Saturday, May 23, 2009

Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money

Ann Coulter always says it so much better than I!  Read on and be edified, if not at least informed. . .


You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)

They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!

Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.

Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?

Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.

That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.

But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.

But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?

Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.

His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.

Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.

Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."

Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:

  • Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
  • And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
  • And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
  • And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
  • And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.

And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.

After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.

Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.

The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Click here to learn more.

Sincerely,

Ann Coulter

Plain Ole Socialism is Starting to Look Good . . .

Many Conservatives (and Republicans and maybe even some Democrats) were extremely concerned throughout Mr. Obama's 2 year campaign to reach the high office of President of the United States of America for the "simple" reason that it was very clear to many that the road Mr. Obama would travel and have our Country follow would lead nowhere but to self-destruction through Socialism. 

As has become painfully clear in the very first months of Mr. Obama's reign, the fear of Socialism was the least of our concerns.  Little could anyone have known -- despite his writings and expressed philosophies and opinions -- that Mr. Obama's government would jump right over Socialism to land directly into Neo-nazism.

The government put in place, rather, in the process of being put in place showed its true colors fairly quickly; the colors have merely gotten truer and truer . . . and they are not the true colors of the Republic of the United States of America.

What is even more frightening to me is that not too many of We the People are reacting; too many of We the People are maintaining the complacency which has brought us to this frightening moment.  Above all other frightening aspects, too many of We the People simply do not seem to care!  Not only are We the People fighting the ever-tightening noose and the ever-closer encroachment of government, but we have the ever-present danger of the small-minded ignorant with which to contend -- also in government, also in positions of power!  And too many of We the People do not seem to care.

It has become more and more apparent as the first weeks of Mr. Obama's reign roll by that the majority of We the People have truly been bought by the change promised by Mr. Obama.  Unfortunately, not enough of We the People have yet noticed that the "paid for" part of the equation is a bill from which we will not receive any change other than that which will end our Country as we know The Republic of the United States of America to be.

An excellent example of the type of "change" that has begun is reported in Townhall.com.   As an aside . . . a significant question would be to ask how many of the so-called "mainstream media" had the honesty to report this?  Should any of We the People still have any doubts about Mr. Obama's governments intent -- or should any be working very hard (with the ubiquitous assistance of the so-called Mainstream Media) to keep their heads in the sand, perhaps these recent developments will bring clarity as well as fear to their thoughts.

Copyright MCzwz, May 2009. All Rights Reserved.

============================================================

From a Townhall.com Urgent Report:

A customer service representative at The Patriot Depot . . . received a call from Rosemary in Ball, Louisiana alerting him that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker from The Patriot Depot and displayed it on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.” Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration. But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election.

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion. Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse. They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Sunday, April 26, 2009

"Non-judgemental"? "Open-minded"? "Accepting"? Humbug!

For many years, those of us of the more Republican, Conservative, or even the simply "non-mainstream" thought processes have been deemed to be "judgmental," "cold-hearted," and "uncaring" because of our opinions.  (No contraction there, right? It appears to always have been completely acceptable to be judged by those self-proclaimed non-judgemental.  After all, the left simply expresses an "opinion!")

Since the taking of control by the left, the "opinions" have reached depths of ugliness and hatred not seen so overtly in this country since the height of the Viet Nam war, in my opinion.  The source of all this, strangely enough, comes from those who always scream the loudest in their demands for "acceptance," "open-mindedness" and that much touted "tolerance" of the liberal ideal.

Is this truly "strange," however?  I think not.  The intolerance of the so-called "most tolerant" has always been clear, has always been one of the most easily perceived aspects of their "truths."  Any who may have wanted to try to maintain a sense of fairnness toward those so-called "non-judgemental" groups need only look at the reactions spewing from that quarter to understand their meaning of "acceptance."

Can it be made more clear that those much aclaimed virtues are only to be applied to those who not only accept the liberal perspective, fully and unquestioningly, but also only to those who do not dare to attempt to express any opinion of their own?

Thanks to those whose blindness voted in November 2008, We the People are watching the death of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights, of the United States of America herself, and, ultimately, of the Individual.

~~ MCzwz
April 2009, All rights reserved.

============================================================

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist, expresses this issue much more cogently than I . . .

They told us if Barack Obama were elected, the nation would come together. Souls would be fixed. Spirits would be healed. Public discourse would be elevated. Welcome to civility and tolerance in the Age of Obama:

Celebrity leech/trash blogger Perez Hilton took to the Internet and TV airwaves to humiliate a beauty pageant contestant who gave what he considered an "offensive" answer about gay marriage. Hilton, inexplicably serving as a judge for the Miss USA contest, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she supported the legalization of gay marriage. Prejean respectfully answered: "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." President Obama, by the way, defines marriage the same way Prejean does. (See related article)

No matter. Hilton immediately lambasted Prejean as a "dumb b****" in a viral YouTube video he taped after the pageant Sunday night. He apologized the next morning for the attack, then retracted his apology, then escalated his divisive rhetoric. On Tuesday afternoon, Hilton told an MSNBC female anchor that he was thinking of an even more vulgar epithet -- the "c-word" -- as he listened to Prejean's answer. The female anchor said nothing. Basking in his new role as thought and speech enforcer, Hilton told CNN's Larry King that beauty pageant contestants must bow to the tolerance mob: "Yes. I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct."

And apparently, the Miss USA organizers agree. Instead of apologizing for Hilton's vile behavior, the pageant director of the Miss California contest, Keith Lewis, sent a note to Hilton throwing Prejean under the bus: "I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman....Religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."

But gutter profanity and misogyny do?

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last week, former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo came to speak against legislative proposals to provide illegal alien students in-state tuition discounts not available to law-abiding Americans and legal immigrant students. Protesters at the institution of higher learning responded by blocking Tancredo with massive banners and screaming, "No dialogue with hate!" Adults in the room stood by while students smashed a window a few feet from where Tancredo stood. Physically threatened, Tancredo was forced to leave without delivering his remarks. (See related article)

According to campus reports, for a week leftists had prepared to mount a speech-squelching demonstration. The same thuggish tactics have been used at Columbia University, Georgetown University, and Michigan State University to shut down speakers who support strict immigration enforcement. The UNC administration apologized for the students' tantrum, but took no steps to examine its own culpability for fostering a climate of intellectual vandalism and intolerance.

The nightly airwaves turned into a soft-porn cesspool last week as liberal journalists derided and slimed hundreds of thousands of TEA Party protesters across the country who oppose reckless taxing and spending by both major political parties. Award-winning CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, mimicking his bottom-of-the-barrel competitors at MSNBC, smugly indulged in sexual puns about "teabagging." MSNBC devoted the entire week to sophomoric sexual slang and innuendo with references to "nuts," Dick Armey, and "full-throated" protesters. (See related article)

And White House adviser David Axelrod calls the TEA Party folks "unhealthy"?

Speaking of unhealthy, angry white liberal actress Janeane Garofalo venomously played the race card: "It's about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks." The theme was echoed by Jeffrey Kimball, a professor emeritus of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who castigated the "extreme right" for organizing against Obama because "he's black and he's liberal."

Tell that to the thousands of activists in South Carolina who practically booed and heckled white Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett off the stage at a TEA Party in Greenville last Friday night for supporting the trillion-dollar TARP and embracing the pork-laden stimulus law after voting against it. "Go home!" they shouted. The only color that mattered to protesters: the red ink of government debts.

But in the Age of Obama, there's no room for such nuance and inconvenient truths. A decent young woman is a "dumb b****" for holding the same view of marriage as the Obamessiah. A conservative campus speaker is bullied as a hatemonger by wild-eyed hatemongers. A grassroots movement is debased as a bunch of racist vulgarians by a media mob of racists and vulgarians. Civility and tolerance have taken a left-hand turn down a one-way street. So much for changing course.


- 4/22/2009 10:00:00 AM
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

School choice for me...but not for you

More Liberal "Fairness?" 


Is this how the liberals show their vaunted concern and caring about children and education .  . or .  . is this an expert political group (the Teachers' Unions, NEA, et al. in action, being "repaid" for being one of the most vocal supporters, one of the strongest union groups who, in essence, gave the liberals the White House?

Since Mr. Obama is beholden to them, (as he is to ACORN, the Hollywood elite, the gay activist crowd, and so many other "special groups,") we should not be -- and some of us are not -- surprised that Mr. Obama is so quickly sending off the "Thank you" cards.

Not only is the irony so excruciatingly painful when one considers the utter hypocrisy of this issue, it merely becomes more grossly overwhelming when one remembers the double-talk by Mr. Obama about the school his children were to attend once in DC.  During the campaign, the "man of the people" would enroll his children in public school, of course ... as one of "the people."

The truth?   His children attend Sidwell Friends, one of the most exclusive schools in DC.  He can afford it; never mind those who can't.  (Also, let's all nevermind what Mr. Obama was supposedly to represent via his "change" mantra . . .)

~~  MCzwz
===============================================================

When it comes to school choice, one organization says Capitol Hill lawmakers are "do as I say, not as I do."

Lindsey Burke, a research assistant with The Heritage Foundation, explains that every other [year] her organization releases a report on Congress and school choice.

"This year's survey revealed that many members of Congress are, in fact, exercising private school choice for their children," says Burke -- and it is not just a few who are doing so. "Forty-four percent of senators and 36 percent of representatives have at some point sent a child to private school," she continues. "So overall it's about 38 percent total members of Congress had exercised private school choice."

Burke, who is a former public school teacher, says she has no problem with school choice, but finds it ironic that so many members of Congress exercise that option while at the same time squashing a school-choice program in their own backyard -- the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

"This has been a great program that has allowed 1,700 low-income children in [the District of Columbia] to escape the failing and often unsafe public schools in the district and go to a private school," Burke states.

Congress voted to allow the funding for the program to expire at the end of this school year. But Burke says the program has strong bipartisan support in the DC area, and she remains hopeful it can be revived.


-- Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 4/23/2009 5:00:00 AM

Access to Education is Only for Some?

One has to wonder . . . why is it "fair," in the lexicon of some, that children who have not had the opportunities to attend "good" schools before, but were able to do so through the school voucher program are suddenly precluded from doing so?

Under the auspices of the very ones who claim to care so much about "children," "education," and "our future" a large group of children are now prohibited from attending "better" schools through the destruction of the very program that was to have helped.

Is this really the "change" people who voted for Mr. Obama last year thought they were getting? I do not believe anyone who voted for Mr. Obama really thought he would go this far . . . though it was clear in his words, his expressed philosophies, and his own history that this was his (and his cohorts') ultimate goal.

I am sure many of you will agree that education and helping young people get ready, through acquiring knowledge and education, to face the future and to better themselves is not a political issue -- at least, it should not be.

It has, however, become exactly that, more than ever before: a thoroughly political issue.

The destruction of the voucher program is just that: destroying the opportunity for a group of folks who were to be the very ones helped, supported, and ultimately built up through access to greater educational options.

Those who are sincere in wanting to keep our country true to its founding principles and intent must work to stop such insidious "change."

This type of "change" is not good for our country now or in the future.



Copyuright MCzwz, 2009.  All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Resurgence of Self-Sufficiency?

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'


She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy go over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'
 
 
~~ Source Unknown

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Republicans have shown themselves to be disappointly malleable and insubstantial, much to the disgust and fear of those of us who are Conservative.

There are, in spite of (hopeful) claims to the contrary, plenty of Conservatives and Republicans left -- thank God.

All we have to do is get ourselves back on our feet and start to fend of the wild liberalism that has been voted into our government.

The GOP response budget was cobbled together pretty much at the last minute to show there was a GOP "alternative" in response to liberals' accusations of presenting no ideas.

That is not the way to go about presenting alternative ideas.

We the People who fear what this is bringing on must pull ourselves together, fight down our fears and fight for the good and the future of our country.

We must work hard to field strong candidates locally, statewide, and nationally to put the reins on this unbridled liberalism threatening out country.

Do we really want our entire country to replicate Calififornia, Washington State, and Oregon at best and San Francisco at worst?

If the answer to that is the resounding "NO!" I hope it is throughout the Conservative and Republican core of our Country, then we must stop feeling sorry for ourselves, stop blaming President Bush (because there was a Congress passing laws then, too) and start taking responsibility for ourselves as We the People and make the necessary changes in our leadership the next opportunity we have: 2010.

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.



http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.asp
 

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!

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK
  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

R.I.P.?

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:

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

"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.

From: PATRIOT NETWORK EMERGENCY ALERT 012709

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.



COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.










Michelle Malkin (malkinblog@gmail.com) is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild."



Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com 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, OneNewsNow.com, 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", "OneNewsNow.com", 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 TaxDayTeaParty.com.

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.



COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

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, FOXNews.com, 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 FOXNews.com.

"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.