagging skin, and wrinkles). In fact, as much as 90% of wrinkles, brown spots, and sagging are caused by sun damage, according to the American Skin Association.

Break it: Wear sunscreen daily on the parts of your body that are exposed to the sun, even during winter. The skin cancer foundation recommends applying 1 ounce of SPF 15 sunscreen with UVA and UVB protection to your entire body 30 minutes before going outside on a typical day, and then reapply every 2 hours. If you're spending the day outdoors, wear a wide-brimmed hat and cover exposed skin with clothing, preferably with built-in sunscreen.

Compare the Quotes... see how we vote...

2009-06-29T13:33:00.001-04:00

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler]

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

www.finallyequal.com

2009-06-23T13:09:00.002-04:00

“American People Will Never Knowingly Adopt Socialism”

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign

LOWER TAXES NOW

2009-06-11T12:51:00.005-04:00

It used to be that to make the big money you had to start a business or get a job competing in the private sector. If you chose government work it was not as lucrative, but the benefits would be your reward for working in the public sector. The trade-off – lower salaries for better benefits.

How times have changed. Now (and for the foreseeable future) it seems the PUBLIC sector is the place to be for big salaries, while the private sector, burdened with high taxation and a slow economy, suffer. This sector is where the money comes from. This sector is where wealth is created. Consider:

GOVERNMENT FACTS

Local government in Orange County (Orlando) FL spends $7 billion annually

The 27 year old chief of staff to the Mayor makes $131,000 a year
The library director makes $192,000 a year
The toll authority director makes $246,000 a year

The average private sector wage in Orange County is $38,000

God Bless America.

www.reason.com
www.lowertaxesnow.org

Couldn't be any simpler

2009-06-09T11:00:00.000-04:00

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Couldn't be any simpler than that.

Letter to the Editor

2009-06-09T09:09:00.002-04:00

I wrote this letter in response to a "blame America first" ZING post by a misguided liberal:

Our Liberally Racist Media

2009-06-08T23:11:00.001-04:00

Our Liberally Racist Media

Shared via AddThis

Remember "Bloom County?"

2009-06-03T12:37:00.004-04:00

From Mike B.

You've no doubt heard about how Judge Sotomayor said she hoped a wise Latina judge would make a better decision than a white male judge. The Obama spin is that she mis-spoke. See Rich Lowry's amusing column on this. http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1910164.html

Anyway, her hearings will have a section where she tries to back away from the statement somehow. That reminded me of an exchange in the comic strip Bloom County. I couldn't find the script but someone had the quote:

Opus the Penguin, Vice-Presidential candidate for the Meadow Party was brought before a Congressional Committee on charges of being a liberal -

"Mr Opus, is it true that you said in a speech during your last campaign that, were you elected, you would 'grind the rich into free meatloaf for the poor'?"

After frantic shaking of his head, Opus replied "Ah, those silly days of youth, we were all so wild then. What I meant to say was, 'Good jobs at good wages'."

Expect Sotomayor to sound like Opus next month...

AMERICAN HISTORY 101

2009-05-28T09:10:00.002-04:00

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

this is great!! show your kids. (and your less than informed adult friends)

Unlevel Playing Field.

2009-05-22T10:35:00.000-04:00

So, when liberals burn American flags, smear the military and compare Bush to Hitler, it's free speech.

When conservatives protest excessive taxation & govt spending its offensive.

Got it.

Karl Rove is RIGHT (and correct too)!

2009-05-22T10:32:00.001-04:00

Flip-Flops and Governance

Our president isn't quite as advertised.

By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.

However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

A Typical Email to conservOpunk!

2009-05-22T10:29:00.002-04:00

Warm thanks to those on the Left who for the last 6 years undermined our national security efforts by screaming at the top of their lungs that we must close Gitmo without thinking about the consequences (for 2 of those years we heard this from the Left's Cheerleader in Chief while as a naive candidate - Hilary's words, not mine).

I am so glad that for 6 years we had to endure derision from the elites and their cohorts claiming that arguments about the importance of certain measures furthering national security were simply "talking points from the knuckle-dragging neo-cons" and that according to them there was no substance to a reasonable debate about the issue - nope, only yelling was allowed - yelling at those of us who understand the threat posed by these terrorists picked up on foreign soil.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/white_house_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/white-house-closing-gitmo-a-%E2%80%98hasty-decision%E2%80%99/

Well, this admission by the administration may be called "practical" and "well thought out" by the press - but let's be honest. The Gitmo policy and the tribunals and warrantless wiretapping of foreign commo from known terrorists into the US worked and that's why Obama has not dumped them. And if Obama's practical side thinks they work now and will in the future, then this is an admission by extension that Bush policies did IN FACT keep us safe for the last 6 years (which is a far cry from the string of terror attacks we endured in the 90s under Clinton - since looking back at what previous administrations "inherited" is so in vogue now).

So, now that Gitmo is no longer the political whipping post for the Bush administration, maybe cooler heads will prevail - but the emboldening of our enemies and the lasting damage to our CIA agents' and Gitmo soldiers' morale by those who attacked them from the Left incessantly for 6 years will not go away so soon.

Even if the detention center at Gitmo is eventually closed (which is doubtful because no one wants trained terrorists pulled from a battlefield in their backyard), the Left has no leg left to stand on and scream from regarding this issue.

Hopefully the Left will now stop playing politics with national security. Coming next...Senator Harry Reid (D-We Lost) will retract his 2007 statements that the Iraq war was lost (made before the surge even started) - hah! not really, like those Japanese soldiers found in caves on Pacific Islands in the 80s who thought WWII was still ongoing, Harry (Reid) still thinks we lost the Iraq War.

---------------------------------------

Oh, and a quick 2d topic - just today a federal judge made a ruling, the AP reports:

In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Bush administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

"The president also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces," Bates wrote.

But he said the Bush administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who "supported" enemy forces.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_guantanamo_detainees;_ylt=Ar1sbWFf87qgcir_3cWnkLGWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJxY2R2ODdpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTIwL3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fZGV0YWluZWVzBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2p1ZGdlc2F5c3VzYw

Oops, my bad, I accidentally changed the President's name, it should read this way:

In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Obama administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

But he said the Obama administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who "supported" enemy forces. (OMG - the ACLU, Moveon.org, Jon Stewart, et al better march on DC now, wearing those orange jumpsuits of course - that warmonger is overreaching and shredding the Constitution!!!!!! Oh, wait, it's Obama, so I'm sure they're okay with it)

(I'm not holding my breath waiting to see any protests like this during Obama's reign from the double standard, no principled Left)

(On a personal note: I thought about tempering some of what I say here - but no, I, and other like thinkers, had to sit back for 6 years and get yelled at by every quarter of our society, and what I have in this email comes no where near the verbal grenades that were tossed at those of us who support the troops and the mission and the policies)

Joe Marino
5/21/09

OH... MY... GOD... Facts about Obama from the AP!

2009-04-30T09:15:00.002-04:00

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

His vow that the recovery plan will "double the supply of renewable energy" will require a congressional mandate that won't be easy to achieve.

And he promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

___

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Uh Oh. good John Lott piece

2009-04-28T14:24:00.001-04:00

April 27th, 2009 10:31 AM Eastern

JOHN LOTT: Uh Oh…Team Obama Claims Americans Use TOO MUCH Health Care

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, “Freedomnomics”

“If you got health insurance, then you can keep it . . . and we won’t do anything about that,” at least that was what President Obama promised during the campaign last year. Well, add that to a very long list of broken campaign promises, including: cutting government spending, reducing the deficit, and “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”

Just as bad, on Friday it was revealed that Obama and the Democrats have no problem pushing through Senate votes on these radical health care changes that strip away normal procedural protections for those who oppose such changes.

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, let the cat out of the bag on health care. In explaining why universal health care wasn’t going to increase the deficit, Summers said that people are just getting too much unnecessary care. Summers claimed: “whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies . . . procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we — estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.”

This sure seems like rationing. Total health care expenditures in the United States in 2008 came to $2.4 trillion, implying that Summers believes that the proper government regulations can cut health care expenditures by almost 30 percent. That would cut back health care a lot. Summers softened the blow by saying that right now the government wouldn’t have to cut expenditures by more than a third of that $700 billion.

Tonsillectomies have primarily been done because of acute or chronic throat pain. Where different people are willing to draw the line between pain and surgery is a choice that we have traditionally left up to patients, but unless you know something about the patient’s preferences it is hard to claim that a surgery was a “mistake.”

The selective use of statistics by Summers and others in the Obama administration is startling. In 2000, New York had 501 abortions per 1,000 live births, Wyoming had 1. New York had 31 abortions per 1,000 women, Wyoming had fewer than 1. Abortion procedures rarely involve the health of the mother. Yet, presumably, Summers wouldn’t argue that these gaps, which are 10 to 167 times greater than the 3-to-1 ratio that so upsets him for other procedures, imply that abortions should be rationed.

It’s strange that the Democratic Party, a group that doesn’t think the government should intervene between a doctor and a woman when it comes to determining whether or not to have an abortion, appears to have no problem in telling doctors whether they can perform “tonsillectomies or hysterectomies.”

Ironically, the Obama administration isn’t confident enough that they can simply explain to people what medical procedures they should have. If people are getting costly, unnecessary procedures, don’t you think that the insurance companies would already have learned about it? For anyone who thinks that insurance companies are too stingy, the Obama administration has a news flash: insurance companies have been paying for too much health care.

But the Obama administration apparently doesn’t think that they can simply convince people of the value of their advice. Sadly, Summers and the rest of the Obama administration have no problem forcing people to do what they think best.

Yet, not only is Obama going to break his promise on interfering with these decisions, he has no problem with forcing this change on people. Democrats have apparently figured out a way to pass health care legislation without mustering the 60 votes normally needed to pass things in the Senate. To do this, health care won’t be voted on as a separate piece of legislation, but as part of the budget. The proposals also won’t be voted on in the Senate when the budget legislation is first brought up, but only after the final budget bill has gone through the process of “reconciliation” with the House.

Possibly Americans should ask Canadians and Brits –- people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating “unnecessary” health care.

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics. John Lott’s ree pieces for FOX News can be found here and here.

All for AMERICA song

2009-04-17T12:34:00.008-04:00

All for America

The butcher and the baker the biker and the Quaker

Soldiers, Lawmakers “Of thee I sing”

Collectivism left behind for Free Markets & Free Minds

It was the blessing for all mankind: “Let Freedom Ring”

Much to their surprise

We held our fire ‘til the whites of their eyes

We tore at tyranny’s disguise

Now finally we realize

We did it all for America

The Constitution’s not a “living thing” Thatcher, Reagan, JFK & Dr. King

Fought till everyone heard freedom’s ring, and individual’s rights

Reject oppressive policy. The Truth is never easy

Wrap yourselves in Liberty. Fight that fight!

God they did beseech

Thought of their mother’s when they took that beach

Freedom’s still not out of reach

It takes more than a pretty speech

They did it all for America

It’s God’s Will

To be the “shining city upon the hill”

Until we all fulfill

the promise on the dollar bill

We are all for America

Unbiased coverage from CNN (sarcasm)

2009-04-16T11:06:00.012-04:00

A quick snapshot (on just one day) to better illustrate the liberal bias in the Mainstream Media. A CNN reporter covers the Chicago Tea Party. Amazing! So much for non-bias coverage.

CNN Reporter: "What does liberty have to do with taxes?" ha! classic! Why can't you be happy with your $400 a year? I have not seen a better illustration of what Democrats believe vs what Republicans believe.

YOU TUBE VIDEO HERE

So, when liberals burn American flags, smear the military and compare Bush to Hitler, it's free speech. When conservatives protest excessive taxation & spending its offensive. Got it.

Burke

2009-04-15T10:45:00.002-04:00

"Gone" Barack Obama

2009-04-15T10:39:00.001-04:00

TEA PARTY DAY? Questions Answered.

2009-04-14T12:16:00.003-04:00

A friend asked me specifically what I will be protesting tomorrow on APR 15 tax day, at the "Tea Party" here in Tallahassee.

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:55:11 AM
Subject: Re: Tea Party (answering your question)

We are protesting the overall burden of immoral (yes it is a moral issue) Federal, State and Local taxation which goes beyond the legitimate role of government.

We are protesting our President's continued use of shell game figures to declare they are "cutting the deficit in half" after he multiplies it BY FOUR.

We are protesting the administrations words vs deed. Words: flowery feel good rhetoric. Deeds: payback to the Democrat constituencies. (UAW, NEA, Trial Lawyers, Environmentalists etc.) "We support the military" yet they slash their budget and even advocated eliminating their govt funded medical benefits.

We are protesting BOTH attempts to bail out a US car company, spending BILLIONS, only to see them end up in Bankruptcy anyway (which they should have been in the first place). This restructuring will only continue a failed business model 1. cars that don't sell & 2. 90,000 employees, and nearly 2 million former employees who will have their pensions and benefits paid for the rest of their lives at our expense. Look in the eyes of the person who planned on retiring this year, only to see his 401K cut in half, and explain why citizens tax dollars should be used for this purpose.

Finally, we are protesting because (As I say) "punk can come from the right" Since "the man" is now a huge federal bureaucracy, to oppose their current power grab is punk indeed.

FREE SPEECH!

Mark Levin beautifully illustrates the main point of Federalism and the 10th Amendment: MOBILITY. If you live in a place that does not suit the needs of you and your family, you are free to MOVE to another state in the Union. If the Federal Govt makes every state virtually the same, then you have no recourse.

This is the last word as far as I am concerned and should be a non-partisan issue. (of course it isn't, as Liberals are ideologues who will never admit to being wrong even when staring at a mountain of facts).

the Governor of Texas follows Jindal, Palin and other level headed, common sense driven state leaders:

Awesome.

CD out soon. "Punk can come from the Right"

Democrats will never learn

2009-04-07T09:43:00.017-04:00

SIMPLE TRUTHS:

Which organizations plant the most trees in this country?
Paper Companies

How many times does the word Democracy appear in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? ZERO http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

What percentage of Americans work for corporations?
20% 80% of private sector jobs are in small business

What percentage of the country is developed?
5.2%

Which political party runs the 10 poorest cities in America?
Democrats. 10 out of 10 are run by Democrats and have been for 50 years.

How many times have Republicans cut funding for programs designed to help the poor?
ZERO Federal law mandates an automatic annual increase in funding for poverty programs.

What percentage of oil & natural gas wells are done by so-called "BIG OIL" ?
10% 90% of the oil and natural gas wells developed in the United States are done by small, independent businesses

What percentage of Income Taxes do the top 5% of earners pay?
54%

Under the Bush tax cut the U.S. treasury took in the highest amount in federal taxes in our history.

Millionaire donations to Democrats out pace those given to the GOP by a ratio of 12 to 1. The average donation to the Republican National Committee is $50

How much to date has LBJ’s “War on Poverty” cost?
$40 Trillion. Poverty not only still exists but is much worse in many places. Imagine that money in the free market and how many of the poor could have been lifted from poverty!

Which political party was created to end slavery in the United States?
the Republican Party

Just the increase in the amount of coal that China will burn by 2020 will send as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions each driven 15,000 miles a year.

What percentage of Los Angeles outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens?
95% (appx 1400 warrants)

79% of all service workers are native-born, as are 68% of all workers in jobs requiring no more than a high school education. Illegal aliens do not “do the jobs Americans won’t do.”

How many paid Soviet agents worked in the U.S. State Dept during the McCarthy hearings? More than 300.
With the Venona Project’s declassification of Soviet cables, it is now known that more than 300 paid Soviet agents were employed in the U.S. state department. (Proving Joe McCarthy correct – Alger Hiss and the Rosenberg’s guilty).

Which U.S. President spent the most funds on AIDS relief to Africa?
George W. Bush (nearly 4x of any other)

Americans Are Pigs

2009-04-06T20:50:00.000-04:00

Americans Are Pigs

March 6th, 2009 . by Admin

From an email a friend sent me. I’m sure it is all over the place, but it was new to me, and it really made me think, so I am going to share it here.

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government ‘help’ is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America .

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have”
Thomas Jefferson

Cavuto RULES!!!

2009-04-03T08:09:00.000-04:00

B E A U T I F U L

2009-04-03T07:20:00.002-04:00

Journalism Student Actually Calls Rush to Learn the Truth About Him

April 1, 2009

RUSH: We go to Fairfax, Virginia. This is Andrew, and welcome, sir. It's nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's good to be on the show.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: I'm a new listener. I go to George Mason University, and I'm in a journalism class and was assigned to a chapter on you in a book. It's called Mightier Than the Sword by Rodger Streitmatter, and I feel like you are portrayed in an unfair light. Everything I've learned about you has put you in a negative light, and I want --

RUSH: What, is this a textbook?

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: There's a chapter in the textbook on me?

CALLER: "Rush Limbaugh," and it's called "Leading the Republican Revolution," and the chapter does capture your success and details your -- you know, your extremely successful career. And I'm new to your show, and researching you, and I've been truly captivated by everything that you've done. But everything that I read on the Internet and hear from people, especially in a college where the atmosphere tends to be more liberal, always seems to be negative. So I figured I want to get words from you that you would say to, you know, a journalism class for some details.

RUSH: First of all, let me be sure. I want to make sure I understand. You're not refuting the textbook. You want to refute what you have read about me on the Internet that doesn't jibe with what you know, or...?

CALLER: Well, the textbook. I'm saying although it does detail your success, everything --

RUSH: But it still slams me. The textbook still slams me?

CALLER: It still... Yeah, basically.

RUSH: Can you give me just a couple of examples? You don't have to go into details.

CALLER: Ummm.

RUSH: 'Cause I need some guidance here on what to refute. Can you give me some examples how it slams me. I can guess, but I want to hear from you.

CALLER: There's a section in the chapter called "Reign of Error" saying how you refuse to admit that you're wrong and your facts are constantly wrong.

RUSH: All right, now, the "Reign of Error" was a report put --

CALLER: (chuckles)

RUSH: Listen to me, now.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: The "Reign of Error" was a report put together -- what year was it, Snerdley, '93, '94? -- by a liberal media watchdog group called (this is oxymoronic, by the way) "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting," and what they purported to do was there's 24 or 25 items, I believe, in it, in which they accuse me of either lying or making things up. They released this to the Associated Press. The Associated Press ran with it all over the country. We replied with our refutation of every item, and they refused to print it. There's a similar group now called Media Matters for America which listens to all 15 hours of this program and will pull two sentences of a ten-sentence point in our monologue, and take it totally out of context. The purpose of the "Reign of Error" report, Media Matters and so forth, is to purposely misstate what I have said to ruin my credibility with people who have not listened, so as to create the illusion that I am something that I am not among people so they will not listen. The last thing these people want people doing is actually listening to me, as you did. What you read about me actually made you want to listen, and you heard enough that it doesn't kind of jibe with what you've read that you wanted to talk to me about it. Am I correct?

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: And I wanted you to... I think everyone, you know, everyone in the class -- well, I'm not going to speak for everyone in the class but I think most people would probably think of you in a negative way, and before I even begin my presentation, they're going to say, "Oooh, God. This is the Rush Limbaugh chapter, you know?" So I want to have something positive.

RUSH: Well, you can start out by saying that you actually called my program--

CALLER: Yes, definitely.

RUSH: -- that you spoke to me, that I kept you on the program for whatever number of minutes it's going to end up being here, like nine minutes. That you were able to tell me whatever you wanted and that I calmly and coolly listened to you and answered every question that you had. You want to know basically what you can say to people. This is a very, very important question, Andrew -- and by the way, I want to hold you through the break --

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: -- which is coming up here in couple of minutes, because I want to spend a little bit more detailed time with you. But this is a very, very important question. There's no wrong answer to it. It's going to help me determine what I say to you.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I detected that you are a little intimidated of standing up in front of the class to do your assignment, present your assignment on me because you think that most in the class have already made up their minds about me, even though I guarantee you -- and this is a point you must make to them -- they've never listened, and you must issue them the challenge to listen. They're in a journalism school, and they're about curiosity, and they're about finding truth, and they cannot possibly understand truth if they haven't listened themselves. That's the first thing you tell them, and you did. But are you alarmed? Are you a little bit worried about what they might think of you by what you have to say?

CALLER: Well, I'm going to stand by my own, you know, my guns. I was raised --

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: -- in a Republican family --

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: -- and I grew up listening --

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: -- to conservative talk, yeah.

RUSH: Don't be afraid of what people, particularly who are uninformed, think of you. You are going to be standing before the class more armed with factual information than any of them have. You will have been the reporter. You have gone out and you've gotten the story and you're going to report to them. Don't worry what they think of you. You can't control their thoughts anyway. You have no control over what they're going to say, so it should not intimidate you into factually reporting what you have learned. So I gotta take this break. We call it "an EIB Obscene Profit Time-Out" just to irritate people like your fellow students while everybody is losing money, we're earning it. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. So you just sit tight, and we'll come back and I'll explain this in greater detail.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We rejoin Andrew in Fairfax, Virginia, who is a journalism student at George Mason University. There's a textbook that his class has been assigned with a highly critical chapter of me after acknowledging career accomplishments and success, and Andrew has a presentation on this chapter before his class. How much time do you have, by the way, to get this done, Andrew?

CALLER: Well, I've put together my presentation, but I don't present for another two weeks.

RUSH: Okay. Very good. I want to repeat what I said. The first thing I want you to tell them is that they're in a journalism class. And you are quite unique in one way, and that is, most of the existing journalists in America today -- the vast, vast majority, well over 90% -- who report on me, never call me, never ask for my reaction to what they are going to report about me. They take it from what I told you: Media Matters or other left-wing "watchdog groups." Their purpose is not to get it right. Their purpose is to discredit -- and it's not just me. It's any prominent conservative, because I feel they don't think they can win a substantive argument. So the way they attack is to try to discredit people who threaten them in the arena of ideas. I clearly represent a threat. You've done something as a student that most practicing journalists today do not do. You have called me. You have asked for my reaction to this. You ought to get an A for that alone.

CALLER: (laughs)

RUSH: I'm serious. Now, here's another thing. The essence of your chapter on me, I'm guessing, based on the "Reign of Error" that you mentioned, is that I lie, or I purposely get things wrong, or I make things up, or I just say things that I know are wrong to advance my cause. Am I pretty close there?

CALLER: Well, for that particular section, yes, but there's other --

RUSH: Well --

CALLER: They slam you in other ways as well.

RUSH: Well, we'll get to those in a minute.

CALLER: (chuckles)

RUSH: But as far as the factual aspects of my presentation on this program, or wherever I speak -- as far as whether I make it up or lie about it or whatever -- the greatest source for information on my show, the greatest source for proof of what I actually say every day is my website: www.RushLimbaugh.com. On my website, there is a complete and total transcript available for every word I utter. There are links to the news items or stories or reports that I have used to make the statements that I make. Why would I lie all the time when I provide the proof right there for everybody to see? Critics never mention this. The journalists never go to my website. They rely on others who take out of context what I say. The other thing I want you to tell these students is that I am a soul mate of theirs. You and your students -- because of your age and your future and where you are in life -- you're very focused on yourselves as individuals, and I am the greatest asset individuals in this country have.

I believe that the smallest minority in the world is the individual, and I believe if you do not respect individual rights, you do not really respect minority rights. The individual is unique. No two people are alike. I resist the tug of popular sentiment. Please quote me: "I resist the tug of popular sentiment to basically conform with movements and ideas that are not based on thought, but rather are based on raw emotion." I have nothing but a fervent desire for everyone in your class to succeed, to be the absolute best they can be based on how willing they are to work hard, use their passion and the ambition and God-given talent that they have been given. I have no desire for anyone to be held back. I do not see people as men, women, black, white, red, green, orange. I see Americans. I see human beings. I see human beings who, unfortunately, are co-opted into a conformist way of thinking that it is in itself erroneous -- such as all the reporting about me and all the opinions of me that have been formed by people who do not listen. So part and parcel of what you must do, after you have repeated what I have just told you -- are you recording this?

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: You are. This will also be available at my website, every word I've said to you. So if somebody wants to say you're lying about what I said, it's right there on my website. We'll have the transcript up. We're going to put this, Andrew, on the free side, so that every one of your students can see it.

CALLER: Thank you.

RUSH: At some point. You can see it tonight, too. You do not... By the way, are you a member of my website? Are you a subscriber?

CALLER: No, sir, I'm not.

RUSH: Well, we're going to make you one. You're going to be after this phone call.

CALLER: All right.

RUSH: That will let you access everything, and you should do it. The Essential Stack of Stuff, the archives, the backup. My website is an encyclopedia of virtually every important thing that's happened in this country since I have been on the air, and there is proof of the things that I have said. It's a goldmine for you. You must, when you make this presentation, say that one of the problems that you found going through this chapter in the textbook is that it doesn't jibe with what you know as a listener to this program. You don't recognize the Rush Limbaugh in that chapter based on two things: what you know by listening and now what you've learned by discussing this with me. Now, is that enough? You can move on to some of the other things that are said that have nothing to do with accuracy and honesty and all that?

CALLER: (chuckles) Yeah, if you want me to.

RUSH: Sure. What else do they say?

CALLER: Well, every section seems to throw in your... I guess... They don't say "racism," but your comments towards women and homosexuals and racial minorities.

RUSH: Okay, so what do they say?

CALLER: Ummm...

RUSH: Don't be afraid. I'm not, and it's about me you're going to be repeating.

CALLER: (chuckles)

RUSH: So don't be afraid. What do they say?

CALLER: They mention, I quote: "Many Limbaugh critics believe their nemesis dipped to his lowest point in 1989 with 'caller abortions.' The offensive gimmick reinforced Limbaugh's anti-abortion stand..."

RUSH: Okay, okay, okay. Now, I'm going to walk you through this, because that's classic. In the first place, "Limbaugh's critics believe..." Are they identified?

CALLER: Hmmm. No, they are not.

RUSH: No! But they are given credence, are they not? The "critics" automatically have it. This is a journalism, by the way, trick, and it's standard operating procedure. They could report on the fact in the New York Times tomorrow that a cure for cancer has been found, and they would find "critics" to disagree with it or find problems with it, Andrew. It's part and parcel of the formula you people are taught. There's no good news. There's only news, and somebody who has an opposing view. Now, caller abortions. I happen to be... You're recording this, right?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: I happen to be pro-life. I've been pro-life all my life. I believe in God.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I believe that all human beings have a yearning spirit to be free, that we are endowed with it. I believe the founding documents. I believe that our existence is owing to a Creator who created us with inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Our Founding Documents, Declaration of Independence mentions these rights. They don't come from people, they come from God. Life. Somebody has to stand up for life; somebody has to defend it. Now, anybody can go on the radio and say, "I'm pro-life, and those pro-abortionists are wrong!" Big whoop. What I've always strived to do, Andrew, is illustrate my opinion. Sometimes... I have a phrase: "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." So the caller abortion was -- and I will admit, it irritated a lot of people. It caused... And the reason why, Andrew, is because it made people confront the reality of their belief. Do you know what the caller abortion was?

CALLER: It was a, I guess a sound bite "with a vacuum sucking sound followed by a bloodcurdling scream." That's what it says in the textbook.

RUSH: Yes, it was. See? Okay. That's in the textbook?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Yes. That's all that's in the textbook about it?

CALLER: Um, yes.

RUSH: Yeah. See, that's...

CALLER: Well, it says whenever you wanted to end the call, that you used the caller abortion.

RUSH: That's a classic example of how what I do was distorted. That was actually a brilliant illustration of my belief about this. This took about 30 minutes to do, to set up, which also made it great radio. It gave us a lot of time spent listening on the ratings. But basically I wanted to illustrate this, and I looked at my telephone, and I asked the question, "When does a call become a call? Does the call become a call when you dial? Does the call become a call when you connect? Does the call become a call when I answer, the moment of conception? You call me. Your line connects with my receptacle. Bam! I answer the phone. Is that when the call begins?"

So I called the phone company, Andrew, and I asked them, "When does a call begin?"

They said, "What are you talking about?"

I said, "Well, does a call begin? When do you start charging for a call? When that call has life? When is there...? When you start billing for a call, does it happen at the moment the person has dialed it? Does it happen while it's ringing? Does it happen with a busy signal, which means there's call control on it? Does it happen when somebody answers?"

And they said, "Well, a call begins when it's answered. A call takes two people."

I said, "Thank you."

So, that was to illustrate: When does life begin? See, I believe it can only begin at conception. When else can it begin? So I wanted to illustrate using the phone, making a phone call. Then I got a bunch of people pretending to be scientists and so forth on the phone to discuss this in great detail. But I said, "Until I decide to answer, that call's nothing but a blinking light. That call has no life. That call has no meaning. That call has nothing to it until I answer it," and then what happens? When I answer that call and I don't want it? What if I've made a mistake answering that call? What if it's a bad call? What if it's somebody who's not going to enhance the radio program? What do I do? I didn't want the call. I took the call. I made a mistake! I went out there and I conceptualized the phone call, and now I'm stuck with a call I don't want.

Well, I do what we do in the pro-choice movement: I simply abort it and pretend that the call never happened! So I turn on the suction device and I suck the call right out of the phone. That, to me, was brilliant, Andrew. I hope you're recording this, and I hope you read this to your class. Because everything that's done here, Andrew -- whether it be done with humor or seriousness or with a satire or a parody, everything that's done here -- is designed to make a point. Nothing is done here frivolously. I don't do anything just to make people mad, because that's going to happen anyway when you tell anybody what you think. By definition, people are going to not... Why do you think Tiger Woods doesn't tell you what his politics are? Because he wants to sell all of his endorsed equipment to everybody, not just Republicans or Democrats.

But that's not my business. My business is to tell people what I honestly believe. I love America. The racism and sexism and so forth? Yeah, I came up with the term "feminazi," to describe the 12 women to whom the most important thing in the world is every abortion possible taking place -- and the reason people get mad at that's 'cause it's dead-on accurate. As for racism, this is a constant, average, everyday charge the left makes against conservatives trying to fulfill the stereotype that we're racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes. But the truth about that is you can tell your class this: I look at the majority of the black population in this country and I cry, 'cause I see that they have been conditioned to believe that the Democrat Party and large government programs are going to raise them from the life of bondage they believe that they're in.

And after 50 years of voting Democrat, after 50 years of complaining about the circumstances they're in, after receiving all these benefits the Democrats have passed out (AFDC) they're still complaining. Their lives have been stolen from them. The federal government has become the father; the father has become absent. Single mothers are raising kids in neighborhoods and schools that you would not send yours to. The Democrat Party refuses to close them, and insists that those people still go to those schools while still voting Democrat. I think it's a shame. I think the federal government and the Democrat Party has destroyed the black family. I love Americans. I love human beings! I want the best for them. I want what's happened to me to be experienced by every damn person out there, and the people standing in the way are my enemy -- and that would have to be liberals in the Democrat Party. Now, hang on. I'm going to give you information to be a subscriber to the website.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, Andrew, one more point that I want to make for you to include in your presentation to the students on the caller abortions. Your textbook says that critics say I reached a low point with the caller abortion. Let me ask you a simple question. If a fetus is not a human life, why would a caller abortion offend anybody? If a fetus, a human fetus is simply an unviable tissue mass, there could be nothing conceivably upsetting about it. The truth is, it is a baby, and the pro-abort, political pro-abort groups, the NOW gang and other feminist groups, they know it's a baby, and thus they hate me for exposing their mind-set. But if a fetus isn't a human being, why would a caller abortion upset anybody?

And finally, Andrew, this. I understand caller abortions are offensive. But then why is President Obama to be praised for his anti-life positions? Do you realize President Obama three times as an Illinois state senator voted for legislation that would allow doctors to kill a baby successfully born during an abortion? Now, what's really controversial, Andrew? A bit, a vacuum cleaner with callers being sucked off a phone, or an Illinois state senator who's now president voting three times to allow doctors to kill a baby after it's born because the mother wanted an abortion? Ask your students to consider that.

END TRANSCRIPT

NEW ERA of SPEND and BLAME

2009-03-30T09:26:00.000-04:00

By CHARLES HURT - INSIDE WASHINGTON

Last updated: 3:37 am
March 27, 2009
Posted: 2:40 am
March 27, 2009

FOR a guy who talks so much about wanting a new era of responsibility, President Obama spends an awful lot of time blaming Republicans for all the wild and reckless spending he crammed into his own budget.

After running a campaign against the $1 trillion deficit he "inherited" from President Bush and the Republicans, Obama quickly matched it. During his first 50 days in office, he and his Democratic-controlled Congress spent $1 billion an hour.

Under Obama's proposed budget, the overall national debt doubles in five years and triples in 10.

Not exactly "moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," as he promised.

How does Mr. Responsibility explain the disconnect between this reality and his absurd claims? By insisting that Republicans were worse.

"To a bunch of the critics out there, I've already said, show me your budget!" he told a gathering of wealthy Democratic donors this week. "I'm happy to have that debate."

Or, another time: "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them."

In other words, Obama cannot defend his decision to double down on deficit spending. So, he simply trashes Republicans.

As if voters right now are looking for somebody just not as bad as the GOP. As if his campaign slogan wasn't "Change You Can Believe In," but rather "Vote for Me. I'm Not as Bad as Republicans."

Anyway, Republicans tried this out-of-control spending derby -- and just look where that got them. In a few short years, they lost control of every single lever of power exactly because of this kind of behavior.

Yet in even less time, Obama has put away his promises of Hope and Change and tossed aside the idealism of his campaign about remaking politics in Washington.

Surveying the political landscape here today, Obama is thinking of that adage cherished by cutthroats everywhere.

If you and a buddy are walking through the woods and encounter a hungry, angry bear, you don't have to outrun the bear. You simply have to outrun your buddy.

churt@nypost.com

STATE OF THE UNION

2009-03-26T10:52:00.005-04:00

conservOpunk
state of the Union (this week)

My friends and family were aghast when I pointed to the horrid choice we had between non-conservative & only right 50% of the time John McCain and Quasi-Marxist not nearly as smart as everyone says Barrack Obama for the US Presidency.

This was after I pointed to a photo of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards as the pathetic last remaining DEM possibilities. 1. The fact a Clinton is still politically viable is shocking and sad to me. 2. Edwards made his millions on junk science regarding now medically disproven theories (not to mention is an immoral scoundrel who cheats on the very cancer stricken wife he held up to promote his campaign and had another man claim to be the father of his illegitimate child). 3. Obama has proven all those who warned Americans of his past and true governing intentions totally and completely RIGHT.

Back to our choice for President. To my friends who remain on the Obama bandwagon please consider what you would have said to me if I suggested any one of these realities. You would have said I was nuts and a “crazy right-winger.” Ha! You can roll your eyes or keep your head in the sand when you read this list, references and links are below.

Can you imagine if I had said three months ago that:

The President will recommend our US Veterans pay for their combat injuries out of their own private health insurance? (1)

The President will advocate empowering the Federal Government to cap salaries and allowable profits of private companies even those not specifically “bailed out” by TARP, Stimulus plan, etc. (2)

The President would attempt to limit charitable deductions for certain charities, while having Govt bureaucrats choose which charities should be available for tax free donations (HR1388) (3)

The President would QUADRUPLE our Federal Deficit, then claim he would “cut the deficit in half” over the next 7 years. The very deficit that his budget created.

The President will give his first television interview to al Arabiya.

The President’s Director of Homeland Security will not use the term “Terrorism” and instead refer to “Man Caused Disasters.” (4)

The President’s Chief of Staff would claim "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," (5)

"Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

The President would do a 180 and appoint scores of lobbyists to his cabinet, and propose nearly 9,000 earmarks in his budget.

The President would redefine “rich” as families making over 250K annually. (Under Clinton it was 500K and Bush Sr. 1 million). He would declare intentions to raise the tax rate on these Americans. (It is proven time and again that tax receipts actually increase when rates are lowered, as the overall economy grows).

The President would accept a 500K book advance (taking advantage of the Bush tax cut rates before they expire). (6)

The President would appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and poke fun at the participants in the Special Olympics. (and face no scrutiny by our ever-vigilant watchdog media) (7)

“You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”
Daniel Hannan (South East England)

1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html
2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html
3
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1388_txt.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/hogan/2009/03/25/promoting-statism-in-the-name-of-service/
4
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/18/terrorism-is-a-man-caused-disa
5
http://vodpod.com/watch/1177723-never-let-a-serious-crisis-go-to-waste-wsj
6
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/obamas-500000-book-bonanza/
7
http://gawker.com/5176350/obamas-special-olympics-leno-gaffe

The Truth Hurts... Liberals (Part 2)

2009-03-25T12:45:00.008-04:00

A roundtable of conservative ideas, eloquently expressed by people more passionate and much more intelligent than your DEM neighbor:

the UK:
(if a Republican spoke like this in the USA he would be elected President)!

Initial AIG Bailout wasn't even necessary!

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs: “I don’t necessarily think it was necessary at the time, but — and this was said at the time — they were looking ahead at an emerging recession that was going to get worse, and for prudential reasons, it was necessary for the systemic safety and soundness. And as subsequent events have borne out, I think it has provided safety and soundness, and taken some of the risk away from the system.”

Ken Lewis, CEO, Bank of America: “I actually agree. I know at the time we did not feel like we needed the 15 billion. But I think in light of the severity of the recession, and in light of the speed at which the economy deteriorated, I think we have lent more money because we had the TARP funds and that level of capital.

STEYN:

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Resigned [Mark Steyn]

This resignation letter from an AIG exec is worth reading:

I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down...
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press...
I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

I wonder if Senator Grassley (Republican, of course) is pleased that AIG honchos are now doing as instructed and falling on their swords. As I said a few days ago, if you own even modest assets (a small house, a savings account) and you think that in a battle between the political class and the business class it's in your interest for the latter to lose, you're a fool who entirely deserves the vaporization of his wealth on which Barney Frank & Co have embarked.

Likewise, watching a couple of dozen ACORN activists pretending to be indignant citizens leading a ton of news reporters willingly colluding in the fraud around suburban avenues in Connecticut, a talented executive would have to be completely desperate to offer his services to any entity bailed out by the government.

We have a president who shows no instinct for economic issues; a Treasury Department that, in a supposed crisis, is just one designated fall guy rattling around an all but empty building for whose senior positions no one has even been nominated; and thug legislators-for-life who bear far more direct responsibility for this mess posing as champions of da liddle guy in order to extend their already disastrous "oversight" ever deeper into the private sector. Things are going to get a lot worse.

But don't worry: If AIG throws their departing exec a leaving party, Congress will pass a bill deeming any such event a 97 percent taxable benefit.

from CNN. DODD CORRUPT!!

2009-03-23T15:21:00.001-04:00

March 18, 2009

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd

Posted: 05:56 PM ET

Sen. Dodd told CNN Wednesday that officials in the Treasury Department asked him to add the bonus loophole to the stimulus bill before it was passed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

Full story

Filed under: AIG • Chris Dodd • Popular Posts

from WND (and FSU) Global Warming Over!

2009-03-23T15:06:00.001-04:00

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening
Temperatures dropping, fewer hurricanes, arctic ice growing, polar bear population up

Posted: March 22, 2009
9:56 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – This may come as bad news for Al Gore.

The modest global warming trend has stopped – maybe even reversed itself.

And it's not just the record low temperatures experienced in much of the world this winter.

For at least the last five years, global temperatures have been falling, according to tracking performed by Roy Spencer, the climatologist formerly of NASA.

"Global warming" was going to bring more and more horrific hurricanes, climate change scientists and the politicians who subscribed to their theories said. But since 2005, only one major hurricane has struck North America.

A new study by Florida State University researcher Ryan Maue shows worldwide cyclone activity – typhoons, as well as hurricanes – has reached at least a 30-year low.

Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.

The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.

The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.

"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," says Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, confidently. He maintains a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."

Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."

"The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth's future," he says.

even AP / Congressional Budget Office is Against this! (and they are "non partisan")

2009-03-23T15:02:00.001-04:00

$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

By ANDREW TAYLOR – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.

But without referencing the figures, Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.

"What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term," Obama said. "That's why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That's why it enhances America's competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy."

Many Democrats were already uncomfortable with Obama's budget, which promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.

The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says that the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House.

The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.

The CBO's estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.

By the end of the decade, the deficit under Obama's blueprint would go back up to $1.2 trillion.

Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle — George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits — and if the economy outperforms CBO's expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller

Democrats in Congress are readying Obama's budget for preliminary votes next week, and they promise to cut the deficit in half within five years.

Democrats are likely to curb somewhat Obama's request for a 9 percent increase in non-defense agency budgets.

Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit.

Republicans say Obama's budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they've been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.

The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.

from POWERLINE Blog

2009-03-23T15:01:00.001-04:00

Are We A Banana Republic?

March 20, 2009 Posted by John at 4:15 PM

I'm stupefied to find that some people are defending the constitutionality of Nancy Pelosi's discriminatory, confiscatory and retroactive tax on people who receive bonus income from companies that got TARP money. I would have considered it a bright line rule that the government can't identify a class of unpopular people and impose a special tax on them. What's next? A 100% income tax on registered Republicans, retroactive to last year? If Pelosi's bill passes muster, why not?

One theory, presumably, is that since the government is contributing TARP money it can put whatever strings it wants on that money. (Including, I guess, strings imposed after the fact that would deprive employees of agreed-upon consideration for work they've already performed.) But that theory has been rejected in a variety of contexts. The government cannot condition its spending on a relinquishment of constitutional rights. Here's a thought experiment: how about putting a condition (retroactively, of course) on TARP money that says no employee of any bank that receives such money (or his spouse) can get an abortion? Would Nancy Pelosi think that's constitutional?

Wells Fargo didn't want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi's proposed tax. Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it's included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.

If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution--no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny. As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi's proposed confiscatory tax--total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions--is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry--imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation--then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.

Presidential Thought...

2009-03-21T12:52:00.000-04:00

I'm very glad Obama is criticizing his predecessor, because the next President is gonna have LOTS to criticize about Obama!

DEMS: Please EXPLAIN Yourselves

2009-03-20T09:25:00.010-04:00

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

How can American Servicemen and Veterans ever, ever vote DEM again?

Don't treat the old say NHS doctors:

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Don%27t-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy%2C-say-doctors.html

it amazes me grown adults think health care can be "free." What was the famous P.J. O'Rourke quote?? I think it was

"If you think health care is expensive now wait until it's free."

There is no better quote. People actually use the All Men are Created Equal premise in the Constitution to argue for Universal health care. Wonderful. We are all Socialists now!!

Walk out on those you disagree with:

The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King spoke out strongly against abortion at her "Can the Dream Survive?" presentation in Warriner Hall's Plachta Auditorium. Some students were surprised to learn that was the topic of her lecture. Several of the about 650-person audience walked out.

"I felt a little misled personally," said Flint senior Detrone Turner, who said he thought the speech was going to be about increasing diversity.

http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/storage/paper906/news/2009/03/04/News/Students.Walk.Out.Of.Kings.Abortion.Speech-3658384.shtml

Obama apologizes for remark

President Barack Obama made his difficult week worse Thursday by saying his poor bowling skills are “like Special Olympics or something,” an athletic competition for people with disabilities. His spokesman quickly said Obama hadn’t intended any offense.

Jeez!! Thanks for the apology Barrack. Can you imagine if a Republican had made this insensitive remark?? Unreal.

William F. Buckley NATION REVIEW MISSION STATEMENT

2009-03-16T01:44:00.003-04:00

Our Mission Statement
By William F. Buckley Jr.

November 19, 1955

Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.
The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.
No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.

2009-03-10T12:40:00.001-04:00

Cutting our Defense, Weakining a Nation
To members of Keep America Free

R. Brian Kinnett

March 9 at 11:18am

A core principle of the political left in this country is that our current levels of defense spending have harmed, and will continue to harm, our economic prosperity. So last month while he was defending the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said: “The biggest ongoing threat to fiscal sanity in this country, I believe, is an open-ended, ever expanding military budget that goes far beyond what is necessary.” Frank’s assertions about the scope of defense spending in the United States are just flat out wrong.

At the height of World War II we spent 46% of our GDP on the military. By 1945 that number had dropped to 34.5%. Throughout the Cold War, defense spending averaged 8% of GDP and since 1962 the average spending level has fallen even further to 5.5% of our GDP. Today we spend less than 4% on defense. Our economy has boomed multiple times in the past despite our government devoting much higher levels of our GDP to national security. Currently, there is runaway spending in Washington, but it is coming from President Barack Obama and the left. Congress spent more in just one bill–this year’s “stimulus” bill–than it spent on Afghanistan and Iraq combined since 2001.

Eager to mollify his leftist base while still making it appear he is serious about responsibility, President Barack Obama has recently begun laying the groundwork for deep cuts in defense spending. Last week, he promised to only “invest in technologies that are proven and cost-effective…If a system isn’t ready to be developed, we shouldn’t pour resources into it.” This may sound sensible but it ignores the fact that developing and deploying cutting-edge technologies is far more complex. Many of today’s military programs are a “system of systems” (like the Army’s Future Combat Systems modernization effort and ballistic missile defense) that have integrated components that must be deployed individually before they can be tested together as part of the larger network. Placing undue requirements on these programs will only further generate a risk-averse culture and will inevitably slow the acquisition process and raise costs.

More worrisome, the previous week President Obama said he wanted to “reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” It would appear this is a further attempt to lay the groundwork for cutting necessary core-capabilities from America’s military, not just by associating them with the Cold War and a bygone era, but by identifying them as wasteful and a potential area for cost-savings.

Defense contracting is far from perfect. And the Heritage Foundation has been a leader in identifying ways to make it more efficient. But neither is defense spending a burden on our economy, or exploding in size. There has been an explosion in spending that has cratered our national deficit. But Congressman Frank and President Obama must understand that the explosion in entitlement and non-defense discretionary spending are the real culprits.

QUICK HITS

North Korea warned today that any move to intercept a missile test-firing would result in a counterstrike against the countries trying to stop it.

Experts on both sides of the issue say tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants.

According to Drug Enforcement Administration records, Atlanta has emerged as the preferred gateway to America for Mexican drug cartels.

The Obama Administration will press world governments to boost their deficit spending, despite the fact that the explosion of U.S. deficit spending makes other country’s borrowing more expensive.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is urging the nation’s schools to spend their stimulus dollars as fast as they possibly can.

Schumer... Yick.

2009-02-20T06:39:00.000-05:00

Aren't Democrats great??

Dick Morris Article

2009-02-20T06:27:00.000-05:00

BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE GOP

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on February 10, 2009

Because of the concentrated efforts of millions of Republicans all over America, Susan Collins (Maine) was reelected to the Senate, surviving a challenge once thought to be serious. She won, in large part, because she was able to drown her Democratic adversary in a sea of campaign spending made possible by donations from Republicans throughout the nation. As a result of their efforts, the GOP preserved its 40th vote in the Senate.

And when Saxby Chambliss was forced into a runoff in the Georgia Senate race, Republicans from all over the United States poured out their hearts and their funds to get him reelected, all to save the 41st vote and be able to filibuster Democrats' big spending proposals.

Now the actions of three people who told their voters that they were Republicans have eliminated any hope that the GOP has for influence during the next two years. By making their own deals with the Obama administration and settling for cosmetic improvements in the so-called stimulus package, Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sold out their party, their state and their supporters.

Don't buy their excuse that they shaved more than one hundred billion dollars in spending from the Senate version. By the time the Senate/House conference reconciles the differences between the versions of the legislation passed by the two houses, most of that spending will be back in the law anyway.

Collins, Snowe and Specter had a chance to send a message to Obama that he had to deal with the Republican Party to avert a filibuster. They could have made it clear that genuine bipartisan cooperation was necessary to pass legislation. These three senators, pledged to cut taxes and oppose massive growth in federal spending, could have demanded a 2-to-1 ratio for tax cuts over spending, rather than the reverse, as Obama is succeeding in getting.

Instead, the three wimped out and caved in for peanuts from Obama. In doing so, they completely stripped their party of any leverage. There was no point in having gotten 41 votes if the three weakest links could sell the party out.

This stimulus package will:

• Hurt economic recovery by elbowing aside private borrowers and consumers as the government goes to the front of the line to borrow adequate funds to cover its deficit.

• Invite massive inflation in the future as consumers and businesspeople sit on most of the money until times improve. Then, when confidence begins to return -- no thanks to the stimulus package -- they will deluge the economy with money, triggering massive inflation.

• Expand government and spend borrowed money on projects that may have some long-term merit but are scarcely our top priority right now.

Republicans in Maine and Pennsylvania need to learn their lesson and assure that these three senators face a primary. Real conservatives, who oppose larger government, must stand up to these three phony Republicans.

They'll get their chance. Specter is up for reelection in 2010. He should have been defeated in 2006 when a real conservative, Pat Toomey, opposed him in a primary and only narrowly lost. Better luck next time.

The very concept of checks and balances evaporated last week on Capitol Hill when these three senators sold out their colleagues and stripped their conference of its power. Now Obama can buy off the GOP senator by senator without having to make genuine compromises with the other party to pass his agenda.

In 1993, Clinton was not able to buy Republicans retail. Only Vermont's Jim Jeffords, who soon became a Democrat, gave way and dealt independently with the president. Now, with their backs to the wall, facing a spending package that will consign America to rampant inflation, massive debt and continued recession, these three senators have gone back on their most fundamental pledge to their constituents -- to act in the public good.

Go to DickMorris.com

The First rational reporter in awhile...

2009-02-19T14:23:00.001-05:00

KELSEY!

2009-02-19T14:19:00.000-05:00

At least ONE conservative in Hollywood!!

OBAMAthon!!

2009-02-19T14:00:00.012-05:00

From NRO:

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Obama's Permanent Campaign [Amy Holmes]

Anyone else notice something peculiar about today's bill signing?

Typically, a bill signing takes place in the East Room, or in the Rose Garden if the weather is nice. The president is flanked by the bill's co-sponsors who get to share in the glory and bask in the reporters' flash bulbs and television cameras.

Not this time. There was no Congressional procession to the White House. No press conference on the driveway. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer did not get to stand beaming with pride as Obama signed into law billions upon billions of dollars of democratic spending. Nope. President Obama stood at a lecturn a thousand miles away from Pennsylvania Avenue, and sopped up the applause and credit alone.

The president may have been trying to de-politicize a most partisan bill, and infuse it with his goodwill and high approvals. But the absence of his Congressional allies at the signing of the biggest spending bill in American, make that world, history was notable. He may have said today that the bailout was for all Americans. But the optics of the event said something different: that the credit was his alone.

From my brilliant attorney friend Mike B:

This is dangerous.

Check out the photo. Obama is signing the Theft Act while Biden looks on. I don't ever want Biden and Obama in the same room. If something happens to both of them, Pelosi becomes President. Bush had the good sense to never appear in public with his VP, to keep that football coach guy from Illinois from becoming President in the event of an attack. We are stuck with Obama but he should at least make sure that Nancy has no chance of becoming President.

Mike makes an intriguing point - and illuminates something even the National Review writers missed. All of this capping off a week in which (so far) Obama's New Deal, collectivist policies have been criticized by none other than Vladimir Putin, Sweeden, scores of state Governors and...

Barrack Obama! Right out of the Audacity of his own mouth:

"Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

- from "The Audacity of Hope"

Congrats Democrats!! Well done. My daughter's quality of life thanks you very, very much.

conservOpunk
(the only ones speaking truth to power nowadays are from the Right).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html
http://www.thelocal.se/17668/20090218/

can you buy lipstick in Las Vegas?

2009-02-17T22:42:00.002-05:00

DEMS! Putting the "P" in Pork since the New Deal!

We are serfs

2009-02-17T22:26:00.003-05:00

LIES!!!!

Democrats prey on the dumb and easily manipulated. A fourth grader could dispel the bunk Obama preaches.

classic PROTEST WARRIOR tee

2009-02-11T12:48:00.002-05:00

from AYN RAND CENTER

2009-02-11T12:48:00.001-05:00

Obama’s Backward Economics

January 9, 2009

Washington, D.C.--“Barack Obama claims that Americans can only stave off economic disaster by trillions in government spending--which means trillions of dollars taxed or borrowed to finance government make-work programs,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

“Obama-nomics couldn’t be more wrong.

“Prosperity requires that the government drastically cut government spending. That way, as much real capital as possible will remain in private hands, and be put to productive use by entrepreneurs to create valuable goods and services to sell at home and abroad. By taxing and inflating our wealth away, Obama will simply be creating more of the crushing debt that brought about the current crisis.”

“You don’t put out a fire with more gasoline. And you don’t end a recession by destroying capital.”

### ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrandcenter.org

ARTICLE: Tony Blankley

2009-02-11T12:44:00.001-05:00

Daschle-Obama Health Care Possibilities

By Tony Blankley

As President-elect Obama's apparent choice for health and human services secretary and as White House health care czar, it is a fair guess that Tom Daschle's view on health care legislation may be decisive.

So it is worth reading his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," in which the gracious former Senate leader lays out without equivocation both the policy he recommends and the tactics for how to pass it.

He proposes setting up a board to establish standards for health care delivery in the United States that would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations. Technically, it only would oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.), which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.

On Page 179, he writes, "The Federal Health Board wouldn't be a regulatory agency, but its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them." But here is the kicker: Although his board technically would have no say on the 68 percent of health care that is provided through the private sector, at the bottom of Page 179, Daschle modestly adds: "Congress could opt to go further with the Board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendation."

Those last 19 words would spell the end of independent private-sector health care in America. Obviously, no health insurance would be sold if it were denied the tax deduction. Thus, every policy, every standard decided by this board would be the law of the land for every drug company, every hospital, every doctor and every health insurance company.

Indeed, 20 pages later, in the section in which he identifies "losers" under his plan, Daschle is admirably candid. Among the explicit "losers," he includes: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And the health-care industry would have to reconsider its business plan (emphasis added)." That is to say, they can stay in business and deliver their services, but only as the government bureaucrats say they may. They no longer would be genuinely independent.

One of the things that Daschle says will have to change is the "technology arms race" he claims hospitals are engaging in "to attract aging baby boomers with the latest diagnostic imaging machines." Imagine that, offering customers the latest technology, which, as Daschle admits on Page 125, "help(s) doctors estimate the spread of cancer or the extent of cardiac disease without surgery."

Of course, for Daschle, the problem with such high-tech diagnostics is that it leads to treatment. On pages 123-124, he cites a study approvingly for the proposition that there are too many angiograms being performed. By too many, he specifically cites a study of 828 angioplasties in which only a third were likely to benefit the patients. Another half might or might not, and 14 percent were not likely. Now I might conclude that if 85 percent of the patients receiving the treatment might benefit (the one-third who definitely would and the 50 percent who might) and if I were one of them, I might want the procedure. But for Daschle, that would be a waste of money, and "the imaging test that shows narrowing of the arteries was to blame (for the excessive treatment)."

What followed is my favorite line in the book: "When the test revealed a narrowing of the artery, however slight, cardiologists couldn't resist doing something about it." Imagine a doctor trying to cure his patient.

Cardiologists may have thought they were carrying out their responsibilities. But under the Daschle(/Obama?) plan, political hacks appointed to the Health board will decide whether your cardiologist is allowed to image your arteries and, if they find blockage, try to treat it successfully.

But that is not all he doesn't like about private-sector health care. On Page 174, he points out the dangers of letting drug companies advertise their products to the public: The public may want the drugs even if some Washington bureaucrat likes another drug instead.

He believes that Americans are not entitled to just any care that might do some good. Yep, Page 122: "Many patients with insurance want any care that might do some good, and plenty of doctors will oblige them."

Recognizing that some of these ideas may not be vastly popular, he recommends two basic legislative strategies. First, seek to pass the legislation early in the first year of the president's first term, when he is most popular and is least likely to be resisted. That is a valid analysis.

The other strategy, which is very smart, is to leave the nasty details out of the bill. He says that was one of Clinton's mistakes in 1993. Clinton put too many details in the bill, thus alerting those who disagreed to mount an opposition (pages 108-109). Daschle recommends passing a vague bill and then "a Federal Health Board should be charged with establishing the system's framework and filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure."

By "political pressure," he means the democratic process of electing fellow citizens to Congress who then pass legislation about which the public is informed before final passage -- and about which they may wish to petition their government for redress of grievances. Apparently, we can end petty bickering and partisanship by not letting anyone know what the new laws will contain.

MILTON!

2009-02-09T11:43:00.003-05:00

This is truly remarkable. Why can't today's intellectuals comment so directly to the media talking heads? Friedman is brilliant!!

C Punk

Shelby Steele - Black Conservative

2009-02-09T11:43:00.001-05:00

by JOHN MCWHORTER
The most important book a modern person should read about the black experience is neither Malcolm X’s autobiography nor any other memoir, history, or novel that casts racism—subtle or not—as the essence of the black experience. Shelby Steele’s The Content of Our Character remains, almost 20 years after its publication, a crucial analysis of what ails today’s debate over race.

A constructive concern with black uplift has bifurcated into, for whites, an emotional commitment simply not to seem racist, and for blacks, a victim-based self-conception based less on modern experience than a quest for spiritual security. The result is a coded and grievously insincere “dance” we all do, which discourages true achievement by blacks and nurtures quiet racism of a new kind among whites. The situation Steele nails so accurately and eloquently is an understandable by-product of how the civil-rights revolution played out. My sense is that in 2009, the rituals Steele describes have somewhat less influence than they did when he wrote—but we will never be truly post-racial in the sense Obama’s election has us thinking about until what Steele describes is utterly antique. Legions of black people think like Steele in their hearts and suppose that they are alone, but in 50 years his book will seem the quintessence of common sense. Anyone interested in getting on the bandwagon ahead of the curve should read The Content of Our Character—twice, even, and pass it along to a friend.

— John McWhorter is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of All About the Beat: Why Hip Hop Can’t Save Black America.

2009-01-25T13:12:00.002-05:00

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Limbaugh Responds to Obama [Byron York]

According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

01/24 03:32 PM

Profound

2009-01-17T20:30:00.001-05:00

America has come a long way

In a few short days, a black man will move from his private residence into a much larger and more expensive one owned not by him but by the taxpayers. A vast lawn, perimeter fence and many well-trained security specialists will insulate him from the rest of us, but the mere fact that this man will live there should make us all stop and count our blessings — because it proves we live in a nation where anything is possible.

Many believed this day would never come. Most of us hoped and prayed that it would, but few of us actually believed we would live to see it. Racism is an ugly thing in all of its forms and there is little doubt that if this man had moved there 15 years ago, there would have been a great outcry — possibly even rioting in the streets. Today, we can all be both grateful and proud that no such mayhem will take place when this man takes up residency in this house.

This man, moving into this house at this time in our nation's history is much more than a simple change of addresses for him — it is proof of a change in our attitude as a nation. It is an amends of sorts — the righting of a great wrong. It is a symbol of our growth, and of our willingness to judge a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

There can be little doubt now that the vast majority of us truly believe this man has earned both his place in history and his new address. His time in this house will not be easy — it will be fraught with danger and he will face many challenges. We're sure there will be many times when he asks himself how in the world he ended up here, and, like all who have gone before him, the experience will age him greatly. But in every way a man can, he asked for this. His whole life for the past fifteen years appears to have been inexorably leading this man toward this house. It is highly probable that in the past, despite all of his actions, racism would have kept this man out of this house. Today, we thank the Lord above that we are Americans and live in a nation where wrongs are righted, where justice matters and where truly anything is possible. A nation where O.J. Simpson is finally going to jail.

What, you thought this was about Obama?

WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS

2008-11-05T12:40:00.003-05:00

Boy oh Boy.

Ugggh

Yikes.

Hmmmm

Ta Dah!!

The last few are obviously meant to be humorous. That first one of a sitting US Senator lamenting the outdated idea that the money one earns is his own is truly frightening and enlightening.

This is a truly historic time and to deny the obvious statement a Black American President makes is folly. Obama does break down barriers and will indeed help with PR overseas (which in and of itself is sad after all we have done to bring freedom to the world) and should be an effective leader. This is, if WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS. He says he will govern from the center and unite America. We shall see.

Jindal in 2012~~ !

conservOpunk

HOPE, CHANGE, TACO

2008-10-27T14:02:00.009-04:00

What's with all the Propaganda?

What is with all the dramatic full color logos of this candidate? Does this creep any one else out?

I don't seem to remember any full color ad agency produced logos of George W. Bush during the last Presidential campaign. Caricatures certainly, but... hey. Are we even allowed to ask this type of question?

Did Clinton (Either one) Kerry, Gore, Carter, etc have their likeness done up all fancy like this? Even Reagan, who I was told in elementary school was only popular because of his "media machine and command of the image he portrayed," never had his own logo.

What is all of this? We hear the school children singing Obama songs, the chants of the "Obama Youth" dressed in Military garb telling us what they can now do with their lives because of Obama... eerie. When have we seen this before?

In his BERLIN speech he claims to be a "citizen of the World?" How about just "President of the United States?" That will be sufficient thank you. His face is up on posters, tee shirts (Che Guevara anyone)? and web banners... this is truly something to behold in this a free, and so I had thought, intelligently skeptical society.

HOPE. CHANGE. TACO

Obama to "Spread the Wealth Around"

2008-10-14T01:04:00.001-04:00

A great answer to a plumber worried his taxes will increase. Yes, you are correct sir. Tax breaks for 95% of Americans? Only 70% or so even PAY federal income taxes. Hmmmm

Another DEM candidate promising to lower taxes. People are sheep.

Say it Aint So JOE! 14 lies

2008-10-04T08:40:00.000-04:00

Joe Biden’s 14 Lies
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

DEMS WRONG (naturally) on FREDDIE/FANNIE

2008-09-30T07:03:00.001-04:00

Freaking Brilliant!!! DEMS exposed.

More proof people vote DEM because their parents did, period

Mark Levin ROCKS!!!

2008-09-26T13:13:00.002-04:00

11/13/06 Mark Levin Show

Conservatives vs. Liberals

We keep hearing conservative, liberal. We keep hearing lectures about it and we should. But we really do need to understand the terms here. There’s a huge difference between conservatives and liberals.

You’re seeing it played out on television every night. With this detestable Carl Levin of Michigan with his spectacles at the end of his nose.

Somebody buy that man a pair of new glasses!

What is Conservatism? It’s not a political philosophy folks; it’s a life philosophy. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique. We believe that each individual is responsible for his development. We believe that family is the best support group for individuals. And we believe that private institutions like churches and synagogues, charities, private enterprises and so forth are best support group for families.

Conservatives believe, as did the Founders of the Declaration of Independence, that God is Supreme-not the government. Conservatives believe that God has given us natural rights, not the government.

Conservatives believe that a powerful centralized government such as ours, putting aside national security for the moment, threatens the individual, the family and private institutions. A powerful centralized government seeks uniformity and absolute compliance; it smothers individuality, family and religion. A centralized government seeks to play the role of God, through its abuse of laws and regulations, and the confiscation of redistribution of wealth.

Conservatives believe in the Constitution. We believe in Representative government as opposed to a judicial oligarchy or government by bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe in free political speech and the free exercise of religion. We believe in the right to bear arms. We believe in due process rights for American citizens and not terrorists. We believe in Federalism, the dispersing of power among the states. We believe in a colorblind society. We believe in low taxes and strictly limited spending. We believe in individual opportunity and merit.

Conservatives respect the private property and wealth of our fellow citizens. Just as it’s wrong for any of us to steal from our neighbors, it’s equally wrong to elect politicians who steal from our neighbors on our so-called behalf.

Conservatives believe in the greatness of the American people; their compassion; their honor; their inventiveness; their judgment. We believe that but for America, the world would be a dark, bloodthirsty, regressive place where tyranny would rule and humanity would suffer an unimaginable fate. And so we’re Conservatives. Proud conservatives.

Now what is Liberalism?

Liberals put a powerful centralized government before all else. Government exists to limit individual liberty, private property rights and religious freedom.

Liberals believe that the people are incapable of making the right decisions of their own so they empower undemocratic institutions to make decisions by fiat, such as the courts and federal agencies and the rest.

Liberals believe that Americans should be divided by color, by religion by sex and by income. Liberals seek to create jealousies among Americans and sic them upon each other in hopes of keeping them agitated and unfocused and distrustful and always wanting. And always a recipe for a more aggressive role for government.

Liberals are not satisfied with temporary power achieved through the
electoral process; they seek to create a permanent liberal agenda through the
courts, through the bureaucracy, through entitlements, through academia. They want an agenda immune from future electoral losses.

Liberals create entitlement programs, not because they solve anything, but because they don’t. They seek to enslave large portions of the population, they call them beneficiaries and they seek to punish private enterprise by forcing private citizens to pay up or suffer the consequences. Liberalism isn’t a way of life, its away of controlling life.

Liberals believe Americans are selfish, stupid and dishonorable. They believe that people exist to be manipulated and to serve the state for some greater good.

Liberals believe that America is not a unique place; that the Constitution is an obstacle to their power and that to create a world order in which they rule supreme, America’s independence must be destroyed through places like the UN and through policies like open borders. They detest the American culture and they seek to destroy it.

So, they worked for America’s defeat in Vietnam, just as they’re working
today, right now, to defeat us in Iraq.

A weak America is exactly what they seek. The elites want us to lose this war. You can hear them since the election. The detestable Carl Levin tried to undermine Reagan; hoped that we would lose the Cold War; hoped that we would lose the war with the Contras down in South America; hoped that we would lose the war wherever we fight it.

Kennedy, the single biggest figure in undermining our efforts in Vietnam, cutting off funding to the South Vietnamese, enslaving millions of people. Hundreds of thousands were murdered after we left South Vietnam, millions in Cambodia and the man never blinked, his conscience never panged, he never gave it a second thought.

They say they care about casualties in Iraq. They didn’t blink when Mao Tse-tung murdered 60 million people or when Stalin murdered over 20 million people, or when Pol Pot murdered 2.5 million people or when the Rwandans murdered 800 thousand, they didn’t blink and they won’t blink if we’re forced to leave Iraq, if we’re forced to lose that war and hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered in the streets, with their blood running through the sewers they won’t blink again!

That’s what they think about humanity. The elites in our country, they don’t give a damn!
Power. Pursuit of power. The maintenance of power. That’s all they want.

You think I am wrong? Listen to them! Do they ever speak of victory? No! They tell us
victory is impossible.

Well, that’s not the country I grew up in. The country I grew up in defeated the Nazi’s. The country I grew up in defeated the Japanese in WW II. The country I grew up in can defeat any entity on the face of the earth. This is the country that fought a hugely bloody
Civil War to maintain the Union and eliminate slavery. A country that survived it.
This is a country against all odds that beat the British in the Revolutionary war. This is the country that won the Cold War despite the same liberals trying to obstruct our efforts then as they seek to obstruct our efforts today. You see the common thread?

They want us weak, they want us defeated, they want the open borders, they want to tear down our churches and our synagogues. They want to eliminate the very values and traditions and institutions that have made America unique, that have made America strong.

And why? For the greater good, of course! For the greater good, that’s how tyrants always come to power. You see they represent the very people they seek to enslave. At least they claim to. That’s what socialism and communism and liberalism is all about. Enslavement of one form or another. Anyone dares to speak up against them, they seek to destroy them. Even in our own country, they seek the political heads of one Conservative leader after another.

Whether it was Ronald Reagan, they wanted him. George Bush, less conservative, but too conservative for them. They want them eliminated.

Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich. If they had their way, and one day they might, they’d throw these people in prison without the benefit of a trial. After all, the only people who get due process in their minds are the terrorists, not the Republicans, the terrorists.

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you are extremely frustrated and upset. I share it, I understand. But we have an opportunity in this country, its an amazing thing, when the country is turned this way, Conservatism has always been the answer. Always been the answer. Liberty is the answer, that’s why Conservatism is the answer.

The rule of law is the answer. That’s Conservatism. National Security, that’s Conservatism. Merit, that’s conservatism.

That’s why most polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans 60-65% view themselves as Conservatives. Because, they are God fearing people who believe in Liberty, who believe in working hard, who believe in keeping most of what you earn, and who believe in their family and who believe in the military protecting us and the police officers watching our streets. That’s who we are and that’s what we believe in!

But, that’s not what the Liberals are and it’s not what they believe in.

I would encourage so-called conservative leaders to start explaining the differences. It’s been a long time since a national leader has done that. It’s been since Reagan. Let’s be blunt. Let’s be blunt. We must be blunt if we are to recover. And we can recover, ladies and gentlemen.

Nancy Pelosi is a boob. John Murtha is a boob. Harry Reid is a boob. THEY’RE ALL BOOBS! We’ve overcome much worse than these boobs.

But we will fail. We will fail if we follow false prophets. We will fail if we go the road of weasel Republicanism, ACLU Republicanism. Where they spent the whole damn summer worried about terrorists’ rights.

I blame John McCain on that. There’s no question about it! How silly was that? Well what will the world think? Who cares what the world thinks?

While their trains are being blown up, we’re defending ours. That’s their problem if they don’t like how we behave during war. And Europe is in no position to lecture us, given what they’ve done to humanity over the last hundred years. But, I digress.

What do we see on the agenda today? Today? Increase them minimum wage. That’s the number one agenda issue. Where did that come from?

Open borders, as I said the other night. So, we’re going to increase the minimum wage for American citizens and no minimum wage for illegal aliens. Gee, who’s going to get hired? Do you think?

Everywhere I look, I see Republicans acting like cowards. Everywhere I look, I see fear in their eyes. No, not in the grass roots, but in the elected politicians.

I need a commission to give me advice on what to do with Iraq. We don’t need a commission. We shouldn’t fight compassionate wars. We should use overwhelming force as fast as we can to destroy the enemy. Destroy the enemies’ families if we must. Mark, you’re so horrible. No.

That’s the FDR doctrine; the Truman doctrine; the Lincoln doctrine; the Washington doctrine. That’s how you fight war. That’s how you fight wars. And I didn’t even need a commission to tell you.

The elites want us to lose, so they want you to believe that this is the bloodiest war we’ve ever fought. You know that’s not true.

Every American life is precious. You’d better believe it. And we’ve lost less that three thousand in three, three and a half years in this war. In context, those casualties don’t come close to any other major war we’ve ever fought. Or for that matter, any other major battle we’ve ever had.

And as some of my audience know from my being on the radio several years now, my grandfather fought at Iwo Jima and Guam. My great uncle fought at Guadalcanal. They told me the horrible stories. Many of your relatives can tell you the same thing if not you yourself. You may have experienced it.

But a great nation must have the will to defeat this enemy. All the clutter with these phony diversionary arguments being raised by the left and the left’s mouthpieces in the media that we shouldn’t be in Iraq, that we should be somewhere else. Well, where else should we be? In Iran? No. In Syria? They tell us, no. In North Africa, Somalia? No. Well, where are we going to fight this enemy?

Iraq is the front lines. Somalia is the front lines. These are the front lines of the war.

If we don’t have the will to take out an enemy that struck the heart of America, then we will be doomed. That’s why we must win back these offices and take back power.

Obama's SHADOW DIPLOMACY

2008-09-16T07:39:00.003-04:00

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIs IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

hus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Charles Krauthammer on Charles Gibson on Sarah Palin

2008-09-14T14:34:00.005-04:00

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

September 13, 2008 12:00 AM

It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer

“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

— New York Times, September 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008, The Washington Post Writers Group

The Palin "Interview"

2008-09-14T14:34:00.004-04:00

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

September 13, 2008 12:00 AM

It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer

— New York Times, September 12

McCain Photo "op"

2008-09-14T14:32:00.002-04:00

September 12, 2008

How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain

When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.

She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.

After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”

What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds.

The Atlantic didn’t select the diabolical looking McCain for its cover. Greenberg is hoping to license that image to some other magazine (she negotiated a two-week embargo with The Atlantic so she could re-license images from the shoot before the election).

Warned that the image is just the kind of thing that will stir up the anti-media vitriol in the conservative blogosphere, Greenberg said, “Good. I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president.”

That said, she goes on to explain that she’s thought about replacing McCain’s mouth with bloody shark teeth and displaying the image on a billboard with the message that the candidate is a bloodthirsty war monger.

Given her strong feelings about John McCain, we asked whether she had any reservations about taking the assignment in the first place.

“I didn’t,” she says. “It’s definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”

Posted by David Walker on September 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (147) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/258746/33399020

GLASS CEILING BROKEN!!!

2008-08-29T12:26:00.006-04:00

This VP pick is brilliant!

Watch the DEMS squirm!

See their true positions exposed!

Issues now on the table the Obama campaign must face…

The Status Quo in Washington DC and Obama's sole claim to "change."

The true background story of their own candidate! Palin is the real deal and wont have to send out surrogates to silence anyone who questions her past.

For DEMS only LIBERALS can achieve "firsts." They don't actually support women and minorities - just LIBERAL women and minorities. (See also Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Farah, Micheal Steele, etc). N.O.W. has already denounced Palin. So, they defend Bill Clinton, and attack Sarah Palin. Hmmm

Their votes and true positions on Iraq War (her son is being deployed soon)
Must admit the surge worked and U.S. is going to win.

True positions on Gun Control (Obama is against citizens owning firearms and has publicly spoken to this repeatedly)

Domestic drilling for oil (Alaska was brought into the Union specifically for their NATURAL RESOURCES)

Free markets as the most fair system - highlighting all the past failings of the DEMS

Principles FOR things and not merely AGAINST things

Obama's position(s) on Partial Birth Abortion (see also Jill Stanek) and his voting record in the Illinois Senate.

Here are the things DEMS will attack her on (further exposing themselves):

She has a special needs child and as VP will be a bad mother. (Imagine a REP saying this) Equal rights DEMS have to campaign against a woman and mother.
She used position to exact revenge on personal rival. (once) Please Google “Clintons”
Former Beauty Queen (no prob here)

Good Job John McCain! You have given me someone to vote for this November.

Her name is Sarah Palin.

conservOpunk

NOTES:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/democrats-begin-attacks-on-palin-2008-08-29.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081209.html

It's a Miracle!!! Not that we're winning the War, but that AP is reporting it!!

2008-07-29T09:15:00.003-04:00

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

With this one amazing headline the Associated Press burst the bubble of the Democrats in Congress, and lifted the hopes of American Conservatives and people throughout the world who yearn for freedom, liberty and the power to create their own destiny.

I for one cannot begin to describe my utter disbelief in the mere fact this was even reported. Most of us under the age of 40 stopped getting their news from the “old media” long ago, and we already knew of the surge’s success. But for the lifeblood of the liberal media to proclaim the Iraq War won??? Truly remarkable. Especially because you just KNOW they were dragged kicking and screaming towards the truth:

AP Article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5455019

Their Reasoning:

Vindication.

This is not to say that I enjoy saying “I told you so” to my friends and family, but I told you so. Typically I like to remain silent when I am shown to be correct on political and moral issues of the day, as I could never create the epic shame and embarrassment others will have when reminded of their own statements regarding this issue. I cannot remain silent in this case. Here are actual quotes from people I know and love:

“We are an imperialist country – going to war to lower oil prices.” Wrong

“America is more hated now because of this war.” Wrong

“They will find WMD’s no matter what… if they aren’t there they will be planted there.” Wrong

“The elections in Iraq are a sham.” Wrong

“This war is illegal” Huh? Wrong

“Bush is just like Hitler” Wrong Shamefully wrong.

I will merely bask in the glow of being correct.

I will (once again) rely on the conservative side of the issue being proved to be both the correct stance AND to occupy the moral high ground. The Democrats should be so very ashamed. How do they look into the eye of a military parent? To quote Brit Hume "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

I will sleep well tonight knowing that, after I make political statements, I can look myself in the mirror. That is all I need.

LGF - Al Jazeera is a Disgrace!

2008-07-23T14:59:00.001-04:00

And to think NPR is all in favor of this network being seen in America. Vile propaganda is NOT Free Speech.

Posted on Little Green Footballs.

Video: Al Jazeera Throws Party for Child Killer

Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:07:22 am PDT

This depraved show alone should prevent Al Jazeera from ever being picked up by US cable channels, as the Arab “news network” throws a birthday party for released terrorist Samir Kuntar—who shot a child’s father in front of her, then bashed the child’s brains out with a rifle butt.

It’s almost unbelievable. They’ve let their thirst for blood and lack of decency trump even their political ends this time.

(Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)

Click picture to play video. Requires Windows Media Player; Mac users should install Flip4Mac.

Following are excerpts from a birthday party organized by Al-Jazeera TV for released Lebanese terrorist Samir Al-Quntar. Al-Jazeera TV aired this segment on July 19, 2008

Interviewer: Brother Samir, we would like to celebrate your birthday with you. You deserve even more than this. I think that 11,000 prisoners – if they can see this program now – are celebrating your birthday with you. Happy birthday, brother Samir.

Samir Al-Quntar: Thank you.

Interviewer: Go ahead... There is a picture here... If the camera can show this... Let’s cut it... Does the camera show this clearly or not? We have a picture here... This is the sword of the Arabs, Samir. Don’t cut the picture, cut on the side.

Samir Al-Quntar: Here’s Abu Qassam [Marwan Barghouti].

Interviewer: Marwan is here.

Samir Al-Quntar: Abu Qassam is here with Ahmad Sa’dat. That’s our prison warden...

Interviewer: This one?

Samir Al-Quntar: Yes.

Interviewer: What is the warden’s name?

Samir Al-Quntar: His name is... Never mind.

Interviewer: This is when you were released. Here you are with Wafiq Safa.

Samir Al-Quntar: Yes, this is Wafiq Safa. This is the most beautiful picture – with Hassan Nasrallah. This is the most beautiful picture. There cannot be anything more beautiful. Me and the secretary-general – the most beautiful picture of me ever taken.

Generally Speaking

2008-07-08T09:29:00.008-04:00

"Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer." Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Why don't the Generals of the U.S. Military give public speeches anymore? There are scores of great speeches, old audio and film clips, books, etc. documenting the passion and sometimes brilliance of these military leaders under the direst of circumstances.

We still have great Generals. Gen David Patraeus makes his detractors look foolish each and every time he speaks to Congress, and even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf had some good one liners. “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.” Here here!

Have you noticed the silence of the Monday Morning Quarterback Democrat Generals these days? Come to think of it, are we still in Iraq? I never hear about it anymore on TV or in the newspapers. Oh, yeah... we are winning. The surge worked.

The media is a disgrace.

"But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace." Gen Douglas MacArthur

"Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men." Gen. George Patton

"Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." Gen. George Patton

"Americans never quit." General Douglas MacArthur

Unfortunately this was uttered prior to Vietnam, Somalia, and the current War in Iraq. Let us learn from history and re-start the habit of "never quitting" again.

"I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." Gen. George Patton

"In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative - qualities that you have in abundance." Gen. David Petraeus

“We have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there.” -- Gen. David Petraeus

"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf"

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian political philosopher, statesman.

No one Died when Clinton Lied? Really???

2008-07-05T12:17:00.005-04:00

Sigh. This morning I saw another one of those "No one Died when Clinton Lied" bumper stickers. People who, to this day, defend Bill Clinton amaze me. They also prove the point that Democrats are BORN, not made.

In 38 years of life I have come to the realization that Democrats are born, not made. No one could live in this county, watch the news, see how businesses work, taxes are collected, services dolled out, schools function, etc and become a Democrat. Their political positions have simply been proven wrong too many times for this to be so.

Stereotypes are wrong and judgmental, but they are also most likely TRUE. So here is a list of the people who vote for Democrats. People vote Democrat because:

1. Their parents did

2. They are under 30

3. They have never opened or run a business

4. They are part of academia (especially universities)

5. They rely on Government for their livelihood (local, state or federal and the exceptions prove the rule)

6. They belong to a Labor Union

7. They make less than 30K annually and pay no income taxes

8. They belong to one of the following so-called “minority groups”

a. Homosexuals (except the AWESOME Log Cabin Republicans)

b. Feminists (you know, the ones who condemned Clarence Thomas and defended Bill Clinton)

c. Hispanics (except Cuban-Americans)

d. Blacks (and I will NEVER understand this one)

e. Peaceniks

f. Enviromentalists

Republicans / Conservatives champion the individual, while Democrats / Liberals champion groups. Simple. True. Really true.

Just look at the picture from the '04 convention... look at who the leaders of the DEM party are... (and remember this is before the Pelosi/Reid congress and we have yet to hear the Media report on the John Edwards love child scandal)!

conservOpunk

The Letter

2008-07-04T16:23:00.001-04:00

Funny... I have never seen, read or heard about this letter. I'll bet many voters haven't either.

I will never, ever vote for a DEM ever again.

conservOpunk

Senator Jim "Webb a Crite" and Delahunt shows true colors!

2008-07-03T23:38:00.005-04:00

From The Hill via Sweetness & Light:

ConservOpunk note: Didn't Reagan fire Webb after only 10 months as Secretary of the Navy? Just checking. First the disgraceful Wesley Clark and now Jim Webb... jeez Louise. I want to see that famous McCain temper flair up a bit on this one...

Webb To McCain: Calm Down About Service

July 1st, 2008

This was the first campaign ad Mr. Webb ran in his campaign for Senate two short years ago:

"Gipper"

This ad introduces Virginians to Jim’s exceptional record of service to our country, a record of service our opponent, George Allen, simply cannot match. What we’ve learned over and over again in this campaign is that when voters learn about Jim Webb, they’re ready to support Jim. They realize Jim is the "soldier, scholar, leader" we need to get our country back on track. And Jim is a leader Virginians can be proud of.

But that was then and this is now.

From The Hill:

Webb: McCain Should ‘Calm Down’ on Using Military Service

by Walter Alarkon

July 1, 2008

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) waded into the debate over John McCain’s military service Monday to say that the Republican should avoid using military service in politics.

Webb, a Barack Obama supporter, was on MSNBC’s "Countdown" to talk about his G.I. Bill to increase education benefits for returning veterans which is now law. Webb criticized both McCain and President Bush for not supporting the bill. Then, unprompted, Webb weighed in on the debate over retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s remark that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" isn’t "a qualification to be president."

"I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Tuesday] and this little fight that I’ve been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don’t serve their country for political issues."

He continued: "And John McCain’s my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that, don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don’t, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let’s get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

We are no McCain fans, but:

John McCain’s my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that, don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don’t…

When has he ever done this?

No, what Mr. Webb is saying is "shut up about your military service." It’s not important.

But what else did Mr. Webb ever run on, besides his vaunted military service — and ‘Macaca’?

From Newt Gingrich (I heard it on Mark Levin):

Congressman Delahunt Should Apologize or Face Expulsion from Congress

By far and away the most sour note struck this Independence Day holiday was the outrageously irresponsible and un-American comments made by Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.) to vice presidential chief of staff David Addington in a hearing last week.

Rep. Delahunt repeatedly asked Mr. Addington about the use of waterboarding when interrogating enemy combatants. Mr. Addington replied that he could not discuss interrogation techniques because, as he said, "al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN."

"Right," Delahunt responded. "Well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington." View this disgraceful exchange for yourself here.

For his unconscionable expression of pleasure at the prospect of murderous al Qaeda being able to identify an American public servant, Rep. Delahunt, in the very least, owes Mr. Addington an apology. If he refuses to apologize, his colleagues in Congress should move to expel him. There is no place in Congress for a pro-al Qaeda, anti-American public official.

NEW vision???

2008-07-03T13:08:00.003-04:00

Hey, why aren't we hearing anything about IRAQ anymore? Just wondering (yes, yes, I do know the answer). Okay, lets continue the education of America on Obama and his "vision" for energy in this country.

Here is a great feature from KTLK Minneapolis, MN (Jason Lewis filled in for "el Rush bo" today)

Barack Obama's NEW vision on energy?

Friday 06-27-2008 9:00am CT

Barack Obama keeps telling us he is about change, but why does his energy speech in Albuquerque sound familiar? Maybe because Jimmy Carter told us the same thing in 1977 in his address to the nation and again in 1979 in his "Malaise" speech. Listen to the bytes below.

Click link:
http://www.ktlkfm.com/pages/jlewispersonality.html

1977 Address to Nation:
Click Here for Byte #1
Click Here for Byte #2
Click Here for Byte #3
Click Here for Byte #4
Click Here for Byte #5
Click Here for Byte #6
Click Here for Byte #7
Click Here for Byte #8

1979 Malaise Speech:

Click Here for Byte #1
Click Here for Byte #2

Hmmmmmm... the more things CHANGE, the more they stay the same!

Let me be Clear

2008-06-27T13:15:00.008-04:00

Let me be clear...

People ask me who I mean when I and other pragmatic Americans refer to the “Radical Left” or “Wacky Libs” and the “Marxists.” Today I will attempt to show just who I am referring to in the media, culture, politics and the like. These examples should help. If you still plan on voting DEM in the fall, just please don't tell me about it. Thanks.

This started it all. Placed by moveon.org and run at a discount by the NY Times. This full page ad is nothing more than a smear and truly deplorable. I always tell people I want to be able to answer my daughter in 10 years when she asks me what I did when I saw this ad.

“Community Activists” Boo the National Anthem and give the Hitler Salute to mock GW Bush (apparently).

Just one of these people cancels my vote.

I would say the nationally syndicated cartoonist who created this “piece” which ran in the Kansas City Star (whose editorial board and ombudsman could also fall into this category) would be just a little bit “radical” and “leftist.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: For those of you who claim “censorship” and applaud the mainstream media’s decision to run the Danish cartoons making fun of the Prophet Mohammed, I ask you to consider our “sacred cows” before claiming the moral high ground. This is more than a free speech issue. While we think poking fun at religion is brave, others (like moderate Muslims) are appalled by it. We can lampoon Christianity and Conservatives all day long, but see what happens if we were to run a cartoon blasting MLK or glorifying Hitler. Other news organizations would not re-run such cartoons to "show their support."

Here is another widely published cartoon depicting all Republicans as White and Racist. The punch line is supposed to lambaste Bill and Hillary Clinton, but while making its point the writer lumps everyone on the Right together in one big racist tent. This is truly despicable. I will not list all the prominent Black Republicans in Congress and on the Court again (as I have done many times in the past to show the bias of the Democrat Party and the media) but this is also a disgrace and should be marginalized.

U.S. Soldiers upon returning to the U.S. after serving in Iraq, were called “brainwashed murderers” by Obama campaigners outside a grocery store. These would be the college know it all hippies Eric Cartman warns us about.

Here are some members of our esteemed “Radical Left.” I would be willing to bet that the following “community activists” will vote for Democrats. Just a hunch:

"(W)hen Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off. The right-wing media is trying to marginalize the peace movement." -- Janeane Garofalo (huh)?

"When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." -- Robert Altman, Film Director

“I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.... He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” -- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, Nov. 4, 1994, on PBS’s “To the Contrary.”

"Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!" -- Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders

“As a result of the [9/11] attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries.... Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.” -- Rosie O’Donnell on ABC’s “The View,” Sept. 12, 2006.

IMPORTANT NOTE #2: If Bush is just as bad as Osama, if "Radical Christianity" is just as threatening as radical Islam" then why don't they spend an equal amount of time and energy trying to get rid of them both? So dark, the con of liberals.

"America is the greatest sin against God." -- Father Michael Pfleger (Catholic Priest)

"I hasten to tell you that the precious lives that were lost in the World Trade Center was a cover, a cover for a war that had been planned to bring a pipeline through Afghanistan to bring oil from that region, oil owned by Unical of which Dick Cheney is a stock holder." – Louis Farrakhan

"Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing...uh,
um...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies." - - Maxine Waters to oil company executives when they met with Congress. 2008

Planned Parenthood Release (New York Office)

"With Mother's Day just around the corner...you're probably thinking about how to show the special woman in your life how much you love and appreciate them. Well, we've got a great idea for you! Why not honor the special woman in you life by taking one simple action to help empower women all around the world! It's easy - click here to join us in urging Congress to increase funding for international family planning programs."

Unbelievable

“We’ve gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that’s a good thing.”
-- Howard Dean

Pro Israel group FLAME features this blatant error in the New York Times:

I am reminded that the Haditha Marines have been exonerated. Have you seen that story anyplace? We all saw the first one:

The Daily Kos is the most visited blog site in the world.

It is arguably America's most influential blog as Democratic members of Congress post on the blog, Democratic presidential contenders cater to them (attending the annual conference, helping to fundraise, etc see photo above) and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas is considered to be a mainstream figure amongst Democrats.

Here are some choice posts from the Kos membership starting with Moulitsas (I corrected the spelling mistakes):

Concerning the murders of four American contractors who were helping to deliver food in Fallujah, Iraq:

“Every death should be on the front page. Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

"The GOP likes to attack Kos for his comment saying "Screw them", but Kos was right then (in the comments). And he's still right now. A person doesn't go work for a Private Security Team to "serve God and country". They join to make money. Thus, they are mercenaries." -- pacified

"When *ss-kissing chickensh*t David Petraeus lied his *ss off before Congress about the failed "surge", capitol hill police tackled and arrested a Pentecostal minister, damaging his ankle in the process.

...If you think America isn't undergoing the same slide into fascist dictatorship today as Germany did in the 1930s, you're kidding yourself.

…Those two reasons, more than the brutal assaults on people and the First Amendment, are why America is devolving into a bad replay of Nazi Germany. The lack of national outrage, to the point we do something about it; and the support of it by mindless group thinkers in society who are so stupid they think it's a good thing that we're being subjected to tyranny." -- Archangel M

“The parallels are undeniable, and I see only one solution if America, The Grand Experiment, is to survive.

I want to stand by and watch it all blow up.
I want the dollar to plunge to worthless paper.
I want the stock market to implode.
I want the economy to plunge into chaos.
I want the Chinese to call in all the debt they hold.

I want an economic meltdown of such staggering proportion that even that idiot on Bill Moyer's Journal who does not know the difference between a State Constitution and the United States Constitution, is forced to look around in mild surprise and wonder what the hell happened.

Only total economic destruction will get the attention of the fools.

...And I want it now, before this inept, self-serving Congress allows the Fascists one more opportunity to fully convert this from the United States of America, into the 4th Reich." -- Granny Doc

"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.

Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?" That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, and not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for.

A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head. So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You." -- AWhitneyBrown

Yikes.

MSNBC “News Man” Keith Olbermann has been going WAY over the top in his critiques of the Bush administration for years. After hearing about his ranting and raving about not getting a first class seat at the funeral for Tim Russert, I needed to look up just one of his many, many outlandish positions.

“Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.”
-- MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy magazine

A known liberal (and total jerk to all those around him and work for him) Olbermann called Bush a liar, fascist and treasonous in response to his support of the telecoms assisting in catching terrorists. Yet in response to Barrack Obama’s support of the same bill, he noted Obama’s “Bravery in standing up to the Left.” The mind numbs.

Adding to the tapestry of the “Radical Left” are many Universities in this country. Chock full of tenured liberal profs who lament the fall of the Soviet Union and the failure of the 2^nd American Revolution in the 60’s. Here is the 2007 Human Events top 10 liberal courses list:

10. Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism
Swarthmore College’s “Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism” course “deconstruct[s] terrorism” and “build[s] on promising nonviolent procedures to combat today’s terrorism,” using the struggle blacks pursued in the 1960s as a mode for tackling today’s terrorism.

9. American Dreams/American Realities
Duke University’s “American Dreams/American Realities” course seeks to unearth “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character.”

8. Cyberfeminism
This Cornell University class investigates “the emergence of cyberfeminism in theory and art in the context of feminism/post feminism and the accelerated technological developments of the last 30 years of the 20th Century.”

7. Mail Order Brides: Understanding the Philippines in Southeast Asian Context
Johns Hopkins University offers this course as a supposedly deep look into Filipino kinship and gender.

6. Whiteness: The Other Side of Racism
This is Mount Holyoke College’s attempt to analyze race. The class seeks to spark thought on: “What is whiteness?” “How is it related to racism?” “What are the legal frameworks of whiteness?” “How is whiteness enacted in everyday practice?” And how does whiteness impact the “lives of whites and people of color?”

5. Blackness
Occidental College (making the list twice) offers “Blackness,” which elaborates on a “new blackness,” “critical blackness,” “post-blackness,” and an “unforgivable blackness”—all of which combine to create a “feminist New Black Man.”

4. Adultery Novel
Students in this University of Pennsylvania class read 19th- and 20th-Century works about “adultery,” watch “several adultery films,” and apply “various critical approaches in order to place adultery into its aesthetic, social and cultural context, including: sociological descriptions of modernity, Marxist examinations of family as a social and economic institution” and “feminist work on the construction of gender.”

3. Taking Marx Seriously
“Should Marx be given another chance?” That’s what Amherst College students are asked. Students in this class are also asked to question if Marxism still has “credibility,” while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” This course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied Maxist concepts.

2. Queer Musicology
This University of California-Los Angeles class explores how “sexual difference and complex gender identities in music and among musicians have incited productive consternation” during the 1990s.

1. The Phallus
This course at Occidental College covers a broad study on the relation “between the phallus and the penis, the meaning of the phallus, phallologocentrism, the lesbian phallus, the Jewish phallus, the Latino phallus, and the relation of the phallus and fetishism.”

Finally just for fun...

I thought I would (again) point to all the Democrats and Liberals who have “Bush Lied” bumper stickers on their cars to the following (small sample) of डेम positions on the Iraq War:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005456.php

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/Document.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

conservOpunk

NOTES:

M Moulitsas Quote http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004904

Haditha Follow Up Marine acquitted in Haditha killing cover-up case - Yahoo! News

5-4 Bottom of the Ninth

2008-06-26T20:43:00.002-04:00

5-4 Bottom of the Ninth

Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions have gone the way of the 5-4 vote mainly along ideological and political lines. The D.C. gun ban decision comes down tomorrow so as I write this I am uncertain if they will issue another alarmingly activist ruling or do something really crazy and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

I have always been fascinated by those opposed to the term “Judicial Activism.” Liberal Justices, those of the “living and breathing constitution” variety, find rights where none exist (Roe v. Wade, Boumediene v. Bush) and attempt thru judicial decree to alter the landscape of this country, subverting the will of the people. Conservative Justices do not impose their own personal conservative beliefs on the public, but rather seek to interpret the LAW as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution.

The Legislative branch writes the laws. The Judicial branch interprets the laws. The Judiciary cannot add anything to the mix. Let me restate… they SHOULD not add anything, the DO in fact add things all the time.

It’s fairly straightforward – yet we continue to get these 5-4 decisions on the more important issues of the day. There have been some biggies thus far this Supreme Court term:

5-4 limiting Govt interference in political ads (GOOD)

5-4 increasing Govt power in eminent domain (BAD)

5-4 upholding BAN on Partial Birth Abortion (GOOD)

5-4 granting unlawful enemy combatants U.S. Constitutional Rights (BAD)

5-4 against race based enrollment preferences in public schools (GOOD)

5-4 disallowing the death penalty for a child rapist (BAD)

Let’s all hope they get the upcoming 2nd amendment decision in the (GOOD) category and rule the Wash DC gun ban as unconstitutional, which it most certainly IS.

The Justices on the left side of the aisle can certainly find "rights" where none exist so let’s see if they go ahead and find the right to bear arms which actually DOES exist and throw out the DC ban.

conservOpunk

NOTES

NO Death Penalty for rape of child

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_rdp

Guantanamo Bay Terrorists have U.S. Constitutional rights

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365851,00.html

NY times bias Justice 5 Brutality 4

http://digg.com/political_opinion/NY_Times_Justice_5_Brutality_4_Supreme_Court_Swats_Bush

Rules against Race based enrollment in Public Schools

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/29/MNGMIQO5E01.DTL&type=politics

the four most conservative justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, voting to ban all race-based school assignments under the principle of a color-blind Constitution.

Upheld the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/weekinreview/22liptak.html

CNN shows bias: “what critics call partial birth abortion” !

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/02/scotus.review/index.html

Eases restrictions on Political Speech

McCain Feingold “Campaign Finance Reform”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Roberts wrote. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Expands Govt’s Eminent Domain Power

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_23_05pr.html

BIG OIL

2008-06-25T15:22:00.005-04:00

BIG OIL

There is no such thing as "Big Oil."

These companies are all publicly traded companies owned by millions of individual stockholders and mutual fund owners.

The “record profits” in the $40 billion range is for a $500+ billion company! Oil company margins are some of the lowest in business world. They operate at an 8% margin. Hedge Funds operate at appalling margins of over 80% regularly.

While I feel that some CEO and other executive compensation to be out of the range of good taste, it is not the governments role to approve salaries.

Politicians publicly decry the "speculators" for the inflated price. Well, yes. Just as in every other publicly traded commodity speculators bid pricing based on futures. If there is MORE SUPPLY they will SPECULATE a drop in price. Attention Democrats: you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader!

We need to get more oil onto the world supply stage and do it quickly. The recent decision by the Saudis not to increase supply further illustrates this need. The Democrat Party is stuck in deep on this issue and the Republicans (if smart... I know don't say it) should press them for real, tangible answers instead of "we need to look to the future and alternative energy." Indeed, one cannot argue against the need to expand Nuclear, Hydrogen, Bio Fuels (not corn however) and reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports, however "look to the future" is not leadership. We need to use all of our energy available to be self sufficient. NOW. ANWR alone would immediately replace the oil we get from the Saudis. Period.

Drill here and drill now!

To the folks who (incorrectly) claim the oil wont be online for 10 years I remind them that then President Bill Clinton made those same claims back in... 1998 when he prevented drilling in ANWR.

The funniest claim from Democrats is the red herring of the leased land that the oil companies are not drilling. This is laughable to be sure. Hey liberals... that's NOT WHERE THE OIL IS!

We need alternative energy and must, with private entrepreneurship and federal funding, get this energy source going to get off of foreign oil and help to clean our environment.

But the OIL INDUSTRY is not the place to turn to or blame. They are OIL COMPANIES. They are in the business of finding and refining oil. Hello? Hello?

We have this source already. Nuclear energy in the form of clean fusion (not cold fusion) or fission which leads to waste) is ready to roll with moderate funding. This is clean, unlimited energy and more efficient than anything ever created.

Just my 2 cents - (sorry $4) - worth.

conservOpunk

Super Soaked Parents

2008-06-25T14:39:00.004-04:00

My "Coolness" credentials:

I wear many hats – one of which is playing live music and writing jingles for businesses on the side. I consider myself to be a slightly “hip” adult. I like all kinds of music from hard rock to country to rap and R&B. I am cool. Okay I get a dose of cold reality when the college girls at parties call me “SIR” but I hold my own as a 30 something American male.

When I was a kid I subscribed to the “if you don’t like it just change the channel” theory of absolutely NO standards in the media and NO censorship of obviously offensive lyrics in music. Heck, even if “Lollipop” from the 1950’s is not really about a lollipop (and the 2008 version is absolutely not about a lollipop) it is still fairly innocuous.

When my 5 year old daughter sings “Drop it like its Hot” or “My Humps” I have to laugh at the surrealism of it all. To be clear I don’t think she knows what the lyrics to those songs mean, but it reminds me how far we have fallen in terms of cultural respectability in this country.

Can we all agree that certain subject matter is not acceptable for children (or for that matter anyone with a brain) to listen to and sing along with?

It is now my turn to (albeit a year too late) do my part in publicly “outing” the meaning behind the mega hit “Superman that Hoe” by Soulja Boy. My friends cringe when I turn to this subject, but I feel it is my civic duty to bring it to your attention.

Hey Middle America… do you know what “Superman that Hoe” means??

(For those of you still on oldies radio, a “Hoe” is what the urban community (customers) and the upper class community (gangster rappers) call women. Just so we are all on the same page).

To “Superman a Hoe” is to wait until the woman who refused your advances falls asleep. You then masturbate and ejaculate onto her back. Once finished you press a bed sheet onto her now soiled back to, in effect, add a Superman Cape. When she arises the sheet remains stuck to her skin and she will appear to have a cape! (1)

Isn’t this funny? References are below. As I always do as the conservOpunk in this medium, I merely state facts. Any Google search can confirm anything I bring forward. Do with this information what you will. You now know what “Superman that Hoe” means. I wonder what the lyrics “Super soak that Hoe” mean? Perhaps he is talking about water or something? Yes, yes that must be it.

Don’t be mired in the muck of political correctness. Get involved in the well being of your children. And for that matter the adults who buy and dance to this crap. Hell the song itself sucks and the production value is terrible!! (:

Parents, I suggest getting off of your collective butts and listening to what exactly your kids are idolizing.

Wait, I can say your collective Asses can’t I??? I hear that word on the radio all the time… and remember when I saw the band “MorningWood” on Nickelodeon!

conservOpunk (and concerned Dad)

1) Superman that Hoe Links:

http://www.hip-hop.net/977-superman-dat-hoe-explained

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071211175127AA9glFl

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/448122/parents_beware_the_real_meaning_of.html

conservOpunk MERCH!

2008-06-18T20:13:00.001-04:00

buy unique gifts at Zazzle

Liberals and Democrats: PROVEN WRONG BY HISTORY

2008-06-16T00:40:00.010-04:00

USSR / Communism is inevitable? WRONG

This really needs no further discussion. The glorious collectivist experiment known as the Soviet Union completely collapsed and is totally discredited in the historical record. Much like Italian Facism and Nazi Germany, the USSR belief that there is nothing higher than the power of the state led to inhumane imprisonment in the gulags, substandard conditions for its people including horrific food shortages, millions of political executions, and complete godless totalitarianism.

Remember our "un biased" media gave Gorbachev the credit for ending the Cold War, made him Time's "Man of the Decade" and supported his speaking tour where he made $100K a pop telling fawning liberal audiences how the Soviet Union didn't really collapse.

YIN: “If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” —Ronald Reagan Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

YANG: "In another show of America's force to the world, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter responded by boycotting the Olympics. And thus was a fearsome blow struck at little fourteen-year-old American girls who had spent their lives training for the Olympics." -- Ann Coulter

SDI or "Star Wars" won't work? WRONG

Wrong quite often over these past years actually. Most recently on Feb 21, 2008. An American missile, without a warhead or internal guidance system, hit a satellite that was moving at approximately 22,000 miles per hour from a ship that was sitting on swells in the Pacific Ocean.

This was the straw that broke the back of the Soviet Union. Not only could they not afford to create such a program, they couldn't come up with such a thing either and they all knew it. Cold War won. Liberals proven wrong, again. Who cares about the next Michael Jordon? Where is the next Ronald Reagan?

VIETNAM

All USA fault - we need to pull out. As soon as we did, the North Vietnamese turned their guns on Cambodia. The Killing Fields

History class on Senator Joe McCarthy? WRONG

While his tactics were over the top and at times brutal, Senator Joe McCarthy has been vindicated by the publication of the Venona Project in 1995. (you may have missed this MSMedia viewers). The term "communism" is today a vile word describing a failed ideology that brought misery and dispar to millions.

The Venona Papers released from Soviet archives vindicate McCarthy and showed an even greater communist threat than even he thought. More than 350 paid soviet agents held positions within the U.S. State Dept.

“we now learn that J. Edgar Hoover, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers & company really got it right: all Communists are/were actual, or wanna be, Russian spies. We also learn that during the Cold War years (and even before) hordes of leftists were abroad in the land, stealing "our" atomic secrets (and God only knows what else) for delivery to Joseph Stalin.” - - William A. Reuben review of The Secret World of American Communism, Rights, 1995

In retrospect had McCarthy simply went after another sector of society in search of Communists (rather than Hollywood, where there WERE lots of them) then we would not have film after film portraying him in an unfair light. To be clear, "McCarthyism" still works as a term today as his tactics were not polite, but those lives he was ruining were indeed communist lives bent on the overthrow of the U.S. To the playwright outed as a Communist I point to the millions thrown into Soviet Gulags due to their personal beliefs. I am sure if they could have chosen the punishment of "not being able to be a playwright anymore" they would have jumped at it! Venona proves McCarthy was right.

Doomsday Environmental Predictions? WRONG

So now Africa gets to use DDT? Well that didn't take too long..! Thanks a lot Rachel Carson! 30 million dead Africans are in your debt. I still want to know who that scientist was who would eat spoonfuls of DDT to prove how harmless it was. Junk science won and lots and lots and lots of human beings died.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/profile2.html
http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/
http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/victims.htm

Ever notice how Global Warming slowly became “Climate Change?” If it gets hotter, global warming. If it cools, global warming. This is Junk Science 101 and the new religion of the left.

The jaw dropping mistake underlying all of this hysteria is thus: CO2 does not cause warming, WARMING causes a rise in CO2 ! We learn this in eighth grade. It is still true!

Weather Channel founder John Coleman has been an outspoken advocate for climate realism. This weekend, Coleman posted at his KUSI-San Diego blog an "Open Letter to Environmentalists" challenging them to campaign for "environmental goals on the basis of their own merit " while urging alarmists to "[l]et go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves [them] discredited and embarrassed."

Ethanol? WRONG! using food stocks for fuel has now created worldwide food shortages, plus higher prices on both food and fuel. We have the oil here... lets go get it!

Nuclear Energy? WRONG! we should tap this unlimited energy source NOW and fund it until it is powering every city in America. We have had this for decades and now fusion can be done without any waste. Hello? Hello?

Just look at the way liberals have undermined our nation's forest management efforts. Any credible forestry official will tell you that allowing vast regions of timberland to overgrow to the point they often do without thinning them out from time to time and putting in fire roads is a recipe for disaster. Yet, in spite of this common sense perspective, liberals still fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to cut down a few trees. Their success in this regard has contributed to some of the most devastating wildfires in the history of this country, but do they ever take a step back and reevaluate their position in the face of evidence of its destructiveness?

Edward Daley RENEW AMERICA.com May 19, 2004

Meanwhile... CHINA plans to drill 60 miles of FL coast! Right Now.

The Bush TAX CUTS? WRONG

The democrats worst nightmare has come true. (No, no WMD's have not been found in Bagdhad) In what can only be seen as a sharp rebuke to liberals who think tax cuts shrink government revenue, tax receipts for corporate and individuals are up a nice 15% over last year. Again! Liberals/democrats believe that if you cut taxes you will decrease revenues. Once again that has proven to be a fallacy just as when Reagan cut taxes in the 80's and doubled government revenues in the process. When you cut taxes you give people and businesses an incentive to grow. More tax PAYERS = More tax REVENUE.

This question of increased tax revenues when corporate, capital gains and income taxes are cut was posed to Barrack Obama during a debate, to which he replied with the need to increase taxes as a "punitive measure" for the rich CEO's. Good Grief!

Let us also never forget that "Progressive" call to punish the rich with that Yacht sales tax increase a few years back. This not only did not raise any taxes (as the wealthy simply stopped buying the yachts) but thousands of workers were put out of work by this wrong headed liberal policy.

BILL CLINTON'S INNOCENCE? WRONG (really embarrassingly wrong)!

GUN LAWS? WRONG

The only gun control related law statistically proven to be effective are CONCEAL CARRY PERMIT laws...! These counties consistently have the lowest crime rates in the nation.

John Lott, a gun-control scholar, says the problems with such laws is that good intentions aren't enough. "What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals." He notes that some 40 states now have some kind of law allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed firearms. In most of those states, between 2% and 6% of all adults have such permits, thus giving citizens in a community the size of a university the knowledge that someone other than the local police will have access to self-defense.

Such laws have consequences. Mr. Lott and Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school examined multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60%. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell even more -- an average of 78% -- as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack.

Letter to the Editor 2

2008-06-11T14:04:00.003-04:00

It’s Official… White Folks are Least Racist!

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20080510_9994.php

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/navarrette/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/jakes/index.html

Barrack Obama has given yet another race speech. We should have an over/under on this topic coming from his campaign. Mr. Obama recently told a crowd of supporters what to expect in the November election:

Obama - “We know what kind of campaign they’re gonna run. They’re gonna try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of… ME! They’re gonna say, you know, he’s young, he’s inexperienced, he’s got a funny name… did I mention he’s black?” (crowd roars with laughter)!

I have poured over the numerous articles, news reports, polls, and pundits and all seem to be continuing to focus on RACE as the main issue in the November election. And (naturally) all seem to come from the LEFT side of the aisle and feel America “isn’t ready” for a black American in the White House.

So let me get this straight… unless 100% of us vote for Obama come NOV then “we are not ready” for a black man in the white house? What a crock. Millions of Republicans (myself included) “were ready” for Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Walter Williams, Roy Innis, Ward Connerly, and Janice Rogers Brown to hold high positions in Govt (including the Presidency in Powell’s case). Where was the “goose bumps” and “momentous moment” speak in the media for these individuals?

Hmmm… what is the difference?

Oh yes, these are all conservative Black Republicans! Where was the cry of “Racism” when the LIBS were mounting disgraceful smears against these figures (from the Oreos hurled at Steele to the “modern day lynching” of Thomas in his nomination hearings)? The DEM party, from their historical racism to the nomination battle of 2008, have focused on IDENTITY POLITICS of race and gender, perfectly illustrated in the DEM nomination process. (Attention Mayor Bloomberg: this is wedge politics).

Of course there are racists in both parties. When will this change? Never! Man is imperfect and there will always be bigots out there. The LIBS don’t want to END racism they want to FIGHT racism. The truth is Powell would have beaten GW Bush back in 2000 for the REP nomination, and Black Republicans are elected all the time with little or no fanfare. Why is this? (rhetorical question - - the lib writers already know).

MLK stood for a colorblind society. These days all the media can talk about in the race is the RACE of the candidates and the RACE of the voters. This is a shame. Even the big lib commentators haven’t pegged this one yet… it is the views of the candidates and not their race that matters most to the electorate.

This election will feature (again) two mildly ho hum candidates in a lesser of 2 evils battle for the most important job in the world (after syndicated columnist of course).

You should all head over to the blog tonyoconservopunk.blogspot.com

The views are clearer and the writing is better.

ConservOpunk

STOP and THINK (pretty please)

2008-06-05T13:27:00.006-04:00

For those of you against the Death Penalty:

By ANDREW O. SELSKY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he would welcome becoming a "marytr" after a judge warned Thursday that he faces the death penalty for his confessed role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Wearing thick glasses and occasionally fussing with his turban or stroking his bushy gray beard, Mohammed seemed noticeably thinner in his first appearance since his capture in Pakistan in 2003. It was a stark contrast to the image the U.S. showed to the world back then, of a slovenly man with disheveled hair, an unshaven face and a T-shirt.

Mohammed also sang verses from the Quran, rejected his attorneys and told Judge Ralph Kohlmann, a Marine colonel, that he wants to represent himself at the war crimes trial. The judge warned that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America. But the former No. 3 leader of al-Qaida was insistent.

"Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed declared. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

For those of you (in 2000) who claim the Popular Vote should determine the U.S. President:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26842

(Hint: the DEMS now have the exact opposite position they held 8 years ago. This is known in some circles as, what is that word again? Oh yes, Hypocrisy)

For those of you who deny Liberal Media Bias:

Tim Russert / Chris Matthews gush on Obama

http://abcrad.vo.llnwd.net/o1/levin/rss/levin06042008.mp3

conservOpunk

Nail Biting - Bad for you!!

Compare the Quotes... see how we vote...

LOWER TAXES NOW

Couldn't be any simpler

Letter to the Editor

Our Liberally Racist Media

Remember "Bloom County?"

AMERICAN HISTORY 101

Unlevel Playing Field.

Karl Rove is RIGHT (and correct too)!

Flip-Flops and Governance

Our president isn't quite as advertised.

By KARL ROVE

A Typical Email to conservOpunk!

OH... MY... GOD... Facts about Obama from the AP!

Uh Oh. good John Lott piece

JOHN LOTT: Uh Oh…Team Obama Claims Americans Use TOO MUCH Health Care

All for AMERICA song

Unbiased coverage from CNN (sarcasm)

Burke

"Gone" Barack Obama

TEA PARTY DAY? Questions Answered.

Democrats will never learn

Americans Are Pigs

Americans Are Pigs

Catching Wild Pigs

Cavuto RULES!!!

B E A U T I F U L

NEW ERA of SPEND and BLAME

STATE OF THE UNION

The Truth Hurts... Liberals (Part 2)

from CNN. DODD CORRUPT!!

from WND (and FSU) Global Warming Over!

even AP / Congressional Budget Office is Against this! (and they are "non partisan")

from POWERLINE Blog

Are We A Banana Republic?

Presidential Thought...

DEMS: Please EXPLAIN Yourselves

Obama apologizes for remark

William F. Buckley NATION REVIEW MISSION STATEMENT

Cutting our Defense, Weakining a NationTo members of Keep America Free

Schumer... Yick.

Dick Morris Article

The First rational reporter in awhile...

KELSEY!

OBAMAthon!!

can you buy lipstick in Las Vegas?

We are serfs

classic PROTEST WARRIOR tee

from AYN RAND CENTER

Obama’s Backward Economics

ARTICLE: Tony Blankley

Daschle-Obama Health Care Possibilities

MILTON!

Shelby Steele - Black Conservative

Profound

WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS

HOPE, CHANGE, TACO

Obama to "Spread the Wealth Around"

Say it Aint So JOE! 14 lies

DEMS WRONG (naturally) on FREDDIE/FANNIE

Mark Levin ROCKS!!!

Obama's SHADOW DIPLOMACY

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIs IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

Charles Krauthammer on Charles Gibson on Sarah Palin

The Palin "Interview"

McCain Photo "op"

September 12, 2008

How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain

TrackBack

GLASS CEILING BROKEN!!!

It's a Miracle!!! Not that we're winning the War, but that AP is reporting it!!

LGF - Al Jazeera is a Disgrace!

Video: Al Jazeera Throws Party for Child Killer

Generally Speaking

No one Died when Clinton Lied? Really???

The Letter

Senator Jim "Webb a Crite" and Delahunt shows true colors!

From The Hill via Sweetness & Light:

Cutting our Defense, Weakining a Nation
To members of Keep America Free