Sunday, March 29, 2009

Before the PC-Police Come for Me, Too . . .

The following is an essay presented by Andy Rooney said on '60 Minutes' a few weeks back.  This is not the first time Mr. Rooney has stated these opinions and I hope to God this is not the last.  In case the PC Police of Mr. Rooney's network finally do get around to controlling and censoring him, I include this essay for the sake of posterity .... or at least until the PC police come for me, too . . .

And, by the by . . . I agree with Mr. Rooney on every single point.

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, which is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING, MARTHA BURKE ?

I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

I have the right 'NOT' to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling; it is the Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.

I can't understand the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations...

I don't hate the rich; I don't pity the poor. I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say 'NO!'

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals.. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me French fries!

I am sick of 'Political Correctness.' I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa ; so how can they be 'African-Americans'? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America an d nowhere else.

And if you don't like my point of view, tough ...

Words With More Meaning Than Ever

President Reagan's policies and philosophies have essentially been usurped by the current majority though they attempt to vilify and denigrate the very ideas they are attempting to steal.  This additional "grab" merely reinforces how exact and pertinent President Reagan's ideas are, even 45 years later.

We the People who still consider ourselves Conservatives have a lot to keep fighting for.  It is imperative that we maintain our protests and ensure that the elected representatives who work for We the People listen and respond to our communications.  I refuse to say that we are pleading with those currently in charge, though events certainly make what We the People are trying to say appear as a plea.  President Reagan expressed the same thoughts, more forcefully and much more eloquently than any I have yet to hear.

President Reagan's words are just as -- or even more -- pertinent today.  In the great span of time since, we are still facing the same enemy from within against which Mr. Reagan warned.  It is very clear, within the very short period of time that Mr. Obama was elected to the highest office our great country has to offer that his stated intent, clear and obvious for all to hear during his year and a half long campaign, is well on the way to fruition: to socialize this great Republic at least, or to establish the foundations of totalitarianism at worst.

We the People must do everything within our power to ensure that our Republic stays true to the tenets and beliefs on which it was founded.  The words of one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had should shine as beacons as we try our hardest to fight through the gloom in which we are currently enveloped, not much of a difference, sadly, between then and now.

>>> The words of President Reagan given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.
A Time for Choosing
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

More to Keep in Mind

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday (03/19/09), Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton , Colorado , was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women.. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out f or answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech...

Think Positive!

  1. Open a new file in your computer.
  2. Name it 'Barack Obama.'
  3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
  4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
  5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of 'Barack Obama?'
  6. Firmly Click 'Yes.'
  7. Feel better?
  8. GOOD! - Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi

One must maintain a sense of humor, no matter how dire the situation may appear.


Saturday, March 21, 2009

Do Unto Others . . .

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That, to me, is truly the Golden Rule. If we were to follow that Rule to even the slightest extent, many of the "ills" suffered by the world would greatly diminish or even disappear. I am no "Pollyanna,' but I do hope for the best for people and from people. At least, I have until 11/04/08. That is the day my faith in We the People was seriously shaken.

In the days and months since, that faith has started to grow again, slowly, hesitatingly, and with great doubt -- but still with hope and faith.

We the People made a grievous error on that fateful day last year. Though I am Conservative and voted in that way, I take responsibility for the results with which we are now dealing. Maybe I didn't work hard enough during the campaign, maybe I was not articulate enough in my efforts to convince people not to succumb to the "charm" and baseless promises of "change." Regardless, We the People did not get our message across clearly enough to counter the "celebrity" of the other candidate.

We are now all responsible, however, to do our utmost to safeguard our country to ensure she does not fall off the cliff at the end of the road. We must all work as hard as possible by contacting our elected representatives constantly to let them know we are aware of their actions. We must be diligent in our oversight of our elected representatives' behavior and be quick to express our approval or disapproval at all times.

We are in this position because We the People became complacent; we did not take our responsibilities seriously and we chose to take the easy way out by not providing the intense oversight on our elected representatives for which We the People are responsible. We took the naive road by placing our faith in the "character" of such people as Dodd, Rangel, Pelosi, Kennedy, and many others, both Democrat and Republican. That faith has been ill-served, much to our regret.

I hope, however, that We the People have learned our lesson. The government and its workers are OUR employees, WE pay their salaries, WE put them in place. WE are responsible for the actions because WE are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the results of their actions.

As long as We the People allow those we elect to run roughshod over us, without controls or safeguards, We the People deserve what we get.

Copyright MCzwz. March 2009. All Rights Reserved.

"Outrage?" More like More Hypocrisy!

The media's top reports these past few days have reflected the "outrage" supposedly felt by the "honorable" members of Congress elected to represent We the People as well as the "anger and outrage" expressed by some members of the citizenry.

This "anger and outrage" is supposedly directed toward the new head of AIG as well as the employees of AIG and the families of those employees.

Our "honorable" members of Congress appear to be either in cahoots with or at least supporting those who chose to recently express their "anger-and-outrage" via death threats sent in e-mail and voice mails, as well as through their physical representation in threatening drive-bys of private homes and stalking of private citizens. Our "honorable" members of Congress appear to be fully in agreement with the behavior of those who place full responsibility for the AIG issue at the feet of the employees of AIG.

It is bad enough that the so-called "anger-and-outrage" is patently misdirected; it is just as bad (if not worse) that the "honorable" members of Congress are condoning reprehensible behavior based on threats and intimidation by utilizing that same methodology themselves towards fellow citizens forced to "testify" before congressional committees.

The video of Mr. Liddy being excoriated by the "honorable" members of the congressional committee seemed to mesh very easily with an overlay of film of Senator McCarthy "questioning" those forced to testify before him.

That type of behavior from anyone, much less "honorable" members of Congress, is unacceptable . . . at least, it was unacceptable in a civilized society.

We the People used to be citizens of a civilized society.


The employees of AIG who were contractually given the bonuses because they worked at AIG and, according to those in charge at AIG, deserved the bonuses.

The employees did not make the decision to give themselves bonuses anymore than most employees in most corporations have the authority to award themselves bonuses or salary increases just because they want to -- other than the employees of We the People, that is (a.k.a. the US House and Senate)!

In the case of the AIG employees who received bonuses, there had to have been at one point or another at least one or two levels of approval prior to the bonuses being authorized. The recipients of the bonuses did not authorize the bonuses themselves; their bosses, managers, and ultimately the US House and Senate lawfully and duly authorized the bonuses.

By what right, then, do the "outraged" residents of Connecticut threaten and try to intimidate employees who did nothing but accept bonuses which were not only contractually due to them, but which had been approved by all levels of authority -- including the U.S. Senate and House through duly passed legislation?

Based on recent developments in the "hallowed" halls of Congress, the "right," to intimidate and threaten private citizens has been given by the very leaders of the U.S.of A.

The "questioning" of Mr. Liddy this week by the "honorable" members of the congressional committee gives the "right" to those who feel themselves also "angered-and-outraged" to behave in a similar manner. The "right" to threaten and attempt to intimidate those whom they hold responsible for this debacle is condoned by elected US representatives . . . the "Honorable" members of Congress.

This is mob mentality: the mentality of threats and intimidation which has been evident since the early days of the presidential campaign and which merely intensified when focused on Gov. Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, any others who did not fully support "The Candidate." This "right" to intimidate and threaten was brought to an official level by Mr. Obama's exhortation to not "mess with Joe," and now has been given the final seal of approval by the House and Senate of the United States who, by their own behavior, ease the way for private citizens of the U.S. to be threatened and harassed for something completely beyond their control.

What is currently happening to the employees of AIG -- from the threatened usurious and unconstitutional "tax," to the humiliating berating of the current head of AIG by the oh-so-honorable members of Congress, to the threats hurled at private US citizens by other private US citizens, harks back to the days of McCarthyism, at best, and the days of Politburos at worst.

It should be the goal of news organizations such Fox to consistently maintain truth ad honor. The Fox-n-Friends segment this morning misrepresented the issue completely.

It is not the employees (a.k.a. the "workers") of AIG who deserve threats and opprobrium, it is the U.S. Senate and House. It is Christopher Dodd for his part in the creating the scandal, it is Barney Frank for his part in instigating the origins of the economic "meltdown," it is Pelosi and her cohorts who deserve the ire of We the People. It is Mr. Obama who should be the target of anger and frustration because of his unconscionable acceptance of these events.

Why aren't the threats being aimed at the true culprits? Why are the ones who are really and fully responsible for these problems not being threatened and browbeaten?

Because on November 4, 2008, We the People elected a representative to serve We the People in the White House whose mentality, philosophy, background, and personal history clearly reflect that the processes being applied this week are part and parcel of his much expressed desire to "spread the wealth," "give back wealth to those who deserve it," to ensure all wants are met, whether deserved or earned or not, and to create "change" in the most fundamental aspects of our Country: Our Constitution and Laws.

We the People should be deathly afraid of what the next 4 years will bring if this mentality spreads any further.

Copyright MCzwz. March 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, March 8, 2009


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

-- Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

-- Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

-- Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

-- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, [don't try to make changes in the mid-term elections].

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Source Unknown

Rushing Obama

I've included Mr. O'Reilly's thoughts on the so-called "feud" that supposedly developed between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele only to show that the immense influence of the liberal/mainstream/"drive-by" (as Rush calls 'em) media extends even into the Republican & Conservative party.

If anyone should know better than to react to the bait, these guys should ... but they've all spent an inordinately ridiculous amount of time discussing and dissecting this non-issue including Sean (my personal favorite) and Glen Beck (who took it and ran with it, without even considering the source, to his embarrassment, I would think).

I have the feeling that Mr. Steele is a tad too "moderate" to be the official RNC Leader at this particular period in time, but he's a smart man and I am willing to give him a chance to prove himself.

Though many may see Rush Limbaugh as the proverbial bull in the china shop, I strongly believe that Mr. Limbaugh's voice is an imperative to getting the core of the Republican and Conservatives back on track, to keeping them up-to-date and fully informed ... and, yes, to help lead us all back to where we need to be: Conservative Republicans.

I hope (perhaps against all hope) that the core of the Conservative and Republican party will not only listen to Mr. Limbaugh, but also to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, and Mike Huckabee, but also take their thoughts and advice to heart. There is a broad range of 'categories' in that group, from moderate to pretty tough hard-liners. This group, consequently, represents the equally broad range of We the People out here who are grateful for the outlet they provide to allow us to express ourselves when it appears to none in 'officialdom' really care to hear from We the People.

We the People need to hear all opinions, from all whose thoughts and ideas are geared solely to trying to ensure the continued success of our Country -- as we have always known her -- NOT remade to some horrific, liberal, socialistic image of Mr. Obama's mentors.

Copyright, 2009. MCzwz, All rights reserved.


Man, I got out just in time. Last week I gave up doing the Radio Factor after seven years because I needed to get some sleep. Working 65 hours a week is fine when you're 30, but as Clint Eastwood once opined: A man must know his limitations.

My radio program competed against Rush Limbaugh's show in some markets, and now, in an amazing bit of political gamesmanship, the Obama administration has elevated Limbaugh to Alp-like heights. By publicly attacking the broadcaster, the Obama crew has not only galvanized his loyal audience, but also sent curiosity seekers into his domain. What a ratings bonanza for Limbaugh! Who would want to compete against that?

According to the website Politico, Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville polled Limbaugh's popularity and found it lacking among voters younger than age 40. The website contends they convinced White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to go after Limbaugh and define him as the behind-the-scenes leader of the Republican Party. The strategy was to paint the GOP as a leaderless outfit fearful of a high-profile radio guy. Emanuel dropped the propaganda bomb on a morning TV show last Sunday.

In conjunction, Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote a sarcastic op-ed in The Washington Post claiming the Republican Party is "paralyzed with fear of crossing (Limbaugh)."

Presto, the liberal mainstream media pounced on the new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, mocking him for playing second fiddle to Limbaugh. Steele did not like that and told CNN the broadcaster is an entertainer who often pops off. Limbaugh did not like that and lambasted Steele. Under pressure, the RNC chief apologized.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are "lol" as they say on the Net.

But there may be an unintended consequence in this for the White House. By empowering Limbaugh, who already commands an enormous audience, the Obama administration is supplying weaponry to the enemy. Sure, the Democratic home team is yukking this stuff up, but most Americans are steaming mad about the economy and in no mood for shallow political games. If the president cannot get Wall Street to believe in him, demonizing Limbaugh will begin to look like a diversionary tactic, which it might well be.

It is certainly true that the Republican Party is currently taking some lumps, especially among the pro-Obama media. But in politics things can turn fast. If the GOP can develop some strong leadership and a populist vision, it will compete in the 2010 election.

We are living in dangerous times and the folks know it. Fighting with a radio talk-show host may be entertaining, but it is certainly not presidential.

Bill O'Reilly
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Waging War on Prosperity

President Lyndon Johnson's administration was known for his War on Poverty. President Obama's will become notable for his War on Prosperity.

We're speaking, of course, of Obama's plans to hike income taxes on the most wealthy 2 or 3 percent of the nation. He's not just raising the top rate to 39.6 percent; he's also disallowing about one-third of top earner's deductions, whether for state and local taxes, charitable contributions or mortgage interest. This is an effective hike in their taxes by an average of about 20 percent.

And soon the next shoe will drop - he'll announce that he's keeping yet another of his campaign promises: to apply the full payroll tax to all income over $250,000 a year. (Right now, the 15.3 percent Social Security tax only applies to the first $106,800 of income - you neither pay the tax on income above that, nor accumulate added benefit.) For many taxpayers in this bracket, this hike will raise their total taxes by about half.

Finally, he's declaring war on investors by raising the capital-gains-tax rate to 20 percent.

These increases are politically insignificant: The top 2 percent of the nation casts only about 4 percent of the votes, barely enough to attract the notice of even the most meticulous pollsters.

But they have enormous economic significance. Those who earn more than $200,000 pay almost 60 percent of America's income taxes and account for a third of its total disposable income. If these spenders and investors are hunkering down, waiting for the revenuers to beat down their doors, their confidence will be anything but robust. Their spending will drop; they'll be unlikely to invest (except in new tax shelters).

Franklin Roosevelt's presidency was marked by an emphasis on recovery in his first term and class warfare (which he called "reform") in his second. Campaigning for re-election in 1936, FDR famously declared, "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master."

Obama seems to have skipped the first-term FDR program and jumped right into the class divisions and warfare of the second.

But the president would do well to remember that Roosevelt's assault on the rich led directly to the recession of 1937-39 - when unemployment soared back up to 19 percent. (It was brought down only by World War II.)

Obama must realize that his tax hikes will dampen investment and consumer spending and prolong and deepen the economy's woes - this is presumably why he's postponing most tax hikes until 2011. But taxpayers, particularly wealthy taxpayers, are not dumb: They'll know what's coming, and look to secure the hatches in advance by sitting on their money.

But then, Obama must also realize that his stimulus package, with its massive growth of government, is going to kindle huge inflation in coming years. And he surely realizes that he can't expand government health insurance as massively as he intends introducing rationing of medical services.

He must know, but not care.

Here is a president who would rather redistribute income than create wealth. He thinks it more important to grow government than to fight inflation. He believes that it is crucial to expand health care to the young and middle aged, even if it means cutting it back for the elderly. He's more committed to effecting "broad change" in his first term than he is to winning a second one.

We have a president, in short, who will stand on his principles. Unfortunately, they're bad ones.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

How Many Billions of New Jobs, According to Mr. Obama?

For the last few months of 2008, Mr. Obama's main mantra was the incredible (at least to some thinking people) number of jobs "he" would create . . . clearly, since the results of November 4, 2008 were as they are, many people appeared to have believed the claim that "he" and/or "the government" would create this incredible (as in unbelievable) number of jobs.

I, for one, didn't believe him for an instant. . . except when I listened further and realized he meant, literally, that the government would create an incredible number of "new" government jobs. Yup, that's what he meant, alright!

Can't everyone just feel the growth of government as we speak? The earth just moved!

I spent most of the last few months of 2008 questioning how in tarnation that man expected to create (it's become "create or save" in the past few weeks) even half, or a third, or even a fourth the number of jobs he'd spent weeks claiming he would and as the campaign wound down and the First Hundred Days started to roll by, The Plan became clearer and clearer . . .

Within weeks of the inauguration, new departments, offices, secretaries, and directors of this-that-n-the-other started to sprout. The light finally burst through . . . his intent is to quadruple the size of the government by inventing (or "creating") an incredible number of jobs, making sure that "affirmative" action is in full play . . . and thereby get his constituents to applaud his achieving his stated goal of "saving or creating" billions and billions of jobs.

He will have met that goal by the creation of at least half of the billions in government jobs . . . and another reason to raise more taxes on all of us.


Many Hires Needed for Budget Goals
Tens of Thousands Could Be Added to Federal Payroll

By Philip Rucker, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, March 3, 2009; A01

President Obama's budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education and services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new federal government workers to realize his goals.

The $3.6 trillion plan released last week proposes spending billions to begin initiatives and implement existing programs, and given Obama's insistence that he would scale back the use of private-sector contractors, his priorities could reverse a generational decline in the size of the government workforce.

Exactly how many new workers would be needed remains unclear -- one independent estimate was 100,000, while the conservative Heritage Foundation said it is likely to be closer to a quarter-million.

Administration officials said they cannot determine overall hiring projections until the president's full budget is released this spring, but acknowledged that significant new hiring will occur.

"It is premature to be making any assumptions about overall federal employment levels," White House budget director Peter Orszag said. "We have no desire to bloat bureaucracy -- indeed, just the opposite -- and the budget will not do that."

But, he added, "in several key areas -- from properly auditing contracts to providing quality medical care to veterans and reducing errors in Medicare and other programs -- investing in skilled professionals will not only pay off over time but also immediately deliver better service to taxpayers."

Several major agencies said they are already making plans to grow their workforces, some significantly.

Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs, for instance, said they expect to hire more than 17,000 new employees by the end of the year, many at hospitals and other facilities to fulfill Obama's pledge to expand veterans' access to health care. The agency -- whose budget will grow by 11 percent, to $56 billion, under Obama's plan -- will add about 7,900 nurses, 3,300 doctors, 3,800 clerks and 2,400 practical nurses, spokeswoman Josephine Schuda said.

At the Social Security Administration, the budget will increase by 10 percent, to $11.6 billion, enabling the agency to hire new staff to handle backlogs on frontline operations, such as local field offices, hearing offices and teleservice centers, spokesman Mark Lassiter said.

Said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service: "This is obviously a new world. We've had a government that has been starved. . . . When you look at virtually every agency in government -- whether it's food inspectors at the Food and Drug Administration or claims examiners at the Social Security Administration -- across the board, we've had all too few people doing the business of government."

Between 1940 and 1970, the federal civilian workforce swelled from 707,000 to 2.1 million, according to government statistics provided by Stier. But ever since Ronald Reagan swept into the White House in 1981 with a call to decrease the government's footprint, presidents have limited the size of the workforce. Although President George W. Bush added tens of thousands of airport baggage screeners and other homeland security jobs, he offset much of that increase by limiting hiring at other agencies.

In reversing this trend, Obama would make himself politically vulnerable to charges that he is growing not just the power of government, but also its size. If the outside estimates are realized, Obama could spur a government hiring spree on a scale unseen since President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society agenda in the 1960s.

"What group of socialists got in the room and wrote this budget? Do they have any idea what the implications are?" asked Republican Newt Gingrich, who as House speaker in the 1990s advocated a shrinking of the government. "This is the most aggressive 180-degree turn that we have seen in the American system."

Obama, in his radio address Saturday, acknowledged that the budget signals "real and dramatic change" to the status quo in the federal city. "I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak," he said. "My message to them is this: So am I."

But the new president is "caught between a rock and a hard place," said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University. Obama inherited a federal workforce of about 2 million that Light described as woefully understaffed, especially to fulfill his bold domestic policy agenda. He predicted that Obama's budget and the $787 billion economic recovery package could require an additional 100,000 federal workers, but warned that the number may be even higher.

"I think that's just a start," Light said. "You kind of look across the federal landscape and you say there has to be more bodies with more expertise, as well as more bodies that can just deliver the basic services we've already promised."

At the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Center for Data Analysis estimated that Obama's budget and the stimulus bill could result in 230,000 to 260,000 new federal employees, primarily in areas such as education and health care.

"We found in the Obama plan that the increases in employment were overwhelmingly in the public sector," said William W. Beach, the center's director. "We haven't seen this much growth for a while."

Beach cautioned, however, that "any number of things can happen once these budgets become the subject of debate in Congress."

The Office of Management and Budget has not determined how Obama's budget would impact the federal workforce. Managers may reassign employees in some areas to more critical functions, such as overseeing or enforcing stimulus grants and contracts, OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer said.

"The federal workforce is going to undergo a fundamental transformation over the next decade as baby boomers who entered government service in the 1960s retire," Baer said. "Much of the human capital needs for new initiatives will be met by reorganizing, so as to reallocate positions left unfilled by retirements."

In some agency headquarters across Washington, the potential for expanding the federal workforce is the subject du jour. "It's being discussed in this building around every water cooler and cafeteria line there is," said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss budget plans.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents workers in 31 federal agencies, said the administration appears to be "rebuilding workforces that have not been properly maintained and supported."

At the Internal Revenue Service, she said, "there are hundreds of thousands more taxpayers today than there were 10 years ago, and there are 27,000 fewer employees."

At the Environmental Protection Agency, the employee base is expected to grow, but more modestly. The agency, which has about 17,000 employees, expects to add 100 to 200 positions, said a senior EPA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency's plans have not been made public.

"We have the authority to have additional folks, because we want to ensure proper oversight and management of these [stimulus] resources," the official said.

The EPA is being "cautious" about expanding the workforce because of the long-term costs associated with permanent employees, he said. "Not only are you paying for the people today," he said, "but you have to think about what are the implications for the future as well."

Attacked: First Ammendment, Second Ammendment . . . Anyone Counting Out There?

"Ammunition Accountability" Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture in a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers.

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

All eyes are diverted on talk radio topics, bailouts, television entertainments, news, propaganda, while state level legislatures are placing the second amendment into a grave.

This legislation is currently IN COMMITTEE in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." - Thomas Jefferson

My opinion is they had this current take over government in mind when they created the 2nd ammendment.


Saturday, March 7, 2009

Thriftiness, Economizing, Frugality . . Back in Style?

Cube-steak Americans vs. the Wagyu-beef White House
~~ Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 3/6/2009 9:25:00 AM

Maybe thrift isn't dead after all. The Year of the Bottomless Bailout has yielded a much needed correction in the lives of ordinary Americans. While fiscal restraint is AWOL in Washington, individual frugality has made a cultural comeback. Better late than never.

In large and small ways, we are cutting back. An online Zogby International survey this week reported that 70 percent of households are foregoing movies and restaurants. Forty percent of those polled said they were delaying the purchase of major items such as automobiles, home entertainment electronics or a computer; the same percent said they were giving up vacations. Notably, Reuters pointed out, "nearly 80 percent of younger adults, aged 18-29, said they have scaled back on going out, compared to 55 percent of people 65 years and older."

Pollster John Zogby called the results "depressing." I beg to differ. Out of necessity, a consumption-based society is learning to live within its means. For decades, government policies fueled that insatiable appetite -- and new government programs are desperately trying to preserve it. But the Obama administration's frantic efforts to encourage more brainless home buying, car buying and consumer borrowing aren't producing their desired results. Generational theft, it seems, has a silver lining.

The phenomenon is spreading beyond America's borders. London-based economic journalist Hamish McRae recently observed: "We may be on the cusp of a big socioeconomic shift. We have had half a century when the developed world has gradually moved away from regarding thrift as a virtue. It has moved at different speeds in different countries, faster in the U.S. and UK than in Germany or China....We have created the institutional structure that has supported this shift: from credit cards to collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The world has clearly reached a point where it can go no further down that road....The pendulum will swing back. How far and how fast we cannot tell, but we can be sure that debt will be regarded differently a generation from now."

President Obama, celebrated by his liberal media admirers for a miraculous ability to groove with the common man, hasn't yet caught on to the new age of individual austerity. As always, he talks a good game of "personal responsibility" and "sacrifice." But while penny-pinching Americans head to Sonic Drive-Ins for $1 everyday value meals or stay at home for cheap cube-steak dinners (sales of the inexpensive meat are up 10 percent), the White House serves up high-grade Wagyu beef to congressional revelers. The luxury item was on the menu for the bipartisan stimulus dinner in January, and was also served at the governors' dinner hosted at the White House two weeks ago. [Editor's note: The best-quality Wagyu beef can sell for as much as $100-$150 per pound.]

Team Obama's image experts, perhaps hung over from all the Camelot-re-creating Wednesday cocktail parties that are now a signature of the new administration, have fallen down on the job. The man who scolded Americans for wasting energy and turning their thermostats too high still hasn't lowered his own. "He's from Hawaii, OK?" senior adviser David Axelrod snickered to The New York Times in January. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

In flyover country, the mood could not be more different. Party time is over. I heard from a reader in northwest Arkansas, now upside down on her house with two college-age kids, who is preparing to tighten the family belt. President Obama, meet personal responsibility:

"We are ultimately responsible for the mess we are in. If my husband and I have to live in his pickup and get ready for work at the community gym, so be it. If we lose our jobs, we will move in with [my husband's] mother, and he will hunt and I will garden. We have never been on unemployment, welfare or other assistance. We are Americans. Our ancestors fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and his brother fought in Vietnam. Our family has faced tougher foes than this economy and Barack Obama. We will do as true Americans do; we will not whine, we will persevere."

Waste not, want not: Outside of Washington, it's the renewed American way.


Michelle Malkin ( is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild."

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies | Get the ONN RSS Feed | Contact Us

"OneNewsNow", "", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

Ever Wonder "Who Is John Galt?"

Well . . . here's a clue. For the full story, find out why Atlas Shrugged.

Nothing I could add would make this situation's urgency and potentially dire consequences more clear.


'Going Galt': America's wealth producers vs. wealth redistributors
~~ Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 3/4/2009 7:35:00 AM

Enough. In a word, that is the message of disgusted taxpayers fed up with the confiscatory policies of both parties in Washington. George Bush pre-socialized the economy with billion-dollar bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Barack Obama is pouring billions more down those sinkholes. It isn't just the camel's back that's broken. His neck and four legs have all snapped, too.

Enough. Last Friday, thousands of Americans turned out to protest reckless government spending in the pork-laden stimulus package, the earmark-clogged budget bill, the massive mortgage-entitlement program and taxpayer-funded corporate rescues. Contrary to false left-wing blog smears that the hastily planned impromptu events were "Astro-turfed," the crowds were packed with first-time grassroots activists. They were people with families and day jobs whose usual definition of "community organizing" involves neighborhood yard sales or their kids' soccer matches. They were members of the silent majority who decided to be silent no more.

Enough. These "Tea Party" protests spanned the sunny Santa Monica pier to the icy streets of Chicago and Cleveland to rain-drenched Atlanta, overflowing the grounds of the St. Louis Gateway Arch, with massive turnouts in Greenville, SC, and crowds of several hundred each in New York City and Washington, DC, and all points in between. Like those who demonstrated before them in Seattle, Denver, Mesa, AZ, and Overland Park, KS, two weeks ago, the Tea Party participants held homemade signs that said it all: "Your mortgage is not my problem"; "Liberty: All the stimulus we need"; "No taxation without deliberation."

The speed and scope with which they mobilized were due not to nefarious outside conspiracists, but to social networking websites Facebook and Twitter, where a burgeoning network on Twitter called Top Conservatives became the central clearinghouse for information. Planning for a new wave of demonstrations on April 15 has begun at

Enough. While they take to the streets politically, untold numbers of America's wealth producers are going on strike financially. Dr. Helen Smith, a Tennessee forensic psychologist and political blogger, dubbed the phenomenon "Going Galt" last fall. It's a reference to the famed Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged, in which protagonist John Galt leads the entrepreneurial class to cease productive activities in order to starve the government of revenue. (Not coincidentally, Rand's novel sales are up and John Galt references punctuated many of the Tea Party demonstrations.) Dr. Smith was inundated with stories like these:

"I have frozen hiring in my firm. … No investments will be made in taxable accounts -- only 401k/IRAs. I am buying silver and gold instead of CDs or stocks with non-qualified money and savings. I have stopped taking new clients, thus freezing my income. I barter more and more. Spend less. I stopped leveraging assets (don't borrow)."

"I have cut WAY back -- I'm no longer buying retail, driving out of a 10-mile radius, spending money on eating out or putting my money in a savings account. I am using the money to pay off all of our debt. It has made our family closer, more appreciative."

Another blogger wrote: "Last year my family paid nearly $1,000 a month in federal taxes, and we are not by any stretch of the imagination rich. I'm going to make it my business to cut that amount in half, using every legal means possible and reducing my income so there is less to tax."

Enough. Those business owners are not alone. This week, ABC News spotlighted upper-income earners going Galt in response to Obama's proposed tax hikes on families with incomes of $250,000 or more. A Lafayette, La., attorney told the reporter she was cutting back on her business to avoid the tax threshold: "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?" Tax hikes have consequences. Incentives matter. Only self-deluded wealth redistributors living in la-la land believe otherwise.

Another business owner, Dr. Sharon Poczatek, explained: "The motivation for a lot of people like me -- dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers -- is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."

The perpetual Borrow-Spend-Panic-Repeat machine in Washington depends on the capitulation of the wealth producers. There's only one monkey wrench that can stop the redistributionist thieves' engine. It's engraved with the word: Enough.


Tired: Many of us are, also, I'd say . . .

I'm Tired

~~ Robert A. Hall

I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to spread the wealth around to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to keep people in their homes.
Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left wing Congress critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.

Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a Religion of Peace, when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family honor; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't believers; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for adultery; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the QurĂ¯an and Sharia law tells them to.

I believe a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin. I'm tired of being told that race doesn't matter in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama, with three years as senator and no verifiable birth certificate, as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?

Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of tolerance for other cultures we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think gay people choose to be gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called undocumented workers, especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, undocumented pharmacists?

And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the Illinois combine of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were poor. The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Copyright Robert A. Hall. A Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Enemies List? First, Freedom of Speech, Next . . .?

Conservative Groups Declare Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer

A provision in the House-passed stimulus bill -- banning money to be used to renovate schools from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship" -- has ignited fury among those who claim it discriminates on the basis of faith and violates the right to free speech.

By Cristina Corbin,, Wednesday, February 04, 2009

The United States Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland, is one of two houses of worship on the grounds of the Navy's service academy (AP).

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

"What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.

"President Obama's version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative," said Staver, who believes Obama has "a completely different view on faith" from what he said during his presidential campaign.

"He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be," Staver said.

Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill's provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities -- a provision it says violates the right to free speech.

"The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning," said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

"We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that -- not punishing a college for permitting it," she said.

According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.

"Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself," Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told

"It's not frivolous to say there's a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction," he said.

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.

The White House said Wednesday that it plans to keep in place the basic structure of the faith-based initiative office established by former President George W. Bush.

Administration officials said the office is a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government, which allows federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.

And to the Republic for Which it Stands . . .

History repeats itself and has done so many times throughout the world's history.

We the People of the United States of America are at a crossroads. We are on the point of a needle and the balancing act is getting almost impossible to sustain. We are on the verge of allowing history -- not even our own history -- but the history of centuries' old countries to repeat itself. Instead of looking at the world's history for knowledge and understanding, those who have touted "change" as their way of deception are on the point of bringing back the worst elements of world governments, while attempting to destroy what has taken centuries to create as the light of the New World.

At the rate our "government of change" is going, our government will ultimately be obliterated from the face of the earth and we will once again be merely one of hundreds of countries in the world to have been ruled by despots.

The greater majority of our elected officials have clearly forgotten their history lessons. The greater majority of those who voted for "change" and nothing more in November 2008, should do themselves the favor of taking a refresher in not only world history, but in the history of our (soon to be formerly?) great country.

All Americans who love and appreciate this country for what it was meant to be . . . and who want to keep her to that intent should watch this video, and spread it far and wide. Hopefully, many of those deluded by the "change" mongers will come to understand and see the inherent dangers of that with which they are tempted.


We Want AMERICA to Succeed -- NOT Mr. Obama's Plans to "Change" America

Obama at War With America
By: Scott Wheeler

Obama has declared war on America.

He says he is gearing up to fight anyone who disagrees with him, and he has singled some of us out by name: Joe the plumber, Rick Santelli and of course the mightiest voice among us, Rush Limbaugh.

Rush, as the Democrats tell it, is the leader of Republicans. The Democrats say this because they need to attach a face to represent the patriotic Americans that they are planning to attack.

The Obama administration and the Democrats keep repeating Rush's line that he wants Obama to fail, and they say that nothing could be more un-American than to root for Obama to fail.

Well there are a great many things more un-American than wanting Obama to fail — Democrats rooting for the United States to fail in the war on terrorism, for example. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in April 2007, “This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything”; and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced to the world that we had lost in Iraq, and we should bring the troops home in defeat, empowering our enemies to kill more American soldiers.

Why did they make these inflammatory statements?

They did so for selfish reasons. Undermining the war effort and dividing the nation provided them with an opportunity to win more seats in the House and Senate and win back the White House.

That is far more un-American than anything anyone has said about Obama.

The truth is, nobody hopes Obama fails; but many of us are rooting for America's survival as a free and prosperous nation and that means blocking Obama's agenda everywhere we can.

What is striking about this is that while Obama has declared war on his fellow Americans at home, he is attempting to establish friendly relations with some of the worst people in the world — anti-American dictators and self proclaimed enemies of the United States. {MCzwz emphasis.}

Perhaps voters should have noticed when so many of our nation's enemies were supporting Obama during the presidential campaign. Hamas leaders endorsed him, as did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and others.

Obama says he wants talks with the Iranian leader and even the terrorist group Hamas, while savaging patriotic Americans.

“I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak,” Obama said in his weekly radio address.

He's right — we are gearing up for a fight.

(I am) WE are not ready to surrender the greatest nation in the history of the world to a tim pan tyrant who never outgrew his adolescent communist stage. {MCzwz emphasis}

“The old way of doing business” as Obama puts it, is the American way, and it has lead to more prosperity than any other “way” and provided more opportunity and economic freedom than the world has ever seen.

That “old way” of limited government and free enterprise however, is an impediment to Obama's aggressive socialist agenda and so he declares that he is going to fight us. Obama is fine with burning the bridge of prosperity behind him because he has his wealth, but he didn't earn it the “old way” — he got his the easy way, by trading favors from his public office for private ones and using his elected office to sell books about himself.

If he had gotten it the hard way, like many of the people he plans to take from, he would have too much respect for their work ethic to take from them their resources to buy votes that increase his power and his lot.

Maybe he should try his “new way” with some of the former Soviet Republics, who in the 1990s, broke free from the chains of tyranny. He would have a hard time selling his views to get them to trade their new economic freedom for his promises of government-sponsored security.

They have been down that road before.

Obama has fired a shot at those of us who oppose his onerous socialistic policies by characterizing our dissent as preparing for battle. he warns us, “My message to them is this: So am I.”

[My] OUR message to Obama is this — Mr. President why don't you stand up to those who hate America instead of declaring war on those of us who love it?

Scott Wheeler is executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC (, the nation's third-largest political action committee.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

We ARE Being Assimilated . . .

The more one looks about to see what is going on in the country overall, as a result of the choices by the majority of We the People in November 2008, the more frightening the landscape becomes.

The primary target of this new administration has become abundantly clear: Freedom of Speech. It goes without saying that the average Man on the Street has yet to realize this.

It is sad, though, that this does "go without saying." The result of the November 2008 elections do support the premise that the average Man on the Street has become more fundamentally ignorant of realities and become even more oblivious and sheeplike in the desire to be 'taken care of' by, it appears, anyone who allows them to be "free."

What will -- hopefully sooner than later -- hit them right between the eyes is that the 'freedoms' touted by liberals reflect only those that they feel should be had -- and only by those they feel should have them.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, conservative talk radio, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and many other conservative or conservative-leaning voices are already being targeted for silencing: the "Fairness" Doctrine still hovers in the background. In the meantime, Freedom of Speech is steadily being rescinded from many of We the People, quietly, without fanfare, stealthily, and devastatingly.

Copyright Mczwz. March 2009. All Rights Reserved.


Illinois AG defends 'Moment of Silence'

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/7/2009 4:15:00 AM

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is appealing a federal court ruling barring the state's Moment of Silence statute for public schools.

In the initial negative ruling, the judge struck down the Moment of Silence law, saying it promoted religion -- although the law calls for meditation and general reflection. Laurie Higgins, the director of the division of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, disagrees with the judge's verdict.

"And so he made this case, which I think was silly, was that if their silent thoughts were about a professional sporting event or a family vacation -- and these are his words -- it would appear to violate the stated intent of the statute," she notes.

Higgins believes the ruling reflects hostility towards religion. "In many schools, particularly high schools, they have a moment of silence to honor fallen soldiers," she points out. "No one ever suggests that during this moment of silence, because some students might be thinking about the movie they saw last weekend, that some principle is violated because of their wandering thoughts."

Similar laws in other states have been upheld in the courts.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies | Get the ONN RSS Feed | Contact Us

"OneNewsNow", "", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

More Change . . . I Did Not Vote For

More "change" towards supposed "liberal" ways of doing things, always touted as 'open-minded,' 'accepting,' 'generous,' and 'broadminded,' remember?

The 'liberals' and the democrats have built their entire careers, their entire lives on the supposed premise they claim to represent: that they alone believe in, and support, civil rights for all.

The number of We the People included in this particular for all, when expressed by a liberal, greatly shrinks in number. It always becomes clearer and clearer, when those of different and/or opposite points of view wish to exercise their right of Freedom of Speech, that the so-called right extends only to those who are considered to be right-thinking.

Apparently, not too many of We the People are included in this right-thinking group to whom certain inalienable rights are bestowed, especially, it appears, when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

Copright 2009. Mczwz, All Rights Reserved.


College accused of religious discrimination
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/2/2009 6:00:00 AM

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a federal lawsuit against Broome Community College in New York for violating a church's First Amendment rights.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Daniel Blomberg explains that his client North Pointe Church had been holding meetings on the college campus for several months.

"The college kicked them out and they are a religious organization. That's it," he explains. "They have a policy that says we don't allow churches to meet here, so we're not letting you meet here."

Blomberg believes the policy clashes with the constitution because college officials have a different policy towards non-religious groups. "They rent their facilities out regularly to all sorts of groups. They advertise as a great place to bring your conference or meeting, trade show," he notes, "and then when a church comes to hold a service, they kick them out."

ADF tried to settle the case without a lawsuit, but could never get a response from school officials.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies | Get the ONN RSS Feed | Contact Us

"OneNewsNow", "", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

Permission Needed to Exercise Our Right of Free Speech?

Since when is it necessary for an individual in this country to ask anyone for permission to express ourselves? Outside certain situations, in a classroom, during a formal meeting, or other similar venues, individuals are generally not required to request permission to express themselves . . . or, are they?

It would appear that in the "changed" environment in which we now live, we are brought face-to-face with the true meaning of "liberalism," "free speech," and "civil rights," as defined by the changemongers who have brought us to this point.

Many, many voices have been raised in recent weeks expressing surprise, shock, even disgust at what the results of November 4, 2008 have brought. Strangely -- ironically -- enough, many of those voices belong to those whose choice on that fateful day brought us here today.

Some of those voices, I will admit, are sincerely shocked at the results of their choice for change. Some of those voices, I will admit, were sincere in their desire to bring about the "historic change" supposedly exemplified by the democratic candidate for president. Some of those voices have expressed consternation, confusion, and, in many instances, pure dismay as the realizations have started to "come home to roost."

The realizations of what the choice for change has brought is more than regretful or ironic. It is frightening. I pray that those whose votes have brought us to this point are awakening from their haze of "history" and are startig to realize that we must all band together to stop the "change" from destroying our country as we know it.

The article below is an excellent example of the depth of hypocrisy to which the 'liberal' mentality has dropped. This article makes their meaning, intent, and definitions imminently clear: the "freedoms" for which the greater majority of the 'liberal' core have persistently screamed over the years is to be 'given' only to those whose mentality and opinions reflect their own. In other words, once assimilated one is "free."

I refuse to be assimilated and will stand on my rights to speak out against the attempts to destroy this country. The article below clearly describes a blatant intent to destroy one of the most important foundational aspects of our country.

We must stand against it.

Copyright MCzwz. 2009. All Rights Reserved.


Student's rights stripped at public university
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/7/2009 4:20:00 AM

A Christian college student and his three friends are asking a federal court to protect their rights to share the gospel on the campus of Southeastern Louisiana University.

Attorney Jonathan Scruggs of Alliance Defense Fund is representing Jeremy Sonnier. He tells OneNewsNow Sonnier was stopped by campus officials and informed he must meet certain requirements to engage in free speech.

"He had to provide seven days advance notice before he could speak. He had to disclose a variety of personal information, including his social security number [and] the purpose of his speech," Scruggs notes. "And even once that was over, he could only speak for two hours once a week, and a fee could be imposed on them."

A federal judge this week refused to grant a temporary restraining order against the school pending outcome of the case. "So at this point we are contemplating where to go forward -- if we want to go for it at the district court level or even potentially appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Both options are available to us," Scruggs adds.

But the attorney vows the lawsuit will be pursued until Sonnier has his First Amendment rights restored.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved. Policies | Get the ONN RSS Feed | Contact Us

"OneNewsNow", "", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Senate bars FCC from revisiting 'Fairness Doctrine'

WASHINGTON - The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was in part a response to conservative radio talk-show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.

President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

~~ Jim Abrams - Associated Press Writer - 2/26/2009 2:35:00 PM,


MCzwz Thinks:

As Rush has often said, regardless of Mr. Obama's stated "intentions," we cannot count on a single promise made in order to ensure his election in November.

One of the most disturbing was his campaign's statements about reimposing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." By this time, none but the most oblivious or willfully self-deluded can possibly believe that this "doctrine" is anything more than an underhanded, misdirection of an opportunity to impose censorship on those whose opinions do not meet the Democrat/Liberal's approval.

The attempt is typically liberal: both underhanded (supposed "fairness") and blatant in its misdirection of intent ("doctrine").

Why on earth should We the People be denied our choice of entertainment, for which we often pay additional charges (i.e., cable) because we choose to have a source that will provide us what we wish to listen to? Why should we -- or anyone else -- be forced to listen to or watch programming in which there is no interest nor desire to hear the message being given?

Why should I -- Conservative, Republican -- be forced to watch insipidness disguised as "news" as presented by CNN, MSNBC, etc., only because the liberal agenda has never gained a broad enough audience to support liberal TV or talk radio?? (Could this reflect a modicum of sense in liberals in general, in spite of themselves?!)

Is that not, in itself, clear enough of a message to the Liberal Agenda-makers: "There is not enough of a broad-based audience for your so-called "message" regardless the numbers who claim to be in agreement with you." At least, there certainly are not enough "true believers" who wish to put their money where their mouths are in order to support liberal programming by paying for advertising.

Geeze . . . I wonder why?!?

Since the Liberal Agenda makers recognize their lack of broad-based support, they wish to "level the playing field" of course by, as they interpret the term, merely destroying, or otherwise getting rid of, any possible opposition.

Any thinking person would recognize that each side -- liberal or conservative -- should win or lose on merit and merit alone. Liberals can't seem to abide by that definition of fairness, it appears. They, of course, would rather legislate fairness, much as they prefer to legislate everything else they want people to believe, accept, or, to chose, for a "change."

We should be infinitely grateful that there are elements in Congress who still retain the nerve and intestinal fortitude to stand up against gross power grabs -- and intentional destruction of a fundamental Constitutional right -- such as this "doctrine."

Let us all pray their strength and fortitude lasts at least for the next two years.

Copyright March 2009, MCzwz. All Rights Reserved.

Funny . . . or Too Sad for Words?

An Indian walks in, dragging a buffalo behind him, and says, 'Want coffee.'

The waiter says, 'Sure, Chief. Coming right up.'

He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee.

The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere and then just walks out.

The next morning the Indian returns.

He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other.
He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter,

'Want coffee.'

The waiter says 'Whoa, Tonto! We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday.
What was all that about, anyway?'

The Indian smiles and proudly says,

"I Training for position in United States Congress: Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day."

~~ Source Unknown


MCzwz Thinks:

Sound familiar . . .? If you recognize this as basically a "Day in the Life" of a great many of our elected representatives, we must take responsibility and be much, much more careful when we exercise one of our greatest freedoms as Americans: our Vote.

I would suggest to the 54% whose choice landed us in the debacle in which we currently find ourselves that they start studying the candidates and their positions now -- or, better yet -- please burn your voter's registration cards in an attempt to help save the future of our Country.

As we approach full-fledged socialism -- the first (and only) step before Communism -- do you feel your freedoms slipping away and your taxes going higher and higher and higher to pay for less and less services available to the average Joe ??

Doctors vs Gun Owners


(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.


Now think about this:


(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI


So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.


Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'




Please alert everyone to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!


Out of concern for the public at large, statistics on lawyers have been withheld
for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical help.

Great Quote With a Great Truth

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them,

and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,

that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers ~~


MCzwz Thinks:

Every item listed above has been implemented in the last few weeks since the inauguration of Mr Obama and the Democratic majority. I have not the smallest doubt that they are all aware of every warning presented above.

Mr. Obama and his supporters (in the Congress, the Press, and in a great portion of the Public) have purposely chosen to ignore these warnings because their only intent is to establish -- and retain -- power and control in a way the Democrats and the liberals have not had in a very long time.

They have no interest in saving our Country or maintaining the core philosophies on which she has been built. The core philosophies of a Republic are anethema to the mentality exemplified by Nancy Pelosi (who wants to "save the world!"), Reid, Kennedy, et al.

Their goal is simple -- control the future of this country by bankrupting her (economically and morally) and, by immediate extension, control every citizen of this country through "programs" and "initiatives" presented under the guise of "saving" our Country from complete annihilation.

Every thinking person -- whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, or simply Oblivious, should be extremely afraid of what the future of our country will be if We the People do not vote these people (specifically, the current Congress) out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.

If we miss the opportunity to do so in 2010, there will be nothing left to save in 2012.

Copyright MCzwz. March 2009. All Rights Reserved.