Right Thinking

Democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana Abuse the Democratic Process

2011-02-22T15:45:00.000-05:00

Last week Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate went AWOL to prevent a vote on a bill that they saw as anti-union. Without the Democrats’ presence, the vote could not take place because the 19 Senate Republicans would be one short of the 20 Senators needed for a quorum.

Wisconsin state police were trying to find the missing legislators, but their jurisdiction ends at the state line, and the missing Democrats reportedly had fled to Illinois, just out of reach of the Wisconsin police.

This week in Indianapolis, 38 of the 40 Indiana House Democrats were missing in action. The two who remained were there to make and second any motion on procedural actions the Democrats might want to make. However, with 38 Democrats missing, the House was left with only 58 representatives present, far short of the 67 needed for a quorum and a vote on a right to work bill which is opposed by the unions. Just as in Wisconsin, the possibility of dispatching state police to bring the lawmakers back to the capital has been raised; however, again just like in Wisconsin, the missing Democrats are thought to have fled the state.

So is this the way our government now operates? If one side doesn’t like a bill, it simply refuses to show up for the vote, preventing the vote altogether? I was always under the impression that the voters got to decide the issues by electing representatives to do just that: to represent us. The side that won the election got to win on the issues.

Apparently, that’s no longer the case. Now the side that loses the election simply obstructs the process by fleeing the state like fugitives from the law rather than staying and doing their jobs as lawmakers.

No matter which side of the specific issues we support, this affront to the democratic process should be concerning to all.

Bosma Misinterprets the Voters' Message in Indiana

2010-11-19T19:28:00.001-05:00

Earlier this month, Indiana voters, along with voters in nearly every other state, gave the power to run government back to Republicans.

Earlier this week, new Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma gave some of that power back to Democrats by appointing two Democrats to committee chairmanships.

Bosma indicated that he believed voters had sent the message, "You've got to do it better. You have to end the partisan bickering. You have to end the overreaching and work together."

He then announced, apparently in the spirit of bipartisanship, that he was appointing Rep. Chet Dobis, D-Merrillville, to head a new committee charged with finding ways to cut government regulations, boards, and commissions; and Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, to head the committee on commerce, small business, and economic development.

I’ll disregard for now the irony of appointing Democrats to be responsible for tasks such as cutting government size and developing small business. What really concerns me, though, is Bosma’s interpretation of the election results.

Voters did not give Republicans control so that they could then hand power back to Democrats. We did not give Republicans control because we’re interested in bipartisanship. We gave Republicans control because we’re tired of the liberal policies of the Democrat Party. We gave Republicans control because we want conservatives writing and passing conservative legislation.

Does Brian Bosma really believe that this gesture of bipartisanship will be reciprocated by the Democrats? In 1775 Patrick Henry was addressing the Virginia Convention, arguing the need to prepare for war against Great Britain. Some of those in attendance were of the belief that reconciliation with the British was still possible. To those, Henry said this: “I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.” Let me modify Henry’s statement to say, “I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Democrat Party for the last ten years to justify those hopes for bipartisanship with which Republicans have been pleased to solace themselves.”

Democrats have not shown themselves willing to work with Republicans. Their idea of bipartisanship is Republicans moving to the left. Bosma’s gesture of goodwill in appointing Democrats to head two committees has already been met with scorn from House Minority Leader Pat Bauer, D- South Bend. Bauer called the move “an olive branch with thorns” and suggested that it was really a contrivance designed to make Democrats share in criticism that could result from difficult fiscal decisions that will need to be made. Bauer also expressed the sentiment that he, not Bosma, should have selected the chairmen from the Democrat caucus. He even made the contemptuous comment that Bosma apparently didn't think any Republicans were up to the job of handling economic development.

What will it take for Republicans to learn that Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship? What will it take for Republicans to learn that the voters who put them in power are not interested in them giving that power away? On November 2nd the people spoke loudly and clearly. The message to the Democrats was that we didn’t like the direction our state and our country were headed, and that we were holding them responsible. Republicans should have no doubt that voters will likewise hold them responsible if they do not govern as we have elected them to do. Representative Bosma needs to rethink his understanding of the message the voters have sent.

Just One Battle

2010-11-05T15:30:00.002-04:00

Conservatives are in the midst of a tremendous struggle. We’re in the heart of a struggle to restore our county to its founding values of freedom, opportunity, and independence; we’re fighting to reestablish in our country respect for life, integrity, and hard work. We seek to resurrect the principles of personal responsibility and limited government. Some have characterized this struggle as the second American Revolution.

In the spring of 2009, the Tea Party was born. The name is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already,” but you can’t hear the words Tea Party without also thinking of the original Boston Tea Party that took place in 1773. And just as the Boston Tea Party helped to spur the first American Revolution, the current Tea Party is helping to spur the second one.

This revolution is not being fought with muskets and cannons, but with ideas and education. The battlegrounds are not the open fields, but the polling places. And Tuesday’s election was the end of one battle.

This battle was won by the conservative movement, or at least by Republicans who overwhelmingly took control of the U.S. House of Representatives, made significant gains in the Senate, and turned numerous gubernatorial offices and state legislatures from blue to red. Among those winners are many notable conservatives such as Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, and Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Many lesser known conservatives recorded equally important victories across the country as well, including people like Todd Young here in Indiana, who defeated Democrat incumbent Baron Hill in the 9th district.

For all the victories, however, conservatives also suffered some casualties. One incredibly disappointing loss was in Indiana’s 2nd Congressional district where Jackie Walorski lost a tight race to two-term incumbent Democrat Joe Donnelly. Out of nearly 190,000 votes cast, Walorski finished just 2,500 votes short. Jackie is a great conservative, ran a tremendous campaign, and came close. But it’s still a loss.

Across the country conservatives suffered other disappointing defeats as well, including Christine O’Donnell’s loss in Delaware, and Carly Fiorina’s and Meg Whitman’s losses in California. Perhaps the most disappointing defeat of all was Sharron Angle’s inability to oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

One battle is finished, and conservatives can declare a victory. But it’s just one battle. The war is far from over. This is no time to celebrate. It’s time, instead, to begin holding accountable our newly elected leaders. It’s time to begin preparing for the next great battle, the one that will take place in November 2012. It’s time to put all elected officials on notice: Represent the American people, or we’ll find someone who will.

Ron Herrell is running a Deceitful Campaign in the Race for Indiana's District 30 State Representative

2010-10-28T10:15:00.003-04:00

Ron Herrell is a candidate who is desperate to keep his seat. He’s so desperate, in fact, that he has resorted to deceiving the very voters that he hopes will trust him as their representative.

Herrell’s recent ad campaign refers to his opponent Mike Karickhoff as “Tax-Hike Mike” and criticizes Karickhoff for raising taxes on his constituents while voting to give himself a taxpayer-funded pay raise. What Herrell’s ads don’t tell us amounts to nothing less than deceit by omission.

The tax increase that Herrell claims Karickhoff voted for was the Local Option Income Tax (LOIT), designed to help replace revenue lost as a result of the property tax reduction.

Harrell’s criticism of Karickhoff’s LOIT vote is not only deceiving, it’s blatantly hypocritical. At the same Kokomo City Council meeting where Mike Karickhoff cast this vote, Herrell himself spoke in favor the LOIT, and the measure passed unanimously.

Herrell’s campaign also states that Karickhoff gave himself a taxpayer funded pay raise. Again, Harrell is attempting to deceive the voters by not mentioning that Karickhoff voted to rescind all Council pay raises before they ever took effect.

Ron Herrell is running a deceitful and hypocritical campaign. If he can’t be trusted to run an honest campaign, he can’t be trusted as District 30’s representative.

Jackie Walorski - Who Indiana Needs in the 2nd District!

2010-10-27T21:26:00.008-04:00

     In 1965 singer Barry McGuire recorded “Eve of Destruction,” a protest song that made it to the top of the Billboard charts. The refrain is appropriate today:

                                 And you tell me
                                 Over and over and over again, my friend
                                 Ah, you don't believe
                                 We're on the eve of destruction.

     As you might expect from the 1960s, this song was a protest against the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons, and racism; and to be honest, I don’t believe that today we’re on the eve of destruction because of any of those things.
     The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the larger war on terror are serious and dangerous situations, but because of those men and women who fight these wars, terrorists, whether they’re fighting us in Afghanistan or Iraq or on commercial airliners, will never destroy the United States of America.
     Nuclear weapons continue to exist and continue to be very dangerous, but thanks in large part to the vision and leadership Ronald Reagan, advanced nations today are able to work together and to focus most our attention on preventing these weapons from falling into the hands of rogue leaders and organizations, instead having to worry as much about each other.
     Racism also continues to exist. There are still individuals who hold on to racist ideas, and there are those who try to use racism to advance their own personal agendas. However, the vast majority of Americans have long gotten past racism; they see people as people, not as black or white.
     So I don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction because of any of the things that Barry McGuire sang about in 1965, but I do believe we may still be on the eve of destruction. And there’s only one nation on earth strong enough to destroy the United States, and that nation is the United States. And that’s what we’re seeing right now.
     Unfortunately, as difficult as it is to believe, the destruction of our nation as we’ve know it is by design.
     On October 30, 2008 candidate Barrack Obama told the country, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He didn’t say that we were five days away from working to try to fix the problems we were facing. I could live with that; there are always problems to fix, improvements to be made, so I wouldn’t have had a problem with that, but that’s not what he said. He said that he was going to fundamentally transform the United States. Do we understand what that means?
     To fundamentally transform the United States means to change the essence of what America is. It means to transform our country at its core, to remake it into something other than what it’s always been.
     Our founding fathers created a system of government that allowed and encouraged the people to work, to strive, and to succeed. The result was that a country was born that became the envy of the world. People from every continent on earth left their homelands, sometimes at great danger to themselves, to have a chance to come to America and to live the American dream.
     Americans have brought the world telephones and television, trains and automobiles, air travel and air conditioning. The world can thank America for jazz music and country music; rock music and motion pictures. Artificial hearts and hearing aids, defibrillators and escalators, computers and the internet are all American contributions. We’ve gone to the moon and we’ve flown the space shuttle; we’ve defeated tyrants and we’ve helped to rebuild the countries of our allies and enemies alike.
     America is, as President Reagan said, a "shining city upon a hill." And Barack Obama wants to fundamentally change it!
     Actually, that should come as no surprise to anyone. Leftists have long wanted to fundamentally change America, and in candidate Obama they saw their opportunity.
     In 2008 there was an organization that called itself “Progressives for Obama,” and it's revealing to look at who some of the people are who were a part of that group.
     There were four co-founders of “Progressives for Obama.” One was a man by the name of Bill Fletcher, Jr. Fletcher had been an organizer of the “Black Radical Congress,” an organization with ties to the Communist Party USA. When Fletcher was once asked to describe his politics, he said, “I am an unapologetic socialist. I believe that capitalism is destroying the planet.”
     A second co-founder was a woman named Barbara Ehrenreich, a self-avowed socialist and atheist. Ehrenreich, who celebrated the 160th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto with an article she wrote on her blog entitled “The Communist Manifesto Hits 160,” is an honorary chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America.
     The third co-founder was someone with whom many Americans are familiar: it’s actor Danny Glover. What some may or may not know is that Glover is an activist in several communist organizations. He’s a strong supporter of both Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez; he’s met with both men, and he’s actually a board member of Venezuela's TeleSUR news network, which was founded by Chavez.
     The final co-founder of “Progressives for Obama” was a man by the name of Tom Hayden. Hayden was one of the principal organizers of the 1960’s group that called themselves “Students for a Democratic Society,” also known as SDS. That group later became the Weatherman, which was the domestic terrorist organization that Bill Ayers was involved in. Hayden was one of the infamous “Chicago Seven” who were arrested for organizing the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. During the Vietnam War, Hayden met with North Vietnamese Communists leaders, and he called returning American POWs “liars, hypocrites and pawns" when they described their abuse in Viet Cong prisons.
     These are the four co-founders of “Progressives for Obama”!
     It gets even more interesting when you look at some of the people who signed on to become members this group. It’s a virtual “Who’s Who” of socialists, communists, and domestic terrorists.
     We can start with actress Jane Fonda who was once married to Tom Hayden. Many remember her as "Hanoi Jane."
     Mark Rudd, a former leader of both SDS and the Weatherman, was a member of “Progressives for Obama.”
     Carl Davidson was a member; Davidson is an American Marxist who’s been a prominent leader in various Marxist organizations. He’s a former national secretary of SDS, and he’s met with and is a supporter of Fidel Castro.
     Another member of “Progressives for Obama” was Fred Klonsky, another former SDS member, the son of a top Communist Party USA member, Robert Klonsky, and the brother of Mike Klonsky, who in the 1970s was the chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).
     I could go on, but you get the idea; these are just some of the people who were supporting Barack Obama in his campaign for the Presidency. And we should have been asking ourselves “What did they did not know about Barack Obama that so many Americans apparently did not know?”
     Really, though, we didn’t even have to speculate what the Leftists knew about Obama; they basically came right out and told us; we just didn’t listen.
     In 2008, a Communism Party USA spokesman Sam Delgado said , “I believe now we can achieve Communism in America within my lifetime….” You see, that remains a goal of the Communist Party USA.
      An editorial that is no longer available online, but that appeared in 2008 on the Communist Party USA website, celebrated what was termed a “broad multiclass, multiracial movement …converging around Obama’s ‘Hope, change and unity’ campaign…” The editorial stated that Obama’s election would “shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.”
     Another 2008 Communist Party USA website article expressed the same sentiment , saying that the 2008 elections would be their “most critical form of struggle” and would be where they had “the best shot of finally breaking the back” of what they called the “ultra right.” They said that after the election they would "continue to build a united movement” that could eventually “challenge the system overall.”
     Leftists saw in Barack Obama, not necessarily a communist himself, but a person whose socialist ideas and whose desire to fundamentally transform the United States of America would give them an opportunity to have someone in the White House who would take them closer than ever to realizing their long-held goal of establishing a communist form of government in the United States.
     America had been warned, but Barack Obama was elected anyway. However, because he was elected President of the United States and not dictator of the United States, he couldn’t fundamentally transform the country by himself. He couldn’t just dictate policy; he had to have help.
     Fortunately for him, unfortunately for us, Congress was already full of leaders nearly as radical as Barack Obama himself; Congressional leaders who were more than willing to try to push Obama’s radical agenda through Congress and to his desk for signing; Congressional leaders who themselves had long wanted to fundamentally transform America, but who needed someone at the top to lead the movement; Congressional leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They would form the body, and Barack Obama the head, of the radical transformational monster.
     All that was left was to find the legs that would move the monster forward. Those legs were found in members of Congress who were maybe not quite as radical as the head and the body, but who, when push came to shove and they had to make a decision as to who they worked for, the radical monster or the American people, they chose the monster.
     I’m talking about people like Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly, the so-called “blue dog” democrats. They look nice, talk like conservatives, and then vote however Pelosi and Obama want them to 80% of the time. They’re the legs that move the radical transformational monster forward, and in less than two weeks, we have the opportunity to cut the legs out from under that monster!
     Just what kind of “blue dogs” are Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth? One good source of information is a website called Project Vote Smart. Among the masses of information available at Project Vote Smart are interest group ratings of elected officials. You simply look at the interest groups that represent your viewpoints, and you can see what percentage of the time a given official has supported the interests of that particular group.
     So I took a look at how Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly are rated by some of the groups that many mainstream Americans are interested in. For example, one interest group is called the American Conservative Union. This group describes itself by expressing its “commitment to a market economy, the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, traditional moral values, and a strong national defense."
Those are things we all could live with; however, in 2009 Joe Donnelly supported the interests of the American Conservative Union only 24% of the time, and Brad Ellsworth only 32%. By comparison, Congressman Mike Pence had a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.
     Another group of interest to many mainstream Americans is the National Taxpayers Union. This group’s stated purpose is to “work every day for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels." Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly must not agree with those principles. In 2009, Ellsworth had only a 25% rating by the National Taxpayers Union, and Joe Donnelly only 21%. Again, by comparison, Mike Pence’s rating was 92%.
     One more group that is significant in terms of our blue dogs’ ratings is Citizens Against Government Waste. I don’t need to tell anyone what this group stands for; the name says it all. The 2008 report, which is the latest report this group has issued, indicates that Brad Ellsworth supported the interests of Citizens Against Government Waste only 8% of the time and Joe Donnelly only 13% of the time. Mike Pence’s rating was 98%.
     Why am I stating Mike Pence’s ratings? Well, there are two reasons. One is show what a true conservative looks like lined up next to a couple of blue dogs, and the second is to demonstrate the kind of conservative that I believe Jackie Walorski is and the kind of voting record I believe we’ll see from her when we put her in office and send Joe Donnelly back home!
     We can’t trust Joe Donnelly. He’s running a campaign ad claiming that Jackie Walorski wants to institute a national 23% sales tax. But Donnelly’s ad is deceitful because it never mentions the fact that this tax would be part of the Fair Tax plan that would eliminate all federal income tax.
     Joe Donnelly is running an ad claiming that Jackie Walorski wants to eliminate the Pell Grant program that helps thousands of Hoosier families pay for college. But the source Donnelly uses for that claim is a questionnaire that Jackie filled out, and that questionnaire doesn’t even mention Pell Grants!
     Donnelly claims that Jackie Walorski wants to privatize Social Security just like George W. Bush did, and that if her plan had been in place two years ago, we could have lost nearly 40 percent of our retirement savings by now. However, the fact of the matter is that neither Jackie Walorski, George W. Bush, nor anyone else that I’m aware of has ever proposed privatizing all social security funds, but only giving individuals the option of privately investing a very small percentage of their money.
     We can’t trust Joe Donnelly the candidate. His campaign ads are full of half-truths, misinformation, and outright deceit.
     We can’t trust Joe Donnelly the Representative either. On health care, he told us that he would never vote for a bill that didn’t meet his standards for assuring that no federal funds are used for abortion-related services. Well, I appreciated that.
     The problem is that he then turned around and voted for the bill saying that an executive order issued by President Obama would ensure that federal funds would not be used for abortion. However, we all know that an executive order is not a law; it’s barely worth the paper it’s written on. We all know that an executive order can easily be reversed, and Joe Donnelly knows that too.
     He clearly wanted to vote in favor of this legislation, and apparently he felt that this executive order gave him cover to do so. So Joe Donnelly made the decision to side with Obama and Pelosi, in spite of the fact that an overwhelming percentage of his District 2 constituents opposed the bill.
     Now he has the audacity to run a campaign ad saying that he doesn’t work for Obama and Pelosi, he works for the people. Well, that’s fine because if he works for the people, then the people have the right and the power to fire him and to hire in his place someone who won’t just talk about working for the people but who will actually do it, and that person is Jackie Walorski!
     The radical transformational monster of Obama, Pelosi, and Donnelly has been hard at work destroying our economy. According to the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government released by the Heritage Foundation , over 64 million Americans depended on government housing, food, or health care assistance last year. That’s 21% of our total population, and this dependence on government is growing. We see it all around us.
     In August, some 30,000 people stood in line for hours, in the hot Atlanta sun, just to receive an application so they could apply to get on a waiting list for a Section 8 housing voucher. We have nearly 10 million people receiving unemployment insurance; over 50 million people on Medicaid, and over 40 million Americans receiving food stamps.
     Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of House whom Joe Donnelly helped to elect to that position, had an interesting comment earlier this month regarding unemployment insurance and food stamps. Newt Gingrich had issued a memo to Republican candidates suggesting that during the final four weeks of the campaign, they should contrast the Democrat and Republican Parties as the Party of Food Stamps vs. the of Party of Paychecks. Pelosi responded by saying that, "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance.”
     Now remember, this lady is second in line to be President of the United States. So if you need another reason to replace Joe Donnelly in Indiana’s second Congressional district, here it is: Jackie Walorski will never vote for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the house; that I can guarantee!
     So we have more Americans than ever on government assistance. Now add in the fact that almost 50% of the population pays no federal income tax, including those who receive most of the assistance. It seems like a recipe for destruction, but don’t worry; the radical transformational monster has a plan: Barack Obama will increase taxes on the 50% who actually pay them; Nancy Pelosi will get the most bang for the tax buck by handing out more food stamps, and Joe Donnelly will vote for whatever those two want him to vote for and then claim that he works for us!
     If that sounds like a good plan, then do nothing, but if that plan sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, then for the next week, make the phone calls, send the e-mails, send the text messages, set out the yard signs, and make sure that Jackie Walorski replaces Joe Donnelly as the Congressional representative from Indiana’s 2nd district!
     Are we on the eve of destruction? It probably depends on exactly what we mean by destruction. Do I think there’ll be a United States of America five years from now? Yes, I do. I believe there will be a United States of America five years from now, 10 years from now, 25 years from now, and 50 years from now.
     What I’m not at all sure of is what that country will look like. I’m not at all sure that it’ll look anything like the country I grew up in. I’m not at all sure that it will continue to be the land of freedom and opportunity, the land that millions from around the world have flocked to for generations.
     In that respect, we may well be on the eve of destruction, but it is absolutely not too late. We’ve been there before. From the very founding of this country, Americans have looked destruction in the eye - and have conquered it.
     In December 1776, the Continental Army under General George Washington had suffered a series of devastating defeats at the hands of the British. On Christmas Day, Washington’s troops were camped along the western bank of the Delaware River, cold, tired, poorly clothed, and on the very edge of destruction. Nine miles away, on the other side of the Delaware, Hessian troops fighting for the British were comfortable and confident in the town of Trenton, New Jersey.
     But that night, General Washington led his army across the icy river and through the bitter cold and sleet to Trenton, where the next morning they mounted a surprise attack. When the battle ended, the Americans had attained a great victory, giving them new life, new energy, and new confidence; leading to further victories and, eventually, to independence.
     Just days before Washington led his troops across the Delaware, Thomas Paine had written, “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
     It’s time for another American Revolution, not with muskets and gun powder but with text messages and e-mails, telephone calls and word of mouth. We must energize and mobilize and let those in power know that we put ‘em there and we can take ‘em out. They work for us - in the United States of America, the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Is she smarter than a fifth grader? I think not.

2010-06-25T23:24:00.001-04:00

You may remember that in a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee in March, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed his fear that if the United States were to station an additional 5,000 Marines and their families on the island of Guam, the island might capsize. If you didn't see that one, you can watch it here.

Now, we have this bit of brilliance from Milwaukee. The Milwaukee County Board recently considered a measure to boycott Arizona because of Arizona's new immigration legislation. During the boycott debate, 12th District Supervisor Peggy West, who also serves on the Executive Committee of the Milwaukee Democratic Party, expressed the opinion that she would look more favorably upon the Arizona law if Arizona were on the Mexican border, you know, like Texas.

According to the Milwaukee County website, West, who was elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2008, represents 50,000 people on Milwaukee's south side. Is it any wonder we're in the mess we're in?

Steny Hoyer: Dems won't pass a budget, but may raise taxes.

2010-06-24T09:15:00.002-04:00

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said this week that, because of deficit concerns, House Democrats will not pass a budget this year.

“It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December.”

This announcement comes from the same man who, in 2006, when Republicans were working to pass a difficult budget, said this:

“House Republicans are now on the cusp of failing to meet the most basic responsibility of governing – enacting a budget.”

So Democrats will fail this year to “meet the most basic responsibility of governing – enacting a budget,” but don’t worry. Hoyer has an idea for lowering the national debt. What is his idea? You guessed it: raise taxes.

On the same day that he announced that House Democrats will not approve a budget this year, Hoyer also said that the extension of the Bush middle class tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year may need to be only temporary.

"As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction."

It's good to know that Democrats always have a plan.

Secretary of Labor: "Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not."

2010-06-21T14:04:00.001-04:00

The Obama administration's Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis says that illegal immigrants have a right to be paid fairly. Of course, she didn't use the word illegal, choosing instead to be politically correct, but the meaning is the same.

The Marxist-in-Chief and his little Marxist friends are doing everything they can to destroy our country as we know it. I only hope we can vote them out of power before it's too late.

Is Obama Losing His Magic?

2010-06-16T08:59:00.008-04:00

I never thought I'd hear this: MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the guy who once confessed to getting a thrill up his leg when he listened to Barack Obama speak, has now actually been critical of the President.

In commenting on Obama's Tuesday evening speech from the Oval Office, Matthews had this to say:

"Why does he continue to say that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it's almost gotten ludicrous...I'm not sure whether these degrees are going to help, or these awards from overseas. I think it's interesting we have a blue ribbon panel, now, that's going to look into what went wrong. Can't we move a little quicker than that, than to name a commission, uh, that's what they've done here, another commission and another guy mentioned, they mention for having a Nobel Prize...I don't sense executive command."

If Matthews is being critical of Barack Obama, The Great One must be losing his magic.

Tea Party and Establishment Republicans Must Come Together in November

2010-06-11T00:25:00.000-04:00

The political Left has long attempted to dismiss the Tea Party movement as irrelevant or to denigrate it as consisting of nothing more than violent, racist, right wing extremists, so far outside the mainstream that the movement would have no real affect on the political landscape.

With several Tea Party backed candidates recently winning Republican primaries, no serious political analyst can any longer deny that the Tea Party movement is having, and most likely will continue to have, a significant effect on the political landscape. The only question is what, exactly, will the effect be?

There has been debate within the Tea Party movement concerning the direction the movement should take. Much of this debate has centered around the question of whether the Tea Party should run third party candidates or whether the movement should just focus on bringing the Republican party back to its conservative roots.

My contention has always been that if the Tea Party attempts to field third party candidates in the general election, that will do nothing more than split the Republican vote and virtually guarantee the election of Democrats. If the Tea Party wants to field candidates in Republican primaries, that’s fine. However, when the primary is over, supporters of the Tea Party candidates and supporters of the so-called Republican establishment candidates had better come together. If a Republican establishment candidate wins the primary, Tea Party supporters need to support that candidate in November. Likewise, if a Tea Party candidate is successful in the primary, establishment Republicans need to support the Tea Party candidate. If we don’t come together in November, we allow the Left to strengthen their control over the direction of our country.

Great News from Nancy Pelosi!

2010-05-14T23:24:00.000-04:00

Wow! This is great news! Listen to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week.

Yes, you heard her right. We can now quit our jobs and focus on our passions because we'll have health care. We don't have to be job-locked. That's great! All that stuff my dad taught me about earning an honest living and supporting my family... forget it! That's just a bunch of nonsense! Who wants to be job-locked? Not me. I love this lady!

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES!

2010-05-07T06:51:00.001-04:00

Have you ever been so furious that you wanted to do something, but there was nothing you could do that would take care of whatever it was that made you furious? Because there was nothing you could do that would do any good, you felt like punching a wall. You knew that wouldn't solve anything, but you thought it might make you feel better. Then you realized that it would not make you feel better; it would just make your hand hurt. You wanted to scream but knew that wouldn't help either. Finally, you just wanted to say to yourself, "Heck with it. I don't even care anymore." Of course, you knew that you really did still care, but convincing yourself that you didn't was the only way you could think of to deal with the anger.

Have you ever been there? Well, that's were I am right now. And no, I'm not writing this as some sort of a self-therapy. I'm writing this because, although screaming won't help, if enough like-minded individuals speak out, loud and clear, that might help.

Yesterday, it was reported that on Wednesday a group of students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, just south of San Jose, were sent home for refusing to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out.

Wednesday was Cinco de Mayo, and according to the report, the students were told by school officials that "today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday," so the students were not allowed to wear their American flag T-shirts on that day.

Wait a minute. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES! Since when do we celebrate foreign holidays in the United States?

The students were told that the American flag T-shirts were "incendiary" and that they "would lead to fights on campus." Ok, it is part of the school administration's job to prevent fights and to protect students' safety. But here's an idea: If anyone starts a fight with a student because that student is wearing an AMERICAN flag T-shirt in an AMERICAN school, how about punishing the one who started the fight?

One student at Live Oak, Annicia Nunezhad, said the boys who wore the American flag T-shirts should apologize. "I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day. We don't deserve to be get [sic] disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

Wait another minute. I have to repeat this: THIS IS THE UNITED STATES! If we ever start trying to force Mexico to recognize the Fourth of July, and you, Miss Nunezhad, happen to be in Mexico on that day, then go ahead and wear your Mexican T-shirt. Wear the entire Mexican flag for all I care. But THIS IS THE UNITED STATES!

There, I feel better. Not much, but a little.

2010-04-19T23:35:00.004-04:00

Report: Icelandic volcano caused by global warming

By Bryan Alexander
The Satirical Times

Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, has determined that the eruption of the Icelandic volcano, which is causing so much havoc over much of Europe, was caused by global warming.

"This past winter was much colder than normal, which was a direct result of warmer global temperatures, causing increased evaporation of the earth’s ocean waters," Jones explained. "When this increased volume of evaporated water reached the cooler temperatures of the upper layers of our atmosphere, the water vapor began to freeze, causing record snowfall over much of the planet."

Jones pointed out that the record snowfall caused the frigid temperatures that we experienced this winter. According to Jones, "The cold quickly brought down the temperature of the Iceland volcano, causing it to contract and forcing the mass eruption that we have seen."

Former Vice President Al Gore, commenting on Jones’ finding said, “For eight years, the Bush administration ignored the science of climate change, choosing instead to waste precious resources on fighting terrorism. The real threat is and always has been the excessive use of SUV’s and incandescent light bulbs. The Bush administration dropped the ball on the real threat to humanity, and now we’re paying the price.

President Obama pointed to the eruption as evidence of the urgency of passing climate change legislation. “Congress needs to put aside partisian bickering and get this done as soon as possible. My administration has been working hard on this, and I want the cap and trade bill on my desk by June. The sooner we get this done, the sooner I’ll be able to stop the oceans from rising… uh… evaporating. We’re closer to that goal today than we’ve ever been before, but you have to remember that I inherited one of the worst climate environments in history, and these things take time.”

These Guys Want to Run Our Heathcare System

2010-04-02T23:56:00.002-04:00

In a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee last week, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed his fear that the island of Guam might capsize as a result of the United States stationing an additional 5,000 Marines and their families on the island.

While questioning Navy Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Johnson stated, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

To Admiral Willard's immense credit, he somehow kept from laughing out loud and refrained from embarrassing Johnson more than Johnson already had embarrassed himself by responding, “We don’t anticipate that...”

Really, I think Rep. Johnson is worrying needlessly. I'm sure that while Barack Obama is stopping the oceans from rising, he can take a few minutes to stop Guam from capsizing.

Here's the video:

New Web Poll - Health Care

2010-03-12T06:29:00.000-05:00

They tell us we're down to crunch time on health care reform. So let us know what you think. Will the dems get it done or not? Take a minute to vote in the new web poll.

Presidential impropriety or just the impression of impropriety?

2010-03-04T09:40:00.001-05:00

Democrat Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah voted "no" on the House health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee in July, and he voted "no" again when it came up for a vote before the full House in November. Now, however, he's undecided.

Maybe President Obama can help him decide. How could he do that? Perhaps by nominating his brother to the federal bench.

Yesterday the President did just that by nominating Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Of course, the White House press release announcing the nomination touted Matheson's credentials for the position.

Perhaps Matheson is qualified. Perhaps he is highly qualified. Even so, the President should have at least delayed this nomination, if for no other reason than to avoid even the impression of any impropriety.

Video of Tea Party Speech

2010-02-05T18:24:00.004-05:00

Finally, here is the video of the speech I gave at the Kokomo Tea Party on January 26. The speech is about 30 minutes in total length. Here, it is divided into three parts. Part 3 skips about 2 seconds at around the 1:30 mark. I don't know why, and I can't figure it out. Everything else seems to be ok.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Chris Matthews is maturing; he manages to forget about the President's race for one hour.

2010-01-29T06:31:00.002-05:00

When analyzing Wednesday night's State of the Union address, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had this to say about President Obama:

It's interesting. He is post-racial, by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country and passed so much history in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about.

Here's the video if you want to listen to it.

So Chris Matthews forgot the President was black "for an hour"? That's interesting. I almost always forget he's black. In fact, the only time I ever think about him being black is when someone, usually someone from the left like Chris Matthews, brings race into the conversation, and I'm a right-wing, racist bigot. Why is it that the open-minded, tolerant left can manage to forget race only for an hour?

Thanks to My Fellow Tea Party "Mobsters"

2010-01-27T07:08:00.001-05:00

We had an enthusiastic crowd of over 1100 patriots at last night's Kokomo Tea Party! You could feel the excitement of Americans who have had enough of big government and who are ready to take our country back!

Hopefully, if the video came out ok, I'll be able to post last night's speech, so check back. It might take a few days, so please be patient.

Remember: Keep the passion alive and stay the course. Together, we will put our country back on the right track!

Transcript of January Kokomo Tea Party Speech

2010-01-26T16:29:00.008-05:00

Fighting the Enemy of Socialism
Delivered at the Kokomo Tea Party
Kokomo Events’ Center, Kokomo Indiana
January 26, 2010

Thank you, Matthew, I appreciate that, very much.
              Uh, it’s great to see so many fellow “mobsters” here; I didn’t know what kind of crowd we’d have this evening, uh, with the weather, but uh, I think that everyone has shown that, uh, we’re all pretty dedicated to this cause.
              Uh, Matthew, I didn’t get the, uh, dress code memo, or I would have been in my Colts’ gear like you and, uh, Kenlyn and Deb as well, but uh, you guys forget to send me that memo, so – OK.
              A few days ago, I was talking to my cousin, who lives in San Antonio, and she was telling me that she had recently attended a Tea Party there in San Antonio, and the guest speaker was Glenn Beck, so I told her, well, now I understand why, why she enjoys living down there so much – she attends a Tea Party and she gets to listen to Glenn Beck; the folks here in Kokomo attend a Tea Party, and they have to listen to me, so – that’s the way it goes; we all know life’s not fair sometimes, but uh, look at it this way: it’s evenly unfair for all of us. I know you’d rather have Glenn Beck – and I’d like to have Glenn Beck’s money, so that’s the way it goes. (laughter)
              Never the less, it is a tremendous honor and a privilege to be invited to speak here this evening. And it’s an honor and a privilege because of what this TEA party movement’s all about. We’re part of a growing movement across his country to rise up to one of the greatest challenges our county’s every faced. And throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges they’ve faced. From those men and boys who fought for American independence in the Revolutionary War, to those men and boys who fought to preserve our Union during the Civil War. From World War I through Desert Storm, and now to those men and women who are fighting the war on terror, Americans in uniform have risen to the challenge of protecting our freedom and our way of life for over 230 years, and those of us who have never had to fire a shot for our country owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those who have. (applause)
              But it’s not only those in uniform who have risen to the challenges. It’s also the spouse who’s been left at home to take care of the family; it’s the child whose parent’s been deployed for over a year, and it’s the parents who’ve had to say “goodbye” to their child, not knowing whether or not that child would ever return home safely. All of these, too, have always risen to the challenges.
              Americans, both black and white, who risked their lives to run an Underground Railroad so that a slave would have an opportunity at freedom, millions of Americans across this country who have given money, food, and supplies to those in a city that’s been devastated by a hurricane or to those in a country that’s been devastated by an earthquake, and the dozens of Americans who have done the same thing for a family in their local community whose home’s been destroyed by a fire. All of these have always risen to every single challenge that’s come along.
              And now, here you are. You and millions like you across this country, who are rising to a new challenge, the challenge of facing a new enemy – not one invading from a foreign country, but the enemy of socialism rising up, right here from within our boarders. That’s the challenge that we face in America today. (applause)
              In 1776, Thomas Jefferson had just finished writing the words of the Declaration of Independence, and the Second Continental Congress had just approved the final version of that document, and for the first time we read these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
              From those words it’s very clear that our Founding Fathers believed that each and every one of us have been given certain rights, not by government, but by our Creator, Almighty God. (applause) They then listed what they must have considered to be the three most basic of those rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.
              Our founders then went on and said, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…” Ladies and gentlemen, that’s the purpose of government. Today, I hear all the time debate about what is the true role of government, what’s the proper role – yet there it is; it’s already written in the Declaration of Independence: the purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the people, yet our government, for over 30 years, has failed to secure the most basic of all human rights, the right to life, for millions of Americans who have had their lives taken from them before they had a chance to be born, (applause) and too many have turned and looked the other way …none of my business, doesn’t affect me, I’m only one person, what can I do about it?
              But we’ve forgotten that when the rights of one group of individuals are trampled upon, it’s only a matter of time before our own rights are also trampled upon, and now we see that our government not only is failing to secure the second of our most basic rights, the right to liberty, but now they’re actively involved in taking away our freedom, but ladies and gentlemen, we’re no longer looking the other way; we’re no longer looking the other way because we understand that when freedom is taken from us, there will be no pursuit of happiness, and Americans are not going to allow that to happen -- And that’s why you and others just like you in cities, big and small, all across this nation are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough!” (applause)
              I’d like to tell a little story, if you’ll allow me to. This is a true story. It’s a story about my family and about a small Eastern European country – Romania. (audience: “woohoo,” laughter) We’ve got some good Romanians right there in the front row. I brought my fan club. But more importantly, this is a story about what’s great about the United States and about what we can never allow to happen here.
              In the early 1900’s, my great-grandfather owned a small farm in Romania. He didn’t have a lot of money; he was able to take care for his family, and that’s about it. But he wanted more for his family – and it was a growing family; he had a wife and two small daughters, one of whom would later become my grandmother. And because he wanted a better life for that family than what he was able to provide in Romania, he did what so many others around the world at that time did — he left his country, and in his case he had to leave his family as well for a time, and he went to America.
              And he arrived at Ellis Island, and he was processed through all the proper paper work – he was a documented immigrant (applause) – and eventually, eventually, he ended up in Indiana. And when he arrived here, he found work, he found a place to live, he worked and saved until, in 1920, after eight years he was able to have his family join him in his new county.
              I can’t imagine what that must have been like for my great-grandfather -- to leave your, leave your country, to go to a foreign country, to leave your family behind for eight years, but he knew that that was the only way he would ever be able to provide what he wanted to provide for that family, so he did what he had to do.
              And when his wife and daughters joined him in his new country, they all worked hard; they all learned to speak English; they all became United States citizens. (applause) Eventually, both of his daughters owned their own homes and raised families of their own; in other words, every one of them carved for themselves a little piece of the American Dream.
              And that’s what’s great about this country. Because of the freedoms we enjoy, every one of us can carve for ourselves a piece of the American Dream, and everyone who wants to come here from another country, and who wants to do it the right way, and who wants to obey our laws, and who wants to become a part of our society can carve for themselves a piece of the American Dream as well. (applause) But what we cannot do is we cannot allow that dream to be taken from us.
              Do you remember that little farm that my great-grandfather left back in Romania? When he left, that farm was given to one of his nephews, and that nephew stayed there for many years and farmed that land – his land, until one day, sometime after World War II, the Communists came and took over the government of Romanian, and then they took the land. After that, he continued to farm the land, but he no longer owned it. He and all the other farmers then farmed that land as part of a collective farm, and everything that they produced belonged to the government, who kept whatever they wanted, and then what was left was spread around evenly among the workers. And it didn’t matter how hard an individual worked on that land; he only could receive no more than what the government allowed him to have because they were “spreading the wealth around,” – to quote the words of our current President. But it wasn’t wealth that was being spread around; it was poverty and destitution, because that’s all that’s ever left when government controls the means of production. (applause) END OF PART 1
              Now I’m not suggesting that here in the United States we’re headed directly toward Soviet-style communism, although there are some who would suggest that maybe we are. I do know, however, that we’re headed down a very dangerous road toward a place that I don’t want to go, and a place that I don’t think many of you want to go either -- and that road is the road to socialism.
              And I realize that there are some differences between socialism and communism, although over, over history, many have used the terms almost interchangeably, and some believe that socialism is nothing more than a “transitional” stage between capitalism and communism. However you want to look at it, one thing’s certain, and that’s that socialism and communism are based on some very similar philosophies and ideas.
              That being said, all Americans need to be aware of what’s happening in our country right now. And I’m not talking only about the policies of our current President, although he’s certainly taken us much further down this road than we’ve ever been before, but we need to understand that we did not just begin to travel down this road since the last election. We’ve been traveling down this road for many, many years, and over those years there have been many people whom we could have and should have been listening to. Some of them were socialists and communists themselves, predicting what would one day happen in the United States; others were former communists, and even patriotic Americans warning us about what could happen if we didn’t pay attention.
              Norman Thomas was one of the socialists who predicted what would someday happen in our country. Norman Thomas was an American socialist. He ran for President six times on the Socialist Party of America ticket. The current website of the Social Democrats, USA tells us that Thomas predicted what would happen when he said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be socialist and not even know how it happened." (applause)
              Ronald Reagan called that “creeping socialism,” and it’s evident today that socialism has, in fact, been creeping into our society for over 60 years. Since 1935 government programs have been enacted to provide: retirement income and supplemental security income, unemployment insurance and cash welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare prescription drugs, school breakfast, school lunch, after-school snacks, public housing assistance, home weatherization assistance, telephone assistance, energy assistance -– and that’s just to name a few.
              Some argue that if we were truly Christian, we wouldn’t mind paying higher taxes so that the government could fund more of these programs to help the poor. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t fall for that argument. That’s an argument designed just to guilt us into accepting of the very political philosophy that’s gotten into this mess.
              Fred Thompson said it best, I think, when he said Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to take care of some of these social problems; he told us to just do it. (applause) Charity is not when you take somebody else’s money, by force, and then use that to help those in need. Charity is when we use our own money, voluntarily, to help those in need, and the fact of the matter is many of you here and many in the in the Tea Party movement across this country are some of the most charitable people in the world. We just believe that we know better than government what constitutes a wise and charitable use of our money.
              For example, our government recently spent 6 point - or sorry, sorry -$2.6 million of our tax money to find out whether consuming alcohol on the job increases the spread of AIDS among prostitutes in China. Does that sound like a wise and charitable use of our money? We spent $400,000 to study risky sexual behavior among gay men in bars in Argentina. Does that sound like a wise and charitable use of our money? (audience: “no”) We give $350 million every year to Planned Parenthood. This is an organization that performs over 300,000 abortions per year. That’s over 800 abortions every single day. Does that sound like a wise and charitable use of our money? (audience: “no”) Our government’s spending nearly $3 million to finance "green and efficient buildings" in China, $53 million on ACORN. They’ve spent over $100,000 to study the use of ecstasy, LSD, and other “party drugs” in Brazil, $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California, and they spent $100 million on flight tickets that they never used and never bothered to collect a refund for, even though the tickets were refundable. Does any of this sound to you like a wise and charitable use of our money? (audience: “no”)
              Norman Thomas’s words seem almost prophetic, because Socialism has, in fact, been creeping bit by bit into our society, and once these entitlements become enacted, we become dependent on them, and we don’t want to give them up, and then the socialists have us right where they want us. And ladies and gentlemen, I hate to say it, but we’re almost there. Last year a Rasmussen poll indicated that only 53% of all American adults now believe that capitalism is better than socialism, and among adults under the age of 30, that number is only 37%.
              So how did we go from a country that believed in individual responsibility and individual freedom, that hard work and perseverance were the keys to success, and that, as John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God? How did we go from that to a country were a sizable proportion of our population now believe that socialism is better?
              Part of the answer, of course, is that so many of our citizens have become dependent on these government programs that I mentioned, and upon others just like them. I’m not saying that any of these programs, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad, or that those who enacted them were insincere in their intent, or that there’s never a need for assistance. But too many of these programs have gone far beyond their intended purpose of providing temporary assistance, to the point of destroying individual incentive and ambition.
              Abraham Lincoln once said, “You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
              The intent of these programs might have been to help lift the poor up out of poverty, but instead most of these programs have sentenced the poor to a lifetime of poverty, and now we have, in some cases, several generations of families who have known nothing other than government assistance.
              But it’s not only the growing dependency on these programs that get - that has gotten us to this point. There’s something else going on, something much more subtle that we need to be aware of.
              Some of you may be familiar with a man by the name of Yuri Bezmenov, but if - for those who are not, let me give you a quick little background. Yuri Bezmenov is an ex-Soviet KGB agent who defected to the West in 1970, not because of any mistreatment that he, personally, had suffered under communism; Bezmenov said that he never, he never suffered from Communism, that he’d - most doors were open to him because he was the son of a high-ranking Soviet military officer. Bezmenov’s reason for defecting, he said, was what he called moral protest against the “inhuman methods of the Soviet system.”
              So Bezmenov defected in 1970, and then in the 1980’s, he began to give a series of lectures and interviews on what the Soviets called “ideological subversion.” This was a type psychological warfare used by the Soviets in attempt to gain control over Western Society.
              Bezmenov explained that this process was divided into four stages. The first stage was a very long stage; it was called “demoralization,” and it took from 15-20 years. The question is: “Why so long?” Listen carefully to Bezmenov’s answer to that question. He said that the process of demoralization took 15-20 years because that was the “minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy…” And when Bezmenov said educate, he was not talking only about our public schools and universities, although that certainly was a part of it; he said that he was also talking about the destruction of traditional moral values; in fact, he said most of the demoralization process was done by Americans to Americans because lack of moral standards.” Think about what we learn from Hollywood, from the music industry, from overindulgent sports stars, and other cultural icons. We certainly have had a lack of moral standards for a long time in this country.
              In addition to the lack of traditional moral values, Bezmenov, of course, was also talking about what students learn in our public high schools and universities. In too many of these institutions, self-esteem is taught instead of personal responsibility; effort is rewarded instead of results; and students are taught to question authority rather than to respect it. Bezmenov pointed out that those who were educated in the 1960s are the ones now in positions of power, and that these people have been programmed to think and to react in a certain way. To them, he said, true information and true facts no longer matter.
              Now, let me ask you a question: have you ever had a discussion with someone about a current issue, and that person just seems incapable of comprehending common sense and logic? I think many of us have had those discussions, and it’s always perplexed me: a person who you know is a highly intelligent person, yet they can’t seem to recognize facts when they’re right in front of them. Some of these people vote on emotion, often times for a candidate who represents the antithesis of everything that voter even believes in. It doesn’t make any sense, but maybe this process that Bezmenov has talked about helps to explain at least some of that. END OF PART 2
              To turn things around, Mr. Bezmenov said that we needed another 15-20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded, common sense Americans. Unfortunately, he was saying these things in the 1980s, and instead of 15-20 years of educating patriotically-minded, common sense Americans, we’ve had another 25 years of the demoralization process.
              So now, another generation has been educated to believe that America is the cause of most of the world problems: melting polar ice caps, world poverty, AIDS epidemics in Africa, drug violence in Mexico, and terrorism worldwide – it’s all America’s fault. Capitalism is evil, and the government should take from the rich to give to the poor. These are the – are the lessons that two generations, now, have been taught in this country.
              I mentioned that Bezmenov explained that ideological subversion is a four-stage process, and I don’t want to spend a lot of time talking about each stage, but let me just quickly mention the other three, and see if you recognize any of this in our society today.
              The stage after demoralization is destabilization. This stage takes only 2-5 years, and what happens here is we see “the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas” in key areas such as economy, foreign relations, and defense.
              The third stage is called crisis. Bezmenov said it may only take up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. So what do you think? Did the rapid financial meltdown of 2008 qualify as crisis?
              VIDEO SKIPS THE FOLLOWING WORDS: (The final stage is called “normalization,” and we reach this stage with a sudden change) of power, structure, and economy. If the financial meltdown of 2008 was the crisis, I think we can safely say that the November election of 2008 was, indeed, a sudden change of power. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and change. And the change that he’s given us is a $1.4 trillion debit – deficit, a $12 trillion debt. He’s given us the threat of cap-n-trade legislation that would cause energy prices to skyroc, and – skyrocket – and the looming healthcare bill that would represent the greatest government takeover of our economy in history. And ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about this: the real goal of healthcare legislation is uni - single-payer, universal healthcare. We have video of Barack Obama saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal healthcare.” Now he tells us that he never said he was a single-payer supporter. Evidently, when Barack Obama talks about the “audacity of hope,” what he means is that he has the audacity to hope that we’ll believe him when he says that he never said what he said, even when we have video of him saying it. (applause)
              So I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that we certainly are in a period of a sudden change of power, structure, and economy. What we see in our society today is pretty strong evidence that Yuri Bezmenov knew exactly what he was talking about.
              And that being the case, we’d be wise to consider what else he had to say in terms of what it would take to turn this country back around, and the first thing he said is that we need to return to traditional moral values. Now for our friends who want to start shouting, “separation of church and state,” he didn’t say to try to force anybody to convert to any religion; he did not say to create a theocracy. We’ve never had a theocracy in this country, but we’ve also never until recently seen the attacks on traditional morals that we’re seeing now. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and upon the principles based upon those values, and as Bezmenov once said (applause) - as Bezmenov once said in one of his – in one of his lectures, “Society will stand on faith in God. Without it, society will crumble.”
              In addition to returning to moral values, Bezmenov said we also need to promote patriotism, work ethic, and all traditional national values. He said we need to elect “responsible,” not “charismatic” leaders. And finally, he said that we need to educate ourselves and to understand the real danger from the socialist state that we’re now facing.
              Ladies and gentlemen, I would say that it’s not going to be enough to educate ourselves to the danger; we’re going to have to also educate our friends and our neighbors so that they, too, understand the danger.
              For example, how many of our friends and neighbors do you think knew before the last election that Barack Obama was endorsed in his 1996 run for the Illinois State Senate by an openly socialist political party; or that many of his mentors and advisors and political supporters are self-declared socialists and communists? These are - these are documented facts, facts that nobody in the mainstream - mainstream media wants to report, but they’re documented facts just the same.
              Someone once said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do what you’ve always done and expect different results. Well ladies and gentlemen, we cannot continue to do what we’ve always done. We have to return to traditional moral values. We have to educate ourselves, our families, friends, and relatives so that they, too, understand the danger that we now face.
              We cannot continue to elect the same leaders that we’ve always elected just because we recognize their last name or because they can give a good speech; we have to look at what they’ve actually done in office. (applause) Do their records match their rhetoric, or do they talk about Hoosier values at home and vote - vote the party line when they get to Washington?
              We can no longer allow disingenuous politicians to betray us with false promises that they have no intention of keeping. If they’ve truly been representing our values and our will, then by all means, put ‘em back in office. But if not, it’s time to show ‘em the door, and to elect someone who has the courage and the integrity to truly represent our will and our values. (applause)
              And folks, if the people of Massachusetts can do that, so can the people of Indiana and every other state in this nation. (applause)
              We have to build on the momentum that’s been generated so far by the TEA party
movement, because it’s easy to get excited about a cause for a short period of time; it’s much more difficult to endure the hard work that follows, but endure we must until the battle is won.
              In 1863 Abraham Lincoln stood on a field in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the site of one of the great battles of the American Civil War. Those who had fought at that place, he said, had “nobly advanced” the cause of freedom, and it was up to those still living, to “highly resolve” that those who had died advancing that cause “shall not have died in vain.”
              Ladies and gentlemen, today freedom is once again under attack, this time by a new enemy, and that enemy is socialism. The battle rages on, not with guns and cannons, but with ideology and legislation foreign to the American way of life. You and I and millions like us across this country are the soldiers in the trenches, and the battle will be long and difficult. It won’t be won’t next week or next month or next year, but we can gain small victories, day by day; and we can gain a tremendous victory when we vote next November; but even then the battle will continue. It‘ll continue through the 2012 elections, and probably beyond.
              Ladies and gentlemen, the work has already begun. Over the course of our history, more that a million Americans have died to advance the cause of freedom. It’s up to us, again, to “highly resolve” that those who have died advancing that cause “shall not have died in vain,” and that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Thank you very much.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

Interview with Peter Heck

2010-01-17T22:30:00.007-05:00

As I mentioned last week, I will be speaking at the Kokomo TEA Party coming up on January 26 at 6:30 in the Kokomo Events Center.

On Friday, radio talk show host Peter Heck interviewed me in connection with the upcoming TEA Party event. If you would like to listen to the interview, click the link below, and you'll be taken to a page where you can download the interview. It will take about two minutes to download.

Interview with Peter Heck

“Far-right Tea-bagger” leads in Massachusetts

2010-01-15T06:18:00.000-05:00

New York Senator Charles Schumer has called Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown a "far-right tea-bagger." Brown, who is running against Democrat Martha Coakley in next Tuesday's special election to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy’s term, should consider the label a badge of honor. It’s certainly not a liability.

In a new poll, Brown now leads Coakley 50% to 46%. Remember, this is in Massachusetts! This is for the seat held by Ted Kennedy since the beginning of time! This is (along with Southern California) the liberal mecca of the world.

If “far-right tea-baggers” can even be competitive in this race, imagine what they could do in other parts of the country!

Two Weeks!

2010-01-12T07:15:00.001-05:00

Several weeks ago, I was honored to be invited to deliver the keynote address at the next Kokomo area TEA Party. Now the date is growing close: two weeks from this evening. I'm looking forward to the event. We hope the weather cooperates and we have a great crowd.

The TEA Party is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. on January 26, in the Kokomo Events Center on U.S. 31. If you're in the Kokomo/Howard County area, we'd love to have you there!

How long will the world believe the global warming nonsense?

2010-01-03T21:18:00.005-05:00

Yeah, I know. You can't base world climate trends on isolated current weather conditions. But you have to wonder how many isolated current weather conditions you need before you can start to see a pattern, especially when so many of the current weather conditions involve weather records.

The following are just a few of the weather headlines over the last few years:

Record Cold, Snow in Southern California!
Los Angeles, California - January 12, 2007

Record cold takes a toll on crops
Morgantown, West Virginia - April, 9, 2007

Haryana, Punjab record cold temperatures
Haryana, India - November 3, 2007

Record Cold for Northern Minn: 40 Below
International Falls, Minnesota - February 11, 2008

Record cold kills cattle and rice in Vietnam
Hanoi, Vietnam - February 13, 2008

Weekend cold set new record lows:
Pendleton breaks 118-year-old record
Pendleton, Oregon - October 13, 2008

Record cold swept over the region Wednesday
Ocala, Florida - October 30, 2008

Record cold weather payouts triggered as temperature hits -11C
Great Britain - January 6, 2009

Flint's 95-year-old record low falls as 19 below zero hits city
Flint, Michigan - January 14, 2009

Iowa sees record cold
Des Moines, Iowa - October 12, 2009

Record cold hits Sacramento
Sacramento, California - Dec. 8, 2009

Record cold conditions kill nine people in Czech Republic
Czech Republic - December 21, 2009

Now, here are a few current headlines:

U.S. East Coast Faces Deep Freeze; Florida Oranges Threatened
East Coast, United States - January 2, 2010

Peru's mountain people face fight for survival in a bitter winter
Pichccahuasi, Peru - January 3, 2010

Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing
Beijing, China - January 4, 2010

See any trends? Just askin'.

Obama's White House Christmas Tree

2009-12-23T22:03:00.005-05:00

Not only are President Obama'a policies disastrous, he is becoming a personal disgrace to the office of the President of the United States.

Pictured below is one of the bulbs hanging on the official White House Christmas tree.

In case you don't recognize the face painted on the ornament, it's the face of the murderous former Chairman of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong.

In addition to the bulb with the picture of Chairman Mao, the White House tree ornaments include one with a picture of drag queen Hedda Lettuce, and another with Obama's face super-imposed onto Mount Rushmore.

So we've gone from George Washington, who reluctantly accepted the office of President, to Barack Obama, an egotistical Marxist who envisions himself on larger-than-life monuments.

Snow Falls on Beach in Southern France

2009-12-19T12:14:00.005-05:00

(AP Photo/Lionel Cironneau)
Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009

Sure hope we get some global warming agreements passed soon, before all the snow melts off this beach in southeastern France.

If This Doesn't Make Your Blood Boil, Nothing Will

2009-11-25T22:05:00.005-05:00

In 2004, four U.S. security guards were transporting supplies for a catering company in Fallujah, Iraq, when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Their bodies were burned and dragged through the city. Two of the bodies were hanged on a bridge and photographed, while terrorists danced and celebrated below.

Intelligence sources identified Ahmed Hashim Abed as the mastermind of the attack, and he became one of the United States' most wanted terrorists, code-named "Objective Amber."

Now, three of the Navy SEALs who captured Abed face criminal charges and will be arraigned on December 7. What's their crime? Evidently, one of them gave Abed a fat lip.

According to a FOX News report, Abed "told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it."

SEALs Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas are facing charges ranging from dereliction of performance of duty to assault.

So, let's sum this up. U.S. security guards are ambushed, murdered, burned, dragged through the streets, and photographed hanging on a bridge while Islamic jihadists dance below.

U.S. Navy SEALs capture the murderous butcher who planned the ambush, and one of SEALs gives him a bloody lip. Now the SEALs are on trial.

Is there any hope that those who lead this country will ever regain anything remotely resembling common sense?

According to Jesse, Lawmakers' Votes on Healthcare Determine Their Race

2009-11-19T06:38:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, in criticizing Rep. Artur Davis, D-AL, for voting for against the House healthcare bill, Jesse Jackson stated, "We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill. You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Does this mean that you can't vote for the healthcare bill and call yourself a white man?

Sarah Palin's Facebook - Over 1 Million Supporters

2009-11-18T07:02:00.003-05:00

The press likes to tell us that Sarah Palin is finished as a public figure. The Republican establishment likes to tell us that she would have no chance to win in 2012 if she becomes the Republican presidential nominee.

Sarah Palin's popularity tells us a different story. Her book Going Rogue was just released yesterday and already tops the Amazon.com best seller list. Talk show hosts line up to get her on their shows because they know her presence will send their ratings through the roof. Every comment she makes on any current issue makes national headlines for weeks.

Now, here's another bit of evidence of Palin's popularity: 1,017,361 supporters on her Facebook page.

Let's compare that to other Republicans being talked about as possible 2012 contenders:

Tim Pawlenty               11,084 supporters
Rudy Giuliani               18,197 supporters
Fred Thompson           27,535 supporters
Newt Gingrich              31,315 supporters
Bobby Jindal               70,098 supporters
Mitt Romney              104,957 supporters
Mike Huckabee         127,752 supporters
Ron Paul                     149,901 supporters

Yes, I know. Facebook accounts can't be used to predict presidential winners. I get that. However, when one potential candidate has over six times the number of supporters as the next nearest potential contender, that's not insignificant.

Jobs created or saved in places that don't exist. That's one way to speed up an economic recovery.

2009-11-17T17:47:00.006-05:00

As if the irrationality of the Obama administration's fictitious statistic of "jobs saved" isn't enough, now we learn that there have been jobs "created or saved" in congressional districts that don't even exist.

Below is the amount of money spent and the number of jobs created or saved in Arizona according to Recovery.gov, the website set up by the Obama administration to track federal stimulus money.

You'll notice, highlighted in yellow, money has been spent and jobs have been created or saved in places like the 15th congressional district ($761,420; 30 jobs) and the 52nd congressional district ($59,414; 7 jobs). The problem is that Arizona only has 8 congressional districts.

The figures in the 86th, 40th, 9th, 00, 78th, 38th, 11th, 29th, 36th, 50th, 25th, and 18th, as well as in the 15th and 52nd already mentioned, indicate money spent and jobs created or saved in places that don't exist.

ABC News reports that Recovery.gov also indicates money spent and jobs created or saved in nonexistent places in Oklahoma, Iowa, and Connecticut, as well as in U.S. territories such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

No wonder President Obama thinks the economic recovery is going so well.

Obama Bows to Japan's Emperor Akihito

2009-11-15T11:33:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama, President of the United States, bows low to Japan's Emperor Akihito. What else can this President do to show the world that the United States is now willing to take its rightful place as a second-rate country?

Pawlenty joins Palin: Endorses Doug Hoffman

2009-10-26T22:39:00.003-04:00

Tim Pawlenty joined Sarah Palin today by endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd district.

Pawlenty announced his endorsement of Hoffman four days after Palin's announcement -- and after Hoffman's poll numbers started improving. In my book, that makes Palin's endorsement of Hoffman the more courageous of the two; never-the-less, I'm glad to see Pawlenty adding his name to those Republicans who are not afraid to support the true conservative, regardless of which candidate has the "R" behind his name.

Sarah Palin Upholds Conservative Principles

2009-10-25T00:48:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin has shown once again why conservatives love her: she’s a true conservative who stands on principle, even when it means standing up to her own party.

On Thursday Sarah Palin announced her endorsement of 3rd party candidate Doug Hoffman in his run for the congressional seat in New York’s 23rd District.

Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman puts her at odds with the GOP establishment which, unfortunately, chose Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as their candidate. Scozzafava supports abortion rights, same-sex marriage, card check, President Obama’s stimulus package, and other liberal policies. As Palin said in her endorsement announcement, “there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race.”

By endorsing Hoffman, who is running on the Conservative Party ticket, Palin has shown herself to be a far more dependable conservative than such formerly dependable conservatives as Newt Gingrich, who has endorsed Scozzafava even though he admits that “some of her values do not match” his values, and that “she’s clearly more liberal” than he is. Gingrich says that his choice in endorsing Scozzafava “is a practical one,” and that his “number one interest in the 2009 elections is to build a Republican majority.”

Does Gingrich not realize that the reason Republicans lost the majority is that they failed to govern as conservatives? Does he not realize that Republicans will never again achieve large-scale electoral success until they once again run conservative candidates?

Even if expediency were all the GOP seeks when choosing candidates, choosing conservative candidates would be far more expedient than attempting to appease the left with candidates like Scozzafava. Sarah Palin understands that, but she also understands something far greater than expediency; she understands principle. In announcing her endorsement of Hoffman, Palin wrote the following:

Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

Political parties must stand for something.

Government officials must also stand for something, and Sarah Palin is one of the few who do. She stands for true conservative values. While many politicians talk about no more politics as usual, Palin demonstrates her commitment to principle, and she remains faithful to her conservative principles, even when it means going against the party establishment. That’s true leadership, and that’s one thing that sets Sarah Palin apart from most politicians.

Boo hoo: Team Obama crying about Fox News

2009-10-18T21:48:00.000-04:00

"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."
            - White House Communications Director Anita Dunn on CNN

"A lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view."
            - Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on ABC's "This Week"

"The way we -- the president looks at it and we look at it, is, it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."
            - White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on CNN's "State of the Union"

For the sake of argument, let's say that Fox News does indeed lean right - and I don't believe it does - but just for the sake of argument, let's go with that. That would be one right-leaning news outlet. Now let's count the left-leaning outlets: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS - did I miss any? So Team Obama cries about the one news network they don't control?

What a bunch of cry babies!

Limbaugh's Denial into NFL Based on Politics, Not Race

2009-10-16T06:48:00.006-04:00

First, understand that I don't personally care whether Rush Limbaugh owns an NFL team or not. That being said, when the report came out on Wednesday that Limbaugh had been dropped from a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams, I was furious. Why? Because it’s an assault on free speech, it’s politically motivated, and it's based on lies.

DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL players' union, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh. I wonder if the facts that Limbaugh is an outspoken, conservative critic of President Barack Obama, and that Smith is a stanch, left-wing political contributor who contributed over $3,000 to Obama's presidential campaign, has anything to do with that.

Of course, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson had to get involved. Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell arguing against Limbaugh, and Jackson said Limbaugh "should not have the privilege of owning an NFL franchise…”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell then made this statement: "We're all held to a high standard here and divisive comments are not what the NFL's all about. I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, no. Absolutely not."

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay chimed in with his announcement that he would vote against Limbaugh saying that there have been comments made that are “inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive…”

Why such a campaign against Limbaugh? Supposedly, because he is a racist.

One Limbaugh comment widely used as evidence of his racism is the one that he made in 2003 as an ESPN commentator. In a discussion of Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb, Limbaugh said the following:

Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Read that quote again. In it, Limbaugh is critical of two things: McNabb’s performance as an NFL quarterback, and the media. Everyone knows that for nearly his whole career Limbaugh has been critical of what he considers to be a liberal media. Whether we agree or disagree with that analysis, it was the media that he was being critical of when he mentioned McNabb’s race, not McNabb himself. The only criticism he had of McNabb was of his performance as an NFL quarterback. Once again, whether or not we agree with that analysis, there is nothing racist about criticism of an athlete’s performance.

Further alleged evidence of racism is the song “Barack the Magic Negro” that Limbaugh plays on his radio show. What the accusers don’t care to mention, however, is that Limbaugh’s “Barack the Magic Negro” parodies an L.A. Times piece by black columnist David Ehrenstein entitled “Obama the 'Magic Negro.’” In his piece Ehrenstein claims that Obama “lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.” Ehrenstein states that Obama’s fame “has little to do with his political record or what he's written… or even what he's actually said… It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as (then) presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is ‘articulate.’” Ehrenstein said, “The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged ‘inauthenticty [sic],’ as compared to such sterling examples of ‘genuine’ blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg.” However, according to Ehrenstein, “as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.”

Ehrenstein’s piece is the real racism behind “Barack the Magic Negro,” and that’s what Limbaugh is parodying, but somehow Limbaugh ends up the racist.

Maybe it’s not the misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented quotes like the McNabb quote or the parodies like “Barack the Magic Negro” that cause people to call Limbaugh a racist. Maybe it’s the quotes attributed to Limbaugh such as this one:

I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

This quote is not taken out of context, misunderstood, or misrepresented. It’s very clear. The only problem is that it’s completely fabricated. It’s made up. There is no record whatsoever of Limbaugh ever having made that statement.

The same is true of another quote being attributed to Limbaugh in which he supposedly praises the man who assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here's the quote:

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Again, it’s a completely fabricated quote. Limbaugh simply never said it. However, that does not seem to matter to those who want to paint Limbaugh as a racist.

This crusade against Limbaugh’s ownership of an NFL franchise is based on the twisting and misrepresenting of Limbaugh comments and parodies from his radio show, and on the spread of completely fabricated comments falsely attributed to Limbaugh. The leaders of this anti-Limbaugh crusade are politically motivated, and those who have fallen in line with those politically motivated anti-Limbaugh leaders are people who have chosen to believe what they’ve been told without checking out any of the facts.

I have listened to literally hundreds of hours of Limbaugh’s radio show, which I would be willing to bet is far more than anyone on this anti-Limbaugh crusade has listened to, and I can say that, while I do not always agree with him on every issue, one thing that I am sure of is that he is not a racist. It is sad that those of the left have once again played the race card to further their political agenda. They are the real racists. And it’s equally sad that others, once again, either don't care enough to learn the truth, choosing instead to follow those racists like blind sheep, or know the truth but lack the courage to stand up against the politically correct nonsense of the left, and as a result have allowed politics to take center stage in an area where it does not belong at all.

Why do we say we're heading down the road to socialism?

2009-10-06T15:38:00.007-04:00

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
-Merriam-Webster Online

Now we learn that Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration pay czar (can you believe we even have such a thing?), is planning to cut the cash salaries of many top employees of corporations that have received government funds.

Sounds like governmental ownership and administration. Sounds like socialism.

Kevin Jennings - Obama Administration's "Safe Schools Czar"

2009-10-01T16:10:00.006-04:00

Qualifications:
*High school history teacher
*Faculty advisor to the nation’s first Gay-Straight Alliance
*Founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
*Appointed in 1992 by Massachusetts Governor William Weld to co-chair the Education Committee of the Governor’s Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth
*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender finance co-chair for "Obama for America"

Quotations:
"I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned."

"I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' ... That is our mission from this day forward."

"You know, I hope you knew to use a condom." -To a 15 year-old high school boy who confided to Jennings that he had met an older man in a bus station bathroom and went home with him.

2009-09-25T17:39:00.001-04:00

Produced in 1948, but should be seen by everyone today.

New Web Poll

2009-09-25T13:52:00.001-04:00

Right Thinking has a new web poll. This one is on healthcare. Please vote.

Change We Can Count On

2009-09-17T22:29:00.003-04:00

"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed."
-President Barack Obama in Prague on April 5, 2009

September 17, 2009: President Barack Obama scraps plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

Kanye West is a Racist

2009-09-15T06:50:00.001-04:00

Ok, I don't really know if Kanye West is a racist or not, but that's the conclusion he came to in 2005 about President George W. Bush.

During "A Concert for Hurricane Relief," aired on NBC, West exclaimed, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." West came to that conclusion because the federal government was not evacuating black folks from New Orleans as fast as he thought they should. So the natural conclusion is that George Bush is a racist.

Well, ok. During Sunday evening's 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, West jump onto the stage and took the mic from country singer Taylor Swift while Swift (who is white) was accepting her "Best Female Video" award. West then blurted, "Yo Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Beyonce has one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!" Beyonce, of course, is black.

So that settles it. Kanye West doesn't care about white people. His statement on stage Sunday was a racist statement. He's a racist. It's all about race.

Of course, I don't really believe that West's outburst Sunday had anything to do with race. I really believe it was about an out-of-control, egotistical, celebrity individual. But I'm going to say that Kanye West is a racist and that his outburst was all about race. After all, that always works for the Left.

9-11 "Never Forget"

2009-09-11T00:00:00.000-04:00

Pics from the Kokomo Area Tea Party

2009-09-10T23:02:00.007-04:00

There was a great turnout this evening at the Kokomo area tea party. Here are a couple pictures of the "mobsters."

Some of the crowd

Keynote speaker Peter Heck

Obama's Next Czar?

2009-09-10T15:50:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama's former green jobs' czar Van Jones was, among other things, a 9-11 conspiracy nut. In 2004 he signed 911Truth.org's "Truth Statement" which called for inquiry into "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

Van Jones has since resigned from his position in the Obama administration (in addition to being a "9-11 Truther," he was a radical black nationalist and self-proclaimed communist), but here's a suggestion for Jones' replacement: Charlie Sheen.

Yes, I'm talking about actor Charlie Sheen. In an open letter to President Obama, Sheen has requested a meeting with the President. The letter is in the form of a transcript of a fictional meeting between Sheen and Obama during which Sheen tries to convince the President to reopen the investigation into 9-11 and to investigate the possibility that the Bush administration allowed or perhaps even caused the events of 9-11. During the fictional meeting, Sheen tells the President, "9-11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights."

So Charlie Sheen is more than just a Hollywood actor. He's also a 9-11 conspiracy nut. I think that qualifies him for a czar position in the Obama administration.

Where Does the Buck Stop?

2009-09-08T16:06:00.001-04:00

On March 16, 2006 Senator Barack Obama spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate as part of the Senate debate on increasing the limit on the national debt.

Senator Obama said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure… Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.”

The leadership that Senator Obama was criticizing in 2006 was that of President Bush.

On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed the $789 billion stimulus bill, which included an increase of the limit on the national debt to $12.1 trillion. Now, the Obama administration has asked Congress to raise the debt limit again, saying that the $12.1 trillion limit set in February could be reached by mid-October.

Can we expect to hear President Obama admit that the limit on our national debt needing to be raised twice during his first year in office is “a sign of leadership failure”? Will the buck stop at the office of this President?

I doubt it.

"The Government Can" - by Tim Hawkins

2009-09-04T16:33:00.005-04:00

One of the best parody videos I've seen. Hat tip to The Peter Heck Show, which is where I first heard this.

Enjoy!

Kudos to The Kokomo Perspective

2009-09-02T23:09:00.002-04:00

In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, let me give kudos this week to The Kokomo Perspective. Last week I posted that the Perspective would not print a letter to the editor that I had submitted expressing an opposing view to a column the paper had printed which advocated Cap and Trade legislation as an answer to what the author called the "fact" of global warming. Two issues of the paper were published without printing the letter; therefore, I published the letter on this blog. Peter Heck also read the letter on The Peter Heck Show, for which I would like to say, "Thanks Peter."

Today, however, The Kokomo Perspective did publish the letter. My hope is that the people in the Kokomo area who read the letter will see that the so-called "fact" of global warming expressed in the original column is not fact at all; there is another side to the story that needs to be told. Thanks to The Kokomo Perspective for helping to tell that other side.

The Letter The Kokomo Perspective Won't Print

2009-08-26T06:47:00.003-04:00

In the town in which I live, there is a weekly newspaper called The Kokomo Perspective. The August 12, 2009 edition of this paper published an opinion column by Rick A. Parsons entitled "Why we need a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide."

According to the short bio at the end of the column, Parsons is a high school environmental science teacher. Understand that I'm not claiming that Mr. Parsons projects his personal views on his students. I don't know whether he does or not. However, Mr. Parsons' stated in his column, "Global warming is a fact, and the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide mainly due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are the major cause of this warming." It did occur to me that a teacher who believes this to be "fact" may well feel justified in relating those "facts" to his students.

I have nothing personal against Mr. Parsons; I don't know the man. I would also defend Mr. Parsons' right to express his belief in man-made global warming and his belief in the need for a cap-and-trade program. However, I believe that the public, especially the parents of Mr. Parsons' environmental science students, have the right to know that there is another side to what Mr. Parsons calls facts. Believing that, I submitted a letter to the editor of The Kokomo Perspective in response to Mr. Parsons' column.

Since the time that I submitted my letter, the Perspective has published two editions of its paper and has so far not found the need to publish my letter. Therefore, I've decided to publish the letter here on Right Thinking.

Read Mr. Parsons' column; then read my response. What do you think? Should Mr. Parsons' opinions be allowed to stand as so-called "fact"?

Here is my letter:

In the August 12 issue of the Kokomo Perspective, Rick Parsons wrote an editorial arguing the need for cap-and-trade legislation. In his editorial Parsons made this statement: “Global warming is a fact, and the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide mainly due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are the major cause of this warming.” It seems that Mr. Parsons uses the word fact rather freely.

I noticed that Mr. Parsons is an environmental science teacher. I’m not a scientist and, therefore, will not argue the science with Mr. Parsons. I can read, however. Let me, therefore, point out that the U.S. Senate Minority Report has published a list of over 700 international dissenting scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming.1

Additionally, from March 8-10, 2009, the second International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland Institute, was held in New York City. During the conference, 80 of the world’s top climate scientists presented evidence skeptical of man-made global warming.2

If one is inclined to do even the simplest research, he or she can quickly and easily find an abundance of evidence presented by reputable scientists who are skeptical of what Mr. Parsons calls “fact.”

In his editorial, Mr. Parsons also wrote that “local politicians and editorial writers…have in a partisan way attempted to scare everyone with hyperbole about increased electricity rates or taxes.” He declared that “scaremongers…continue to put out lies or half-truths regarding the cap-and-trade system.” I would contend that it is not scare mongering when you have the research to back it up.

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, reports that analysis shows that, for a house of four, passage of the Waxman-Markey bill (cap-and-trade) would cause energy costs to go up $436 in 2012 (the year the bill would take effect) and would reach more than $1,241 by 2035.

In addition to direct energy costs, the higher energy costs would raise production costs. This in turn would raise the cost of almost all consumer goods. According to Lieberman, Waxman-Markey would result in “a total impact attributable to a family of four averaging $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035.” 3

Even if global warming were real and man-made, and even if we were willing to pay the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, would the legislation do any good? According to climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services, “the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature ‘savings’ during the next 50 years of about 0.05º”4 This would not be enough to make any impact on any negative effects of global warming, even if there were any.

Further negating any positive effect of Waxman-Markey is the fact that many other countries, such as China and India, have shown no inclination to curb their CO2 levels. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson recently testified that "U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels."5

The science of global warming is highly debated; the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would be high; and the effect of the bill on global temperature would be negligible. I certainly hope that students in Mr. Parsons’ environmental science classes are being presented both sides of this issue.

SOURCES:
1http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
2http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html
3http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062309a.cfm 4http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
5http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=564ed42f-802a-23ad-4570-3399477b1393

Bryan Alexander
Kokomo, Indiana

Yeah, These People Can Run Health Care

2009-08-20T20:01:00.003-04:00

It started as a brilliant idea. Trade in a gas-guzzling, environment-destroying clunker of a car, and the U.S. government will give you $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase of a more fuel-efficient vehicle. We'll stimulate the economy and save the world from environmental disaster all in one motion.

The processing of claims for the "Cash for Clunkers" program began on July 24, 2009, and the $1 billion the government allotted was supposed to last until November. Opps…

In less than one week, the program was out of money. Now I know it’s hard to imagine that the federal government miscalculated how much money this program would cost, but they did.

Not to worry, however. Congress simply voted $2 billion more for the program, and President Obama signed into law on August 7 legislation that would extend the program until Labor Day. Opps again…

It was announced today that the “Cash for Clunkers” program will end on Monday at 8 p.m.

Why close the program? One reason may be that, according Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa, only 2% of the claims submitted by auto dealers have been paid.

Mark Schienberg, president of the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, says that about half of the dealerships in the New York metro area have left the program already because they haven’t been reimbursed, are concerned that they won’t be reimbursed, and are out of cash to fund any more deals.

Schienberg says that although the program has brought a lot of people into the dealerships, it is a program that is "in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency. If they don't get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure."

Even MSNBC said this about "Cash for Clunkers": “Bureaucracy, poor planning may mar the overall impression of the program.”

What? Poor planning? As difficult as it is to believe, I think we must, indeed, call it poor planning. First, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was chosen to run the program; however, the NHTSA had never run anything like this before. They assigned only 230 staff to the program, were immediately overwhelmed, and had to more than triple their assigned staff. They also had to bolster the NHTSA computer system, which was drowning in a flood of “clunker” deals.

OK, let's look at the positive side of all this. Even with all of its problems, the “Cash for Clunkers” program has at least helped to stimulate the economy, right? Well, yeah, kind of - if you’re talking about the Asian economy. It seems that of the top ten vehicles bought through the program, seven are manufactured by Japanese automakers, one by a Korean automaker, and only two by an American automaker.

So the program has been a bureaucratic nightmare, it ran out of money, it was administered poorly, and it helped to stimulate the Asian economy more than ours. And what is President Obama's reaction? In an interview today, the President said that the program was "successful beyond anybody's imagination."

No wonder he thinks the government can run health care.

If We Weren't Paying Attention, It's Time to Start

2009-08-11T07:36:00.006-04:00

In March, the well-known New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks made this admission: "Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was."

In recent days and weeks I have heard an increasing chorus of Obama supporters exclaiming that what they are seeing from this administration is not what they thought they were voting for.

My only question for all of these folks is this: “How could you not have known?”

You’re shocked at the federal deficit which has grown to a record $1.3 trillion and is expected to top out around $1.8 trillion for the year; however, the National Journal ranked then-Senator Obama as the nation’s most liberal senator overall in 2007, and tied with five others as the nation’s most liberal senator economically. But many didn’t bother to pay attention.

Many are concerned with the Obama White House telling Democrat senators last week, "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard."

But did we pay attention when candidate Obama gave the un-presidential directive to his supporters to “argue with them and get in their face”?

You’re outraged when union thugs intimidate and attack those who show up at town hall meetings to oppose nationalized healthcare.

But how closely did we pay attention when Black Panthers members showed up at polling places last Election Day, one wielding a nightstick, to intimidate voters?

And where was the public outrage this past May when political appointees in the Obama Justice Department inexplicably dropped the charges of voter intimidation that had been filed against those thugs?

Maybe it raises a red flag with you when President Obama tries to silence opposition by stating just last week, "I expect to be held responsible, but I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

Or perhaps it’s alarming when the Obama White House sends a memo to their followers stating, "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

These attacks on free speech may be troublesome, but did it bother you when candidate Obama tried to intimidate a Chicago radio station into not giving airtime to an anti-Obama book author, or when a Barack Obama Truth Squad was set up in Missouri last September to “target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign.”

Many are disturbed by what they find in the backgrounds of some of the people President Obama has appointed to positions in his administration.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is a health-policy adviser in the Obama administration, who openingly advocates the allocation of medical care based on age and on the ability of the patient to participate in society.

The President's “science czar” is John Holdren, who in 1977 co-authored a book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In his book, Holdren suggests possible ways to control population, including all of the following: forced abortion, requiring illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, requiring pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, forced sterilization of populations by adding a sterilant to the drinking water or to food supplies, and forced sterilization of women after their second or third child.

Van Jones, the President’s "Green Jobs Czar," is another Presidential appointee of concern. Jones, who was jailed during the Rodney King riots, has said that in jail he “met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."

How shocking is it that the President of the United States would appoint an avowed communist and others with radical left-wing agendas to positions in his administration?

It shouldn't be shocking at all. Didn’t we pay attention to who was supporting candidate Obama during the campaign? Here is just a short list:

Tom Hayden - A principal organizer of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) who met with Communist North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders during the Vietnam war and who called returning American POWs "liars, hypocrites and pawns" when they described their abuse in Viet Cong prisons.

Carl Davidson – A former national secretary of SDS who has called Fidel Castro “a remarkable man."

Fred Klonsky - Former SDS member, son of leading Communist Party USA member Robert Klonsky and brother of Mike Klonsky, former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

Mark Rudd - Former leader of both SDS and Bill Ayers’ terrorist group Weather Underground.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. – A principal organizer of the Black Radical Congress.

For more details on what we knew about Barack Obama before the election, go back and read the following posts from this blog:

Barack Obama: A Step in the Left Direction - October 10, 2008

Do we really understand what's at stake? - October 27, 2008

Barack Obama's Ties to a Terrorist - September 20, 2008

If you didn't read those posts before, please read them now. If you did read them before, please read them again. Understand who Barack Obama is. Understand what he is doing. It's too late to stop him from becoming the President of the United States, but perhaps we can still stop him from destroying The United States, as we've known it.

Did they say what they said? Yeah, they did.

2009-08-06T00:25:00.003-04:00

We have all heard Barack Obama repeatedly tell us that the public option in his healthcare reform plan will simply give Americans another choice in healthcare. He likes to tell us that if we like our current coverage, we'll be able to keep it. He claims that he simply wants to put competition into the healthcare system. But is that what he really wants? Is that what the Democrat Party really wants?

Here is a video clip of Barack Obama speaking to the AFL/CIO in 2003:

Bloggers and talk radio are using this clip and others like it to expose what President Obama really wants to do with healthcare coverage, and the White House is sending out damage control. In a recently released YouTube video, Linda Douglass, the Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform, says this:

The truth is that the President has been talking to the American people a lot about health insurance reform and what is at stake for them, so what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer, and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there, they simply cherry pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say. (emphasis mine)

Go back and listen to the Obama clip again. What he said seems pretty clear to me:

I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal healthcare coverage... A single payer healthcare plan, universal healthcare plan, that’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately, because first we gotta take back the White House, and we gotta take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

Douglass attempts to use two recent clips to try to prove that Obama didn't really say what he said. One clip that she uses is from June 23, 2009; the other is from July 28, 2009. In both clips, President of Obama is telling his audience that under his plan, if Americans like and want to keep the coverage they already have, they will be able to do so.

It seems to me that in attempting to prove that Obama didn't really say what he said, the only thing that Douglass has proven is that Obama was saying one thing in 2003 and he's saying another thing now. It's important to note that Douglass didn't say that, in the past, Mr. Obama was in favor of single-payer healthcare, but that, because of more and better information, he has changed his position. I could accept that a person could change his mind on an issue after giving the issue more study, but that's not what Douglass says has happened. She says simply that he didn't say what we can clearly hear him say.

Need more proof of what the democrats are really after? The following video includes a short clip from the above video, but it also includes Obama saying that he doesn't think we will "be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately (emphasis mine)," Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) saying that a good public option is "the best way to reach single payer,” and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) saying that an insurance representative was correct when he told her that "a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer."

When someone tells you that Obama's insurance plan will not eliminate private insurance, that right-wingers are only using that as a scare tactic, let them know exactly what the President and democrats in Congress have said. And don't let them tell you that what the democrats said is not what they said.

This Dog Doesn't Want a Government Handout!

2009-08-02T23:37:00.004-04:00

Thanks to my cousin Vanessa, a fine conservative woman, for bringing this video to my attention.

OK, before you Obama supporters get all worked up, I know the dog has been trained to do this, but I still think it's funny.

Have a sense of humor!

The Beer Summit and Lessons Learned

2009-07-31T08:40:00.003-04:00

Yesterday evening's Beer Summit between African-American professor Henry Louis Gates, European-American Sergeant James Crowley, African/European-American President Barack Hussein Obama, and an unexpected Summit attendee, European-American Vice President Joe Biden, was a teachable moment. In fact, I am in awe at the abilities of both Professor Gates and President Obama to create such a teachable moment.

We all know that racism is still rampant in this country. The fact that we now have a black, er, African-American... no, sorry, an African/European-American President, certainly does not mean that European-American people are no longer racist. After all, you have to remember that only 43 percent of all European-American voters voted for Mr. Obama, so 57 percent of them are clearly still racist. Also remember that a full 4 percent of African-American voters voted for the extremely Caucasian John McCain, clearly proving that African-Americans thoughtfully voted for the candidate they believed would do the best job, regardless of race.

In this environment of blatant racism of European-Americans toward African-Americans, we all need a lesson in race relations. Fortunately for us, Professor Gates, who just happens to be the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University, and President Obama, who has written and spoken extensively on race, wisely recognized the opportunity to create just the teachable moment we all needed.

When Gates was seen forcing his way into his own home because the door was jammed, a neighbor, not recognizing that it was Gates, did the neighborly thing and called the police. Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department responded to the call. When Crowley arrived on the scene, he asked Gates for identification - nothing unusual there, pretty routine, no teachable moment so far. However, Professor Gates could sense what only a Harvard educator would have the ability to sense: the possibility of a teachable moment.

Gates quickly sprang into action by refusing Sgt. Crowley's request for identification. When Crowley informed Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates asked, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" Gates became belligerent toward Crowley and was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct. The groundwork for the teachable moment had been developed.

When President Obama was later asked for his comments on the Gates arrest, he almost destroyed the developing teachable moment by admitting that he didn't have all the facts. He quickly recovered, however, by stating that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." We now had a fully developed teachable moment.

Yesterday evening's Beer Summit was the culmination of the lessons that we have all learned through this teachable moment created by the non-racist African-American Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the equally non-racist African/European-American President Barack Hussein Obama. So what are those lessons? Certainly there are many, but as I see it, here are the main three.

1. If you are a black person - I mean an African-American person - and you are stopped by the police, start loudly proclaiming that the officer is a racist and that he or she is only stopping you because you are an African-American person. If you do this, you will get to have a beer with the President.

2. If you are a European-American police officer, and you are called to investigate any possible violation of the law, and you see that the suspect is an African-American person, you have a difficult decision to make. If you do your job and investigate as you should, you will be called stupid by the President. If that doesn't bother you, however, go ahead and investigate, because after being called stupid by the President, you'll get to go have a beer with him.

3. If you see someone who appears to be breaking into a neighbor's home, make sure you find out that person's race before you decide whether or not to call the police. If you find out that the person is a European-American, go ahead and call the police. If you find out that the person is an African-American, do NOT call the police. Everyone will know that you are a racist, and you will NOT get to have beer with the President.

Words of our Founding Fathers: Echoed by Palin, Contradicted by Obama

2009-07-29T08:49:00.009-04:00

As I was reading the transcript of Sarah Palin's farewell speech made in Alaska on Sunday, these words, in particular, stood out to me:

Be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free, and often, accepting it takes away everything that is free; melting into Washington's powerful "care-taking" arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free.

Palin's admonition against the enticement of government generosity reflected, I thought, the principles upon which this country was founded, so I did some quick research into the words of some of our county's founding fathers.

Here are some examples of what I found:

The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment, may be viewed as the most truly independent and happy. They are more: they are the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety. It follows, that the greater the proportion of this class to the whole society, the more free, the more independent, and the more happy must be the society itself.
-James Madison, March 3, 1792

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled [sic] much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
-Ben Franklin, November 1776

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
-Thomas Jefferson, April 6, 1816

As I read the above Jefferson quote, it occurred to me that while his words are echoed in the words of Sarah Palin, they are contradicted in these words:

It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
-Barack Obama, October 12, 2008

Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of change, and he's delivering on that promise. Unfortunately, the change that he's delivering is changing our country into something that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

A Look Behind Ginsburg's Words

2009-07-21T11:27:00.009-04:00

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with The New York Times, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

You don’t often hear abortion advocates admit the desire to limit the population of those “that we don’t want to have too many of,” so it’s very surprising that Ginsburg said this, but it should come as no surprise that she thought it.

The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921, and in 1942 it was renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. Margaret Sanger was a birth control activist and proponent of negative eugenics, the belief in improving humanity by discouraging or preventing reproduction by those deemed to be unfit or in some way defective.

Sanger believed that certain populations of human beings should not reproduce. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger writes the following:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded. (pp. 101-102)

According to Sanger, people with mental or physical deficiencies were a drain on society and, as such, should not be allowed to be born.

…we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization. (p. 187)

Sanger also believed that it was the responsibility of the State to eliminate the populations of the unworthy.

Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations -- unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities. (p. 82)

Even though Sanger’s advocacy was primarily for contraception, not abortion, she clearly lacked any sense of the intrinsic value of human life. When life is valued – or devalued – based upon any factor other than its inherent sanctity, horrific consequences are not far behind.

In 1920, the year before Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, German judge Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche co-wrote a 60-page booklet entitled "Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens" (translated as "The Approval to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life.") Binding and Hoche argued that people with terminal illness, mental illness, and other disabilities, whose lives were “unworthy of life,” could be euthanized. The following, from the original in the German language, shows the complete lack respect for the intrinsic value of human life in Binding and Hoche’s work:

Ihr Leben ist absolut zwecklos, aber sie empfinden es nicht als unerträglich. Für die Angehörigen wie für die Gesellschaft bilde sie eine furchtbar schwere Belastung. Ihr Tod reißt nicht die geringste Lücke - außer vielleicht im Gefühl der Mutter oder der treuen Pflegerin.

Here is the translation to English:

Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not feel that it is unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the slightest void--except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or trusted nurses.

Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, the idea that the value of human life was conditional as opposed to innate began to permeate German society. It was an idea that created the conditions that eventually made the holocaust possible.

American psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton writes that Binding and Hoche had laid the “philosophical groundwork” for the transition between mandatory sterilization and “killing or designating for death one's own patients.” Here, he outlines the steps from forced sterilization to the Nazi extermination camps:

Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the destruction of ''life unworthy of life,'' coercive sterilization was the first. There followed the killing of ''impaired'' children in hospitals, and then the killing of ''impaired'' adults -mostly collected from mental hospitals - in centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide. The same killing centers were then used for the murders of ''impaired'' inmates of concentration camps. The final step was mass killing, mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves.

In 1938 a letter was written to Adolf Hitler requesting permission to put to death a baby known as “Baby Knauer,” who was born blind and missing a leg and part of an arm. Hitler sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. The doctors who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no justification for keeping the child alive," and the baby was euthanized.

Hitler soon authorized the establishment of a child-killing program. Doctors and midwives were required to notify officials when a baby was born with birth defects. Each case was reviewed to determine whether the baby would be euthanized. The program started with newborns but was soon expanded to include older children, then adults.

As the program was expanded to include older people, it was also expanded in terms of the kinds of diseases and disabilities that would warrant euthanasia. At first, people were designated for euthanasia because of conditions such as profound mental retardation, Down syndrome, paralysis, and deformities of any kind. Eventually, the program included those with minor handicaps, juvenile delinquents, …and Jewish children.

In more recent times, we can see many parallels to the accepted killing of human beings in the first half of the 20th century. In the Netherlands, the Dutch have practiced infanticide since at least 1992, and in 2005 published the Groningen Protocol, which established accepted infanticide guidelines. Italian Parliamentary Affairs Minister Carlo Giovanardi made a statement in March 2006 critical of the Dutch practice of infanticide. Giovanardi said, "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Dutch officials were outraged at Giovanardi’s comment; however, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, had this to say:

… the Netherlands cannot escape this ugly fact: Dutch doctors kill scores of babies each year and justify this fundamental abuse of human rights upon the inherently discriminatory concept that they can decide that another human being's life is of such low quality it has no business being lived.

In this sense, the Dutch infanticide program is explicitly akin to the murder of Baby Knauer in 1938. Unless we decide to revise our historical assessment of that crime and proclaim Hitler's authorization for the baby's euthanasia as compassionate and right, the systematic program of Dutch infant euthanasia should be loudly and universally condemned.

Even here in our own country, many no longer honor the fundamental sanctity of human life. In 1982 in Bloomington, Indiana, a baby known as "Baby Doe" was born with Down syndrome and with a separation of the esophagus from the stomach, which prevented food from reaching the stomach. A routine operation could have corrected the problem involving the esophagus. However, because the baby would, of course, still have Down syndrome, the parents refused to allow the operation, choosing instead to allow the baby to die. The case was taken to court in an attempt to have the court order medical treatment for the baby. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the parents, and even though many families offered to adopt the baby, the parents still refused. Baby Doe died seven days after birth.

In 2005, Terri Schiavo died after her husband refused to allow her to receive nourishment and hydration through feeding tubes. Terri was brain damaged, but not brain dead. She was not on artificial live support; she needed only to be provided food and water. Terri's parents begged to be allowed to care for their daughter, but the court ruled against them and ordered the feeding tubes removed. After 13 days, Terri Schiavo died of dehydration.

We now have a President who, as an Illinois state senator opposed legislation to require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived an induced labor abortion attempt. A nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago testified that babies who survived the procedure, who were completely separated from their mothers, and who were alive and breathing on their own, were left on the floor of a utility room to die.

The Illinois State Senate drafted a bill that would require medical personnel to provide care for these babies. Barack Obama vocally opposed the bill, voted against it twice, and the third time, as chairman of the Health and Human Services committee, prevented the bill from even making it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. He was more concerned with protecting a woman’s supposed right to have an abortion than he was with protecting the life of a living, breathing baby lying on the floor of a hospital utility room. These babies were allowed to die simply because they weren’t wanted.

Most people know that President Obama has been appointing individuals as “czars” of various programs. An individual by the name of John Holdren is Obama’s “science czar.” What most people don’t know about Holdren, however, is that in 1977 he co-authored a book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In his book, Holdren suggests possible ways to control population, including all of the following: forced abortion, requiring illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, requiring pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, forced sterilization of populations by adding a sterilant to the drinking water or to food supplies, and forced sterilization of women after their second or third child.

When Justice Ginsburg said that she thought that the Roe decision was going to be a way to limit population growth and “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” it was surprising that she said it, but not surprising that she thought it. Since the Roe decision in 1973, nearly 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States. That’s a population of 50 million lives - lives that someone decided had no value – human beings that someone decided should never be born.

ABC to the Rescue

2009-07-10T09:53:00.009-04:00

You've probably already seen it by now, but if not, here is the picture that is making headlines around the world.

In the picture, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy appear to eyeing the backside of 16 year-old Mayora Tavares of Brazil.

It looks like the two Presidents have been caught in an embarrassing moment, but Mr. Obama need not worry. ABC News has come to his defense.

ABC News has posted a video that, according to the news anchor, shows that Obama..."may be watching his footing, may by be looking at the steps, may be letting her pass - as opposed to a checkout..." You can watch the video here.

When I watch the video, it looks like the President may have been watching his footing or simply letting the young lady pass. It also looks like he may have caught a quick glance at the young lady's backside. You can decide that for yourself.

My response is this: Who knows? Who cares? The real problem is how quickly ABC News rushes to Obama's defense.

Let's imagine for a moment that it had been President George W. Bush in this situation instead of President Barack H. Obama. How would ABC, and NBC, and CBS, and MSNBC, and CNN have reported the incident? Something like this.

President Bush was caught today in what many are calling a very inappropriate moment of indiscretion. The President is shown here (at this point they would show the picture on the television screen) ogling the backside of a 16 year-old girl at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. The picture is causing embarrassment to the United States worldwide, and Democrats are calling for an investigation into the President's possible pedophilic tendencies.

But that was then; this is now. ABC has once again performed dutifully in the major media's role as a President Obama public relations and damage control industry.

The American Ruling Class in Moscow

2009-07-09T09:00:00.005-04:00

We're being told that we must all sacrifice in the midst of our current economic crisis. Evidently, "all" does not include the First Family.

In April, Michelle Obama wore a pair of $540 sneakers to a D.C. food bank. In May, the President and First Lady jetted to New York City for a date night. Some estimates put the cost of the date at nearly a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, although the exact cost is not known because the "most open presidency in history" has refused to divulge those numbers.

Now, the First Lady has reportedly been carrying in Moscow a $5,950 alligator manila envelope clutch by VBH (which I think is a really high-class way of saying an expensive gator-skin small purse manufactured by a company that I've never heard of before, but then, I'm just a uneducated redneck from flyover country).

The White House denies that Mrs. Obama's little purse, uh.. envelope clutch, cost that much. They say that it cost only $875. However, a representative for VBH said, "It’s definitely ours."

Either way, this image of the First Lady making a show of such extravagance in a city with a long history of ruling class extravagance juxtaposed against working class poverty seems to me to be more than a little unsettling.

Hate-Speech from the Left

2009-07-08T23:09:00.010-04:00

Shown above is a picture of the left-wing Huffington Post blog article posted on July 3 by Erik Sean Nelson. Nelson's post was entitled "Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform."

The following is from the text of that post:

In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.

Nelson later removed the post with the following "apology."

Within ten minutes of my post I received some emails from the loved ones of the retarded and I saw that my piece was hurtful. Therefore, I removed the post right after receiving the first 2 emails.

If this were a conservative writing this kind of trash, he would be lambasted in the media and fired, and rightfully so. And that miserable and disingenuous excuse for an apology wouldn't save him, nor should it. It's pathetic.

So what about Nelson? As of the time of this posting, he's still a contributor for The Huffington Post.

America, are you paying attention?

2009-05-28T21:33:00.003-04:00

Folks, if this country doesn't wake up quickly to what is happening right before our eyes, one day we'll wake up to a country that we don't even recognize.

I want you to imagine that you are sitting at home, your home, with a group of 15 or so friends, and a government official knocks at your door. You answer the knock, and the government official proceeds to ask you a series of questions about what you and your friends are doing in your home. It turns out that you are holding a Bible study.

The government official tells you that you are in violation of the law. A few days later you are ordered to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit."

Does this sound like something that might have happened in Cuba, North Korea, China, or maybe in the former Soviet Union? Yes, it probably has happened in all of those places. But this would never happen here, not in the United States of America. Would it?

Guess again! That's exactly what happened to David and Mary Jones of San Diego, California. You can read the 10News report here and the FOX News report here.

Read the reports.

I'm afraid for our country. I'm afraid for my children as they begin lives on their own. I'm afraid for my future grandchildren and the world in which they will grow up.

Americans had better wake up before it's too late!

Is This a Good Use of Our Tax Money?

2009-05-15T16:12:00.001-04:00

As of May 15, 2009 the national debt was 11,270,547,397,564.64. So our government is now watching every penny it spends to make sure it is spent wisely, right? Well, not quite. Unless this seems to you like wise spending of our tax dollars.

The National Institutes of Health is spending $2.6 million to "study the link between alcohol use and the spread of HIV/AIDS among female sex workers in a single southern province in China."

The study, being conducted by lead researcher Dr. Xiaoming Li, Ph.D., of Wayne State University, hopes to "establish and evaluate whether an alcohol and HIV intervention center can assist in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS among sex workers in China."

So our money is being used to educate Chinese prostitutes on the dangers of drinking on the job.

If you like that wise use of our tax dollars, you'll love this one.

The U.S. government is spending $400,000 to study risky sexual behavior of gay men in bars in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The research will be conducted in "public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs," with the goal of describing "the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to result in sexual risk behavior."

So there you have it. Our tax dollars at work!

Another Example of the Intolerant Left

2009-04-21T07:08:00.002-04:00

In Sunday's Miss USA beauty pageant, judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay celebrity blogger, asked finalist Carrie Prejean, Miss California, the following question:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

As part of Prejean's answer, she said, "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Her answer drew boos from the audience, and according to Hilton himself, probably cost Prejean the title of Miss USA.

What a sad commentary on the state of our society!

First of all, why is a self-proclaimed "queen of all media" celebrity blogger chosen as a judge of the Miss USA contest? Secondly, why is he allowed to ask an entirely political question on a topic in which he, as a gay man, has a personal interest; and thirdly, why is this girl essentially eliminated from the running for the crown because this judge doesn't agree with her personal opinion on the subject?

Prejean has stated that she believes that her answer cost her the title of Miss USA, and Hilton himself later admitted to Larry King that Prejean's answer hurt her. "She was definitely, either the frontrunner or one of the top two contenders," Hilton told King.

King then asked, "Did you think that it (Prejean's answer) hurt her?"

"Absolutely," Hilton responded, "and I think a lot of the judges did."

Even though it probably cost Prejean the title, she believes that she did the right thing by being true to her beliefs. "I have no regrets," Prejean said. "By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself."

For his part, Hilton has called Prejean a "dumb bitch" and said that she has "half a brain." I'm sure that Hilton's status as a "celebrity blogger," qualifies him as an intellectual giant, but don't those comments seem just a little harsh when directed toward someone simply because she doesn't agree with you, especially when they are coming from someone who claims that all viewpoints should be accepted and respected?

Politically Correct Dilemma

2009-04-21T06:58:00.000-04:00

The politically correct crowd is facing quite a predicament. No honorable adherent of politically correct speech would ever suggest that humanity faces, in global warming, anything less than a potentially catastrophic crisis of epic proportions. According to those self-proclaimed protectors of the earth, man has the responsibility to do whatever it takes to stop the clock of impending doom.

It is also contrary to accepted politically correct dialogue to suggest that any person might be overweight. Therein lies the dilemma.

Scientists now claim that overweight people cause global warming. That's right. According to scientists, overweight people eat more than lower-weight people, which means that feeding them requires more food production, which is a major cause of CO2 emissions. Additionally, overweight people are more likely to drive a car as opposed to walking, further adding to global warming.

I can't wait to see the all-loving, all-accepting left-wing nuts trying to explain to fat people that they are destroying the planet.

Thousands of Right-Wing Extremists Fail to Become Violent

2009-04-16T20:05:00.002-04:00

Homeland Security was ready. They had just issued a report warning law enforcement to be on the alert. But those darn right-wing extremists! They can't do anything right!

There they were - thousands of them, gathered in groups of hundreds and thousands, all across the county, holding tea party protests. They had the perfect opportunity. Surely thousands of hate-oriented, anti-government radicals who are opposed to abortion and illegal immigration could set a couple of cars on fire. There were also plenty of gun-totin' rednecks present. You would think they could have shot-up a few buildings. Better yet, some of the disgruntled military veterans in attendance could have firebombed the buildings. At the very least, someone could have thrown a rock through a window!

It's not like these right-wing extremists haven't had opportunity to witness plenty of properly-conducted protests from which to learn: WTO, G8, G20, pro-immigration, anti-war... leftists really know how protest. So these right-wing extremists have no excuse for not having at least some violence at Wednesday's tea parties.

Now, Homeland Security is going to have to go back to wasting their time on something silly - like Islamic terrorists.

The Loving, Tolerant Left

2009-04-15T07:02:00.000-04:00

Those on the left are often telling us that we right-wingers are intolerant hate-mongers. We should be more like they are: tolerant, loving, and open to all viewpoints.

On Tuesday, former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo saw first-hand just how tolerant and loving the left can be. Tancredo, an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration into the United States, was on the campus of UNC Chapel Hill to give a speech opposing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.

While he was speaking, protesters were gathered outside the door, chanting, "There's no debate, no space for hate." Wait a minute. No debate? I thought these people were open to all viewpoints. Oh, they must mean that they are open to all viewpoints that are in agreement with their viewpoint.

Well, at least the “no space for hate” part of the chant shows that leftists don’t hate like we right-wing extremists do. When the protests escalated and a window was shattered, I’m sure it was done in a most loving manner. I’m also sure that as Tancredo left, unable to finish his speech, he felt the warmth of the left’s loving embrace.

I just wish that we intolerant right-wing extremist hate-mongers could somehow learn to be as loving and accepting of others as what the left is.

Tax Day Tea Party is Here!

2009-04-15T06:30:00.001-04:00

U.S. Military Still the Best

2009-04-13T06:30:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's successful rescue of Captain Richard Phillips shows why the United States military is still the best in the world. The Somalian thugs' "demands" of $2 million and a guarantee of their own safety in exchange for Phillips' release was answered by U.S. Navy SEALs with three dead and one captured pirate. I'm guessing that pirates will think twice before again deciding to conduct their "business" with a U.S.-flagged ship.

Note: I haven't given credit to President Obama very often (maybe never before), but I'll give him credit when he deserves it, and I give him credit for authorizing the use of force against the pirates.

Are You Kidding Me?

2009-04-09T06:44:00.000-04:00

A U.S. ship captain is being held captive, and the President of the United States refuses to answer reporters’ questions about the situation? Evidently, that is the case with President Barack Obama who, according to a Reuters report "was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters," but refused to comment, and instead "stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing."

Are you kidding me? The President of the United States cannot focus on more than one thing at a time? We may be in even more trouble than I thought.

Brrr... It's Cold!

2009-04-06T22:42:00.002-04:00

I woke up this morning, looked outside, and saw my yard covered with snow - in April! So please, everyone in Indiana, start buying more SUVs. Maybe we can bring some warming to this part of the globe!

Promises we can believe in

2009-04-02T07:04:00.002-04:00

September 12, 2008
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
- Barack Obama

October 2, 2008
“No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.”
- Joe Biden

April 1, 2009
Federal excise tax increase on cigarettes goes into effect. Tax increase is 156%, from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 per pack, the largest federal cigarette tax increase ever.
- The result of a bill that Barack Obama signed into law on February 4, 2009

What the Government Giveth, the Government Taketh Away

2009-03-20T07:02:00.000-04:00

In February, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This past week, insurance giant AIG used $165 million of that money to give bonuses to employees. Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to tax those bonuses at 90%.

Understand that I share the outrage that a huge majority of Americans feel over bailout money being used to hand out millions of dollars in employee bonuses. The purpose of this post is not to suggest that the bonuses were an appropriate use of tax money. I will say, however, that this 90% tax should be a warning to all. It shows very clearly that when government is involved in handing out money, government is in control of that money, and government can take it away at any time.

Here's an idea: instead of handouts, to businesses or individuals, how about simply lowering taxes on businesses and individuals. Let private business and private citizens keep and control more of their own money, and let them run their own businesses and their own lives. Let the American people stimulate the economy. Let the government work for the people once again, not the other way around.

Change We Can Count On

2009-03-12T22:20:00.004-04:00

Remember presidential candidate Barack Obama’s repeated promise to “go through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don’t need…”?

Remember President-elect Barack Obama’s promise to “go through our federal budget -– page by page, line by line –- eliminating those programs we don't need…”?

So are we now to believe that President Barack Obama believes that we need $1.8 million to research pig odor and manure management in Iowa?

Does he really believe that the Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate is so important that we need to spend $5.8 million on it right now? How about $150,000 for Maine lobster research, or $657,000 for Brown Tree Snake Management in Guam? Does he believe it's absolutely essential that we spend $1.7 million for "Honey Bee lab" research, $1.5 million to study seals, or $215,000 to teach scientists how to communicate with the press?

Evidently Barack Obama believes that all of this is necessary. Either that or he believes that it’s just not politically expedient to actually do what he said he would do, because all of this and more - much, much more – is included in the $410 billion spending bill he signed yesterday.

Change We Can Count On? Better make that "Spending We Can Count On!"

The most open presidency in history

2009-02-12T07:03:00.000-05:00

When President Obama said that he would have the most open presidency in history, I didn't realize he meant that he would be open about the fact that he would pre-select who would be allowed to ask questions at his first press conference and who would not. I thought by "open" he meant, for example, that even potentially tough reporters would be given a chance to question His Majesty. I just misunderstood. As the President went down his list of pre-selected reporters armed only with softball questions, he was very open about what level of inquiry he would allow.

Glad to see the President make good on his openness promise.

What's Sycloria Williams Upset About?

2009-02-10T15:35:00.001-05:00

On January 27, 2009, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Shanice Denise Osbourne.

In July 2006, Shanice's mother, 18-year-old Sycloria Williams, who was 23 weeks pregnant, went to a Miami abortion clinic for an abortion that was to be performed by Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique. At the clinic, Williams was given Cytotec by the clinic's receptionist to induce labor. However, Renelique was late, and while Williams was waiting for him to arrive, she delivered a live baby girl.

What happened next is, supposedly, shocking.

One of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez, cut the umbilical cord, placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag, and threw the bag into a trash can. Police later found the baby's remains decomposing in a cardboard box.

Now, everyone is expressing shock and outrage that this would happen.

Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm representing Williams, said, "The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage. People all over the country are just aghast."

Even Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women expressed disapproval. "It really disturbed me. I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

Why are these people upset by this? I don't see a problem. Sycloria Williams went to this clinic with the intention of having an abortion. If Dr. Renelique had been there on time, she would have had the abortion. Her baby would have been dead. That was her intention.

So Dr. Renelique was late, and the baby was born. Belkis Gonzalez, who didn't have the medical expertise to kill the baby while she was still in her mother's womb, simply killed her after she had been delivered. So what? The baby is now dead, and that's why Miss Williams went to the clinic in the first place. That's why she was waiting for Dr. Renelique. She was waiting for him to come in and kill her baby. When you think about it, this way is probably better. Abortions can be hard on the mother. There can be complications. Once the baby is delivered, however, he or she can be easily killed with almost no risk to the mother.

Miami attorney Tom Pennekamp, also representing Williams, said, "She (Williams) came face to face with a human being, and that changed everything." What? Why did that change anything? Of course this little girl was a human being, but she was also a human being thirty minutes earlier when her mother was waiting for Dr. Renelique to come in and perform the abortion. Just because her mother hadn't come "face to face" with her yet didn't mean she wasn't a human being. Nobody had a problem with killing this baby girl minutes before she emerged from her mother's womb, so what was the problem with killing her minutes after she emerged from her mother's womb? The only difference was her location. One minute she was within her mother's womb; next minute she was outside her mother's womb. So what? She didn't suddenly become something that she wasn't before. Her location changed; that's all. No big deal.

So why is Williams suing Gonzalez, Renelique, and the clinic? She got what she wanted: a dead baby. Okay, maybe should be a little upset with Renelique for being late, but she ought to thank Gonzalez. Williams wanted her baby dead, and Gonzalez made that happen for her. If it hadn't been for Gonzales and the baby had lived, Williams would had to have made the difficult choice of either raising her baby or putting it up for adoption. Now, thanks to Gonzalez, she doesn't have to worry about it. Her baby is dead, and she is relieved of all personal responsibility for the child.

Sycloria Williams ought to be happy with the way things turned out.

America's Vote Coming Home to Roost

2009-02-04T07:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for Health and Human Services secretary in the Obama administration, a decision brought about because of the fallout from the revelation that he had only recently paid over $128,000 in back taxes.

Earlier in the day, Nancy Killefer, who had been nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer, withdrew her nomination because of past tax problems of her own.

Last week, Timothy Geithner was confirmed by the Senate as President Obama’s Treasury secretary, despite the fact that he had failed to pay $42,702 in back taxes until after he had been nominated for the job.

Earlier, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, whom Obama had nominated to be the Commerce secretary, withdrew his name because of a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

Should we be surprised? Were there any signs before the election that Barack Obama’s judgment in choosing associates may not be the best?

Consider:

Candidate Barack Obama had known his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, for almost 20 years, yet said that he was unaware that Wright had suggested that the U.S. government had been involved in creating AIDS, that Louis Farrakhan was one of the greatest voices of our time, and that the United States military operations are analogous to terrorism.

Candidate Barack Obama said that he had thought that unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers had been rehabilitated.

Candidate Barack Obama said that he had made a mistake by engaging in any business or personal dealings with Tony Rezko, who has been indicted on charges of fraud, attempted extortion, and money laundering.

Yes, America, we’re getting what we voted for…and we can’t say we didn’t know.

Yeah, This is Working Well!

2009-01-31T11:57:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama has said that he will open talks with Iran. The only thing anyone wants is to be treated with respect. Offer Iran an olive branch and a handshake, and they'll respond, right?

They'll respond alright - with a poke in the eye.

Iranian spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said today that Obama's willingness to talk "means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's response to Obama's offer to talk was to say that he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama and to demand that United States apologize for its "crimes" against Iran.

Maybe President Obama should also offer to hold talks with al-Qaeda. I'm sure that will work out equally well.

Can You Trust Obama on the Economy?

2009-01-29T06:41:00.002-05:00

Throughout the 2008 campaign, presidential candidate Barack Obama repeatedly stated his intent to save taxpayers’ money:

As President, I will go through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don’t need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

On November 25, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama released this statement:

We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politician, lobbyist, or interest group. We simply cannot afford it…

We will go through our federal budget -– page by page, line by line –- eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.

Now, President Barack Obama is trying to push through Congress an $825 billion economic stimulus bill. Here is just a sampling of what the President evidently believes is "a sensible cost-effective way" to stimulate the economy.

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$400 million to NASA for global warming research

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$335 million for STD education and prevention

$87 billion to help with states' Medicaid costs, including birth control costs

$600 million for alternative fuel vehicles for the General Services Administration

$44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters

$6.7 billion to improve energy efficiency at federal buildings

$150 million for infrastructure repairs at the Smithsonian

$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall

There's no political agenda or special interest projects in this bill, is there?

No Class

2009-01-22T07:10:00.002-05:00

This week's inauguration of President Barack Obama was an opportunity to once again show the world that a peaceful transition of power is still possible, and that, in the United States of America, it is still the norm. The inauguration was also an opportunity for liberals to once again show the country what a lack of class looks like. Neither opportunity was wasted.

When a portion of the inaugural crowd chanted "Na-na-na-nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye" in reference to President Bush's leaving office, they showed that not only can they not lose an election with grace (remember "Bush stole the election!" and "Not my President!"?), but that they are also utterly incapable of winning an election with any level of propriety.

Now, just so that no one gets the mistaken impression that rude, disrespectful, and tasteless behavior is a quality reserved only for the common liberal, one of the great liberal leaders of our time, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, has expressed her thoughts on the Obama inauguration. From the San Francisco Chronicle we have this:

"Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. 'It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head,' she said."

Absolutely no class!

It's a bird; it's a plane; it's... Superbama!

2009-01-18T19:44:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama has four years to save the world according to a leading global warming guru. However, a quick look at just a few of the headlines from the past two weeks shows that we have nothing to fear.

Bone-chilling temperatures settle over East

Wicked: Coldest [Chicago] Temps In Over A Decade

Madrid airport closed as Europe freezes

Temperature in Germany Falls to Minus 34.6 Degrees

Superbama hasn't even been sworn into office, and as these headlines show, he's already cooling the planet.

Man, this guy's good!

Global Warming?

2009-01-14T06:37:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations committee that global warming not only “threatens our very existence,” but also that “well before that point, it could well incite new wars of an old kind over basic resources – like food, water and arable land.”

At the same hearing yesterday, incoming Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman John Kerry said, “Many today do not see global climate change as a national security threat, but it is – profoundly so.”

Today, the Associated Press headline reads “Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero.”

How long can these people continue to perpetrate this hoax?

Socialist Climate Czar

2009-01-13T07:17:00.001-05:00

If you've been a follower of Right Thinking, you’ve noticed that I haven’t posted for awhile. There are several reasons for that. First, it’s basketball season, which means that I’m busy with my second job: coaching. Second, I needed a break after all the writing that I did leading up to last November’s presidential election. Third, I have begun to attempt to teach myself a foreign language. Finally, there just hasn’t been much happening in the world about which I have felt a need or a desire to write. However, an article in yesterday’s Washington Times caught my interest.

Some of you may remember that, leading up to and immediately following the election, I wrote several posts expressing my concern about Barack Obama’s socialist ties. If you don’t remember those posts, you can find them here, here, and here. My concern was that if Obama were elected, he would lead this country so far down a path toward Socialism that we may never be able to recover.

Well, guess what. It’s starting. President-elect Obama has appointed Carol M. Browner to fill the newly-created position of presidential assistant on energy and climate change.

So who is Carol M. Browner? Well, until this appointment, she was a member of The Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society. According to it’s website, Socialist International is “the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties,” and its Commission for a Sustainable World Society, was “established by the Socialist International to articulate from the world of progressive politics a way forward to address global environmental concerns, climate change and the issues of governance required to deal with these common challenges.”

If that’s not enough of a clue as to what kind of agenda Browner will have as Obama’s energy and climate czar, The New York Times reported that Browner has called global warming “the greatest challenge ever faced.”

Yes, elections have consequences.

Global Warming Continues to Wreak Havoc!

2008-12-19T23:19:00.005-05:00

On Wednesday, Las Vegas was hit by the largest snowfall it's seen in nearly 30 years.

New Right Thinking Web Poll

2008-12-12T06:43:00.001-05:00

Here are the results of the last Right Thinking web poll. The question was "Barack Obama has campaigned on a promise of 'change.' Now that he has been elected, will he deliver change?"

The results are as follows:

No, not much will change. 6 votes (22%)
Yes, a lot will change, but most of it will not be good. 19 votes (70%)
Yes, a lot will change, and it will be great! 2 votes (7%)

Total Votes: 27

Make sure to vote in our new poll which asks your opinion on the relationship, if any, between President-elect Barack Obama and the scandal involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Powell's Wrong on What the GOP Needs

2008-12-11T22:29:00.005-05:00

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell believes that the Republican party attempted "to use polarization for political advantage" in the presidential election last month, and that the attempt backfired.

CNN's website reports that "Powell... said [in an interview with Fareed Zakariato which will air Sunday] the GOP must see what is in the 'hearts and minds' of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters 'and not just try to nfluence [sic] them by… the principles and dogma.'"

The CNN report went on to say, "Powell, who says he still considers himself a Republican, said his party should also stop listening to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"'Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?' Powell asked. 'Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?'"

Answer to General Powell: Yes, that is, in fact, the kind of party we want to be. It's the kind of party we had better be if we hope to survive as a party. The party has been trying to be the Democrat Lite party, and it hasn't worked.

The last thing the GOP needs is to listen to a socially liberal RINO who decided two weeks before the election who he would endorse.

Give Credit Where Credit's Due

2008-12-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

President George W. Bush has just a short time left in the Oval Office.

Unfortunately, many will always think of him as the President who lied to get us into a war, even though he almost certainly did not lie.

Others will most closely associate President Bush with the current economic crisis, and as the President, he certainly has to accept responsibility. However, if we are honest, there are many lawmakers, both republicans and democrats, who are at least equally at fault. We can find further fault in the hands of CEOs and union leaders. In short, there is plenty of blame to go around on that one, but the President will be the one remembered as the President who got us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

So if history is going to judge this president for what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be his failings, then he should also be given credit for what he has done extremely well: protect the American people.

Yes, I do realize that 9-11 happened on his watch. It happened eight months into the Bush presidency. That was just nine months after the Clinton administration submitted to Congress its final national security report, a 45,000 word document that make no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden only four times. It was after eight years of al Qaeda's organizing and growing more powerful during the Clinton presidency. No one but the most ardent Bush-hater can blame President Bush for 9-11.

So what has happened since 9-11? The terrorists continue to be dangerous and they continue to attempt to attack America and Americans... and so far, under the Bush administration, they have been stopped. There is public information available on at least 19 terrorist conspiracies that have been thwarted by the U.S.

The list is available on many websites. Here's a link to the list as complied by The Heritage Foundation.

Say what you want about President Bush. The fact remains that he has kept Americans safe from terrorism since 9-11-01. And if you think that's an easy job, just ask the Indian security forces who were in charge of protecting Mumbai, India.

Socialism has Arrived

2008-11-24T15:46:00.000-05:00

In 1994 Barack Obama was one of a group of lawyers who represented Calvin Roberson in a lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings Bank. The case alleged race discrimination in lending practices by Citibank, and has recently gained a lot of attention as an example of the courts putting pressure on banking institutions to grant loans to high-risk applicants.

Now we know that the federal government has agreed to guarantee $306 billion in risky assets held by Citigroup and to invest another $20 billion in Citigroup on top of the $25 billion the company has already received.

So let me see if I have this right. Government pressures bank to make risky loans. People who can't afford loans get them anyway. Bank goes broke. Government takes tax money from other people to bail out bank.

I think I've got it. Sounds like socialism.

Gay Agenda Runs Private Business – Frightening for Everyone

2008-11-21T07:02:00.001-05:00

It's the American Dream. Find a need, start a business that fulfills the need, grow your business, then have gay activists dictate how you run your business. Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of the eHarmony online relationship site, is now living that dream.

A lawsuit, the result of a 2005 discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony for failing to provide services for same-sex couples, has been settled out of court.

Under terms of the settlement, eHarmony will launch a second online relationship site called Compatible Partners, which will "welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships," according to eHarmony Vice President of Legal Affairs Antone Johnson.

Also under terms of the settlement, Compatible Partners will give McKinley $5,000 and a complimentary one-year membership. In addition, the settlement gives the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

So now Dr. Warren, who is an evangelical Christian, gets to live out his American dream by providing services for people who live a lifestyle that goes against his personal religious beliefs.

This should frighten and upset Christians, certainly, but Christians are not the only people who should be frightened and upset. When private business owners are told that they must run their businesses in a way that violates their own values, that should frighten and upset not only Christians, but also atheists, gays, straights, vegetarians, hunting enthusiasts: everyone who owns or hopes to someday own a business.

Today, Christians must violate their values. Who will it be tomorrow?

2008-11-19T07:02:00.000-05:00

Filmmaker John Ziegler is working on a new documentary entitled Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected. As part of his research, Ziegler hired Zogby International to conduct a survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide, asking them 12 multiple-choice questions regarding statements linked to one of the four candidates: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. The poll found that people were woefully uninformed, especially when it came to any negative information about Obama.

In addition to the Zogby poll, twelve Obama voters were interviewed on film on election day right after they voted. Again, their answers indicate a deplorable lack of knowledge about the candidates. Granted, interviewing 12 people on camera means nothing by itself; however, when you look at those interviews within the context of the Zogby poll, it's clear that if the job of the media is to inform the public, they have failed miserably.

Here's the video:

The following is a quick summary of the Zogby poll as posted on the How Obama Got Elected website. For full poll results, click here.

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

The Veracity of the AP

2008-11-13T15:43:00.002-05:00

Last week, Fox News reported that an anonymous source inside the McCain campaign claimed that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent. On Monday of this week, MSNBC reported that the anonymous source was McCain policy advisor Martin Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. As it turns out, however, there is no Martin Eisenstadt, nor is there a Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. The whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish. The pair made up the name Martin Eisenstadt and the name of the phony think tank, then claimed to be the source of the leak about Palin’s alleged lack of understanding of basic fourth grade geography.

Today, an AP report states that MSNBC has retracted their story that Martin Eisenstadt was the source. However, the AP report also states, “The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.”

What? How can the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony not put the veracity of the report in question? First of all, the veracity of the report was put into question by the report itself. When we hear a report that a governor of a state does not know that Africa is a continent, we should immediately question the veracity of that report. I don’t care what side of the political aisle a candidate is on, he or she is not likely to make it to the level of dog catcher without having a better understanding of the world than that. I really doubt there is a governor in this country, republican, democrat, independent, or other who cannot name all seven continents. Now add to that the fact that we know the revelation of the source of the leak was a complete hoax, and the AP doesn’t think that the veracity of the report is in question?

I think the veracity of the AP is in question.

Broken Campaign Promises - Already

2008-11-12T06:31:00.003-05:00

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised to cut federally funded programs that don’t work. During the first debate he said, “And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely. ...We've got to eliminate programs that don't work..."

In the second debate he repeated his pledge to cut spending by eliminating programs that don’t work: “I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work ..."

And just in case anyone still didn’t understand that a President Obama would not be wasting money on programs that don’t work, here’s what he said in the third debate : “We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut.”

Sounds good to me. The only problem is that instead of eliminating programs that don’t work, he’s already talking about new funding for a program that doesn’t work. That program is embryonic stem cell research.

The key word is embryonic, the kind of stem cell research that requires the destruction of living human embryos. It also happens to be the kind of stem cell research that has hit some major scientific roadblocks.

There is, however, a kind of stem cell research that shows great promise: adult stem cell research, the kind of stem cell research that does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Adult stem cells are already being used to treat dozens of diseases including leukemias, lymphomas, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and lupus, just to name a few. How many diseases are currently being treated by embryonic stem cells? The answer is zero.

There are also currently more than 1,300 human clinical trials underway using adult stem cells. How many clinical trials are being conducted using embryonic stem cells? Again, the answer is zero. The only tests being conducted with embryonic stem cells are being conducted on laboratory animals.

The reason for the disparity between the successes of adult vs. embryonic stem cell research is not funding. There is funding for and there is research being done with embryonic stem cells. The reason for the disparity is that there are some major scientific barriers to using embryonic stem cells. One problem is that, because of rapid growth when injected, embryonic stem cells produce tumors in the patient. Another problem is that, even if the tumor problem could be overcome, embryonic stem cells tend to be rejected by the body’s immune system. Neither of these problems exists with adult stem cells.

So on one hand, we have embryonic stem cell research, with major complications that researchers have thus far not been able to overcome, and with serious ethical debate due to the required destruction of human embryos.

On the other hand, we have adult stem cell research, with no major scientific barriers to success, with already successful treatment of various diseases in humans, with over a thousand human clinical trials already underway, and with no ethical debate.

Now we have a president-elect, who pledged during the campaign not to spend money on programs that don't work, indicating that one of his first moves as president will be to increase spending on a program that appears not to work. It is a program that, at best, is many years from producing positive results. It is a program that, because of ethical concerns, does not unite Americans. Indeed, it divides us further.

It seems to me that a president who campaigned on being a uniter and who promised not to spend money wastefully would focus federal research money on the kind of stem cell research that has produced actual medical success and that is free of divisive ethical concerns.

But that's just me.

John McCain Needs to Speak Up

2008-11-07T16:45:00.000-05:00

With anonymous McCain staffers blaming Sarah Palin for the Republican loss in Tuesday's presidential election, John McCain himself needs to speak loudly and clearly.

McCain seemed always ready to defend Barack Obama during the campaign whenever Obama was attacked by McCain supporters. So why has he not come to Palin's defense?

The fact is that Sarah Palin is in no way responsible for losing the election. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Sarah Palin is the reason John McCain was even close. His campaign was nearly dead in the water before announcing her selection as his running mate. After that announcement the Republican base became energized, and after Palin's speech in the convention, McCain began to surge in the polls. That momentum didn't fade until the banking crisis began to make headlines, and from there McCain's numbers dropped to a point from which he could not recover.

The banking crisis wasn't McCain's fault, but neither was it Sarah Palin's fault. If that crisis had not burst into the headlines, maybe McCain would have won, maybe not. But if it had not been for the energy that Sarah Palin brought to the party, McCain would have been out of serious contention long before the banking crisis reared its ugly head.

If John McCain had the conservative values and the fire in the belly that Sarah Palin had, he might have been able to overcome the unfair blame he and the Republican Party received over the banking mess, and we very well may have been looking at a president-elect John McCain right now.

He needs to put a stop to this nonsense!

What will happen now

2008-11-07T07:03:00.000-05:00

C. Edmund Wright has an outstanding article on some of the things we can expect now that Barack Obama has won the election. It's called "Barack's Chickens Home to Roost: Lefty Buyers Remorse." I highly recommend it.

Did you support Barack Obama for President? Here is the company you keep.

2008-11-05T16:55:00.006-05:00

If you supported Barack Obama for President, congratulations. You have joined the following list of distinguished men and women.

Mike Klonsky – former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)

Bill Fletcher, Jr. – a founding member of the Communist Party USA (Correction: this should say "a founding member of the Black Radical Congress, an organization with ties to the Communist Party USA.")

Barbara Ehrenreich - Honorary Chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America

Carl Davidson – former national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society who has called Fidel Castro “a remarkable man"

Jane Fonda - "Hanoi Jane"

Tony Rezko - Chicago slumlord convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery

Louis Farrakhan - Nation of Islam leader who has said, "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet" and that the Jews are “the greatest controllers of black minds, black intelligence”

Rashid Khalidi - a former spokesperson for the PLO

William Ayers - an unrepentant domestic terrorist

Bernardine Dohrn – Ayers’ wife who was once on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted List

Jeremiah Wright – “God damn America”

Danny Glover – a strong supporter of Hugo Chavez

Tom Hayden - a principal organizer of Students for a Democratic Society who called returning American POWs "liars, hypocrites and pawns"

Harry Belafonte - in 1983 praised the Soviet Union’s “peace efforts” – in 2003 blamed America for 9-11

Cornel West - Marxist professor at Princeton University and current Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America

Franklin Raines – former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae who walked out with 1.4 million dollars per year pension payments for life

Before you start to scream that I'm just making this up, understand that all of this if verifiable.

If you don't mind the fact that you have supported the same candidate for President as what these people have supported, that's fine.

If you do mind, and if you're upset or offended by my pointing it out, I'm sorry.

It's the truth.

Obama's Policies will Bankrupt Coal Power Plants - His Words, Not Mine

2008-11-02T22:42:00.006-05:00

If you haven't heard it yet, here is the audio tape that surfaced today from an interview that Barack Obama gave in January to the San Francisco Chronicle. In the tape, Obama says that his cap and trade proposal will bankrupt anyone who wants to build a coal power plant.

The transcript below of Obama's words is provided by NewsBusters.

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Can anyone really believe that Barack Obama cares about jobs for the middle class or about taking care of America's energy needs?

McCain Supporters - Keep the Faith

2008-11-01T08:44:00.003-04:00

This comment has been released by pollster John Zogby:

Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today, 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all. "Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls. If McCain has a good day tomorrow, we will eliminate Obama's good day three days ago, and we could really see some tightening in this rolling average. But for now, hold on.

McCain supporters need to keep the faith, keep blogging, keep sending e-mails, keep making phone calls, keep knocking on doors, and above all, keep praying.

New Right Thinking Web Poll

2008-10-30T08:10:00.004-04:00

Here are the results of the last Right Thinking web poll. The question was "Do the Barack Obama relationships with people such as William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mike Klonsky, Jeremiah Wright, and others who have expressed anti-American sentiments or who have performed acts of terror against the United States have any relevance to his quest to become President of the United States?"

The results are as follows:

No, those relationships have no relevance at all. (8) 27%
Yes, those relationships make him more qualified to be President. (0) 0%
Yes, those relationships make him less qualified to be President. (1) 3%
Yes, those relationships should eliminate him from consideration for President (21) 70%

Make sure to vote in our new poll which asks your opinion on the effect of Wednesday night's 30 minute Obama campaign ad.

The Los Angeles Times' Obama, Khalidi, and perhaps Ayers, too, Video Controversy

2008-10-29T16:29:00.003-04:00

By now most of you have heard that the Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape of Barack Obama praising Rashid Khalidi, a director in Beirut, from 1976 to 1982, of the official PLO press agency WAFA. However, I think most people are missing the most important aspects of this issue. So here are my thoughts.

We don't need this video to know that Barack Obama has a close relationship to Rashid Khalidi; we already know that to be true.

In an April 10, 2008 Los Angeles Times report (yes, that's the same L.A. Times that refuses to release the video), Peter Wallsten stated that at the 2003 Khalidi going away party, "A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama."

Wallsten goes on to say this:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

So we really don't need the video to know that Obama has a very friendly relationship with Khalidi.

What I would like to know is this: Why has Barack Obama tried to deceive the American people by claiming that his relationship with Khalidi consists only of his kids going to school with Khalidi's kids and of Obama having one conversation with Mr. Khalidi? This is the claim that he makes on his Fight the Smears website.

[Khalidi] is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy…To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take…So we gotta be careful about guilt by association. -emphasis mine

It seems to me that having a conversation with Khalidi is very different from having many conversations "around Mona and Rashid's dinner table." Why the disparity? What is Barack Obama trying to hide?

Here is the second important aspect of the video controversy that is largely being ignored: Reports are that domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were at this same event. If either of them, and especially Ayers, appears on this video, what would that do to Obama's claim that Ayers is just a guy who lives in the neighborhood? Is this why the L.A. Times refuses to release the video?

If you think that this Los Angeles Times should release this video, you can e-mail them and help to put the pressure on them.

Here's the address: readers.rep@latimes.com

Do we really understand what's at stake?

2008-10-27T04:00:00.010-04:00

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
– Norman Thomas, American socialist and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

In the early part of the 20th century, my great-grandfather owned a small farm in Romania. In order to provide a better life for his family, he moved to the United States in 1912. He had no money, but he worked and saved until he could afford to send for his family to join him in the U.S. in 1920. He, my great-grandmother, and their two daughters (my grandmother and my great-aunt) never had much, but they always worked hard and earned their own way in their new country.

The small farm that my great-grandfather left in Romania was given to his nephew, who stayed there and farmed the land until it was taken from him by the communists after World War II. From that point on he worked on a collective farm owned by the government. Whatever he and the other workers produced belonged to the government, and the produce was then distributed back to the workers according to the government’s own discretion. It didn’t matter how hard an individual worked, he could never have more than the government allowed him to have, and it was never much because the government spread the wealth around.

This transition to a communist government didn’t happen overnight. Beginning in 1944, with the backing of the Soviets, the communist party in Romania gradually became more powerful. In 1948 the party merged with a group from the Social Democratic Party and formed the Romanian Workers’ Party. By 1952 the communists within the Romanian Workers’ Party had taken from the social democrats near complete control of the party. In 1965 the party officially changed its name to the Romanian Communist Party.

As most Americans know by now, Barack Obama recently said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Unfortunately, too many people in this country are completely unaware of the full ramifications of such a philosophy.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA), however, is fully aware of its implications for the future achievement of their ultimate goal: the implementation of a communist government in the United States. That is their goal, and they see the election of Barack Obama as an important step toward the realization of that goal. But don’t take my word for it. Look at what they themselves have stated.

“We have turned a corner recently,” said CPUSA spokesman Sam Delgado. “I believe now we can achieve Communism in America within my lifetime, within the next 50 years.”

An article appearing this year on the CPUSA website states, “Right now the elections are the most critical form of struggle; this is where we have the best shot of finally breaking the back of the ultra right. Afterwards, we will continue to build a united movement that can work to establish a real electoral alternative, and eventually to challenge the system overall.”

Why do self-proclaimed communists see the election of Barack Obama as such an important step toward the implementation of their agenda? They have not in any of their writings that I’m aware of ever claimed that Obama is a communist, and neither am I making that claim. Remember, however, that as I stated above, the communists in Romania first joined with the Social Democratic Party. The newly formed Romanian Workers’ Party became the most powerful political party in the country, but it was 17 years before the country officially became a communist nation. In other words, the movement toward communism started as a socialist movement.

So is Barack Obama a socialist? Is that why various communists groups are so excited about the prospect of him becoming president? Certainly, many have made the claim that his economic policies are socialist in nature, and I would agree with them. His philosophy of spreading the wealth around is a socialist philosophy. Obama’s plan to increase taxes on some so that he can send a check to others is a socialist plan. However, Obama’s supporters claim that to call Barack Obama a socialist is nothing more than a scare tactic. It’s a political smear. It’s not true. He’s not a socialist.

So let's set aside, for a moment, his socialist economic ideas and ask ourselves another question. How do we explain the fact that, not long ago, Barack Obama was a member of a socialist political party: the now-defunct New Party?

The New Party was established in 1992 by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Most New Party members were from the DSA and the radical left-wing organization ACORN. The New Party also included members from the Communist Party USA and a CPUSA splinter group known as the Committees of Correspondence.

The New Party began to die after a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that its strategy of “fusion,” running a candidate on more than one party ticket, was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause.

By 1998, the New Party was essentially dead, but "New Ground," the archive section of the website for Chicago’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is quite revealing.

"New Ground 42" from September-October, 1995, says this:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates.
...
Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat. (emphasis mine)

The July-August, 1996 "New Ground 47" reports on the three New Party candidates who won primaries.

…the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. (emphasis mine)

Below left is the front page of the New Party News, Spring 1996. The section circled in red is enlarged on the right. As you can see, Barack Obama is clearly named as a New Party member.

Here is a photograph from page two of the same paper. The photo shows winning New Party candidates Obama, Davis, and Martin posing with two other New Party members

So Barack Obama's economic policies are socialist in nature. He was a member of an openly socialist political party. Communist party members in the United States see the election of Barack Obama as an important step toward achieving their goal of a communist United States.

This should be a real concern for everyone who wants to keep America free. Yet, all of this is dismissed as nothing more than the scare tactics of right-wing radicals.

Some people will never look past the rhetoric of Barack Obama. They will continue to blindly support him; they will vote for him; and they will follow him into a change that our children and grandchildren will pay for. Nothing can be done about those people.

However, for those who are still trying to decide, for those who are interested in an honest examination of who Barack Obama really is, for those who are more interested in truth than in a carefully crafted image of hope and change, there's still time. There's still time to prevent the most dangerous legitimate presidential candidate in the history of the United States from actually sitting in the Oval Office.

You Must See This!

2008-10-25T23:36:00.001-04:00

Think there's no connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical friends? Think Again!

During the 1968-1969 school year, Bert Garskof was an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at Michigan State University; he was also the faculty advisor to the Michigan State chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS was the 1960s radical left-wing organization that gave birth to the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers' and Bernadine Dohrn's terrorist organization of the 1970s. Bill Ayers has called Garskof his mentor.

The following is a video of Bert Garskof speaking at an SDS reunion on the Michigan State Campus. This reunion was held on November 30, 2007, less than one year ago.

In this speech, Garskof is discussing socialism and what he sees as the direction the socialist movement must take. At about the 3:30 mark in the video, Garskof says that he may decide to work for Obama and that he can be excited about doing so. He goes on to say that working for Obama is not enough, that he must look and see into the future of the revolutionary socialist movement, but it is clear that he considers Barack Obama to be a part of the pathway to that socialist future.

Make sure you watch this video completely through to the end. Pay special attention when, at the completion of Garskof's speech, the camera pans to the right. See if you recognize any of the people who are standing and applauding.

In case you did not recognize any of the four people at the end, the man farthest to the right is William Ayers, and the woman standing next to Ayers is Bernardine Dohrn.

Bert Garskof has, indeed, gone to work for Obama as he said he may do. He has encouraged radical socialists to join the Obama campaign and to work with the thousands of Obama volunteers to create a "mass ongoing movement that lives on after Obama wins, a movement that would be in place to give the Obama Administration direct, on-going, immediate information from the base up..."

Barack Obama may have been only eight years old when Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were blowing up buildings, but the current influence of this socialist crowd on Barack Obama is undeniable.

No one can honestly claim to be pro-life and still support Barack Obama

2008-10-22T21:06:00.001-04:00

I've often said that no one can call himself or herself pro-life and support Barack Obama. That may offend some, and that's not my intent. However, the fact is that Barack Obama is firmly on the side of the abortion industry, as much or more so than any other Congressman or Senator in the country.

In the third presidential debate with Senator McCain, Senator Obama said, "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true."

Actually, what he did was to vote against a bill that would have required medical treatment for an infant who was born alive following a botched abortion. Perhaps, for the master of rhetoric, there is a difference between voting to withhold treatment and voting against requiring treatment, but in practice, the result is the same: Babies die.

You can try to spin it; you can try to mislead and deceive; you can try to justify it all you want, as Barack Obama does and as Alan Colmes does in the video below. The bottom line, however, is that not only is Barack Obama 100% pro-abortion, he is so pro-abortion that he would not even vote to protect babies born alive and breathing outside the mother's womb because he was afraid it might undermine Roe v. Wade.

Now, if you are a person who claims to be pro-life, yet you support Barack Obama, you can try to justify that all you want, but no amount of justification changes the fact that if you vote for Senator Obama for president, you are voting to continue the annual slaughter in this country of over 1 million unborn children.

That's why I say that no one can honestly call himself or herself pro-life and support Barack Obama.

If you have any doubt about the human impact of voting for candidates such as Barack Obama, watch the video below.

Jon Voight's OP-ED Needs No Commentary; It Speaks for Itself

2008-10-22T16:48:00.000-04:00

I don't very often just provide a link to an article without also providing my comments about what is said in that article. However, today I'm going to make an exception.

I have just found an OP-ED written in July by actor Jon Voight. It's an outstanding assessment of who Barack Obama is and of what we will be facing if Obama becomes president. Voight's OP-ED is concise, directly to the point, accurate, and powerful. I wish I had written it, but even more, I wish that everyone in America would read it.

Here's the link.