When are Rights, Wrong?

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

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

When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.

It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?

How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?

Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.

So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?

If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?

"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.

Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.

Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.

Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.

Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.

Remember November!

The next election is less than 100 days from now. Do not take it for granted that the cRats will be swept from office by a bunch of iCans riding in on white horses. (For any Libs that might read this, "white horses" is not a racial comment, that phrase refers to the "good guys", just as the good guy in the old western movie was usually wearing a white hat.)

Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.

The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.

Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!

FENA - Fair Elections Now Act

FENA - Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826)

A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.

Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.

It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.

Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related

So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.

_________________

My thoughts and questions:

Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.

If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?

This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?

Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?

As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.

As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.

As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!

Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.

I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.

For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.

For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.

When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.

Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.

The Continental Divide

On April 25 of this year, I posted an article "Irreconcilable Differences". The current article is in follow-up to that posting. If you did not read the first part or do not remember it, here is a link that will take you directly to the earlier article:
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html

Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.

The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.

How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.

Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."

Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."

So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:

"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.

I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.

So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.

If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.

We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.

Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.

Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.

How will our looming crisis play out?

Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!

BizarrObama World

I cannot believe it, but things are actually getting more strange by the week. Every time I think that BO and his buddies have pulled the most outrageous thing so far, they take it further. Here are some of the items that hit some of the news sources this week:

1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.

A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.

His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).

2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.

They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.

I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.

The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.

One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."

Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?

3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.

4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.

Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!

As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.

5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.

First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?


BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.

How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.

Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.

Free Men!

"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free." Samuel Adams, 1776

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." John Adams, 1775

"To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business...To know his rights..." Thomas Jefferson, 1818

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." Samuel Adams, 1775

"Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson, 1790

"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." Fisher Ames, 1788

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, 1775

(The above quotes were found on Founder's Quote Daily, published by the "PatriotPost.us".)

At what price is Liberty? That must be answered on an individual basis. Maybe the question would be best asked, at what price is your liberty, to you? This is not a flippant question and the answer should likewise be thought out, understood and heartfelt.

The question should be thought out as your future depends on your answer. Without proper and adequate understanding of Liberty, what it would mean to be without it and what it would take to preserve the same, you are not equipped to render a committed and intelligent response. Without your answer being from the heart, you will likely shrink back once opposition and difficulty must be overcome in order to be free.

What is your personal value of being free? As, free, I am referring to the freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. The value others determined for themselves, in the past, is clear. To them, this was not an exercise in theory. They pledged themselves and all they had to the cause of obtaining and preserving freedom. They were not only willing to pay the ultimate price, they paid it down to their last drop of blood. For most, this was not a demonstration of glory, but a miserable ending in an isolated location.

Who, today, do you hear speak words about liberty like those written above? "Give me liberty or give me death!" That level of commitment resulted in liberty. If they had been any less committed, we would all still be speaking English. Oh, wait a second...anyway, you get the point.

Currently, "What is the price for your liberty?", is not an academic concept. Liberty is disappearing, step-by-step, in America on a daily basis. Your bondage is the object of your government's agenda. One of our founding fathers warned us that once we give up our liberty, we will not be able to get it back again.

Read, study, learn, seek to understand the concept of Liberty. You may ask, why is being free so important? Isn't living and living in peace more important than fighting all the time to attempt to be more free? Until you can answer those questions, you are not ready to be free. Another patriot told those who did not understand the value of freedom that he hopes that the chains of their bondage would rest lightly on them.

Comprehensive Government Reform

"Everyone agreed..."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail!
We must pass the TARP funds by Friday or the national economy will collapse!
Wall Street firms are too big to fail!
We must pass the Stimulus Bill to create or save four million jobs!
Global warming will kill the polar bears, melt the ice caps, flood coastal cities and basically kill everyone and everything forever!
We must bail out Europe so they do not fail!
We must reject our support of Israel!
We must fight wars passively!
We must not have the means to defend ourselves!
We must take over General Motors and Chrysler!
We must bail out all of the union pension fund accounts!
We must pass a national takeover of our health care system!
Due to the oil spill, we must pass Cap and Trade controls!
Due to spending, we must raise taxes on everyone and everything!
Due to Arizona, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform!
We must pass a bill for the takeover of our financial sector!
We must not close the border with Mexico!
We must not let common sense measures take place to improve the oil spill!
We must blame everything that we do not like on G.W. Bush!
We must not question terrorists for information they may have!
We must not call terrorists, terrorists!
We must not fight to win our wars!
We must not obey our Constitution!
We must use Executive authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens!
We must use Czars that are only accountable to Obama!
We must socialize America!
We must restrict freedom of speech!
We must pass the "Fairness Doctrine" to limit conservative talk radio!
We must expand gun control!
We must control everyone and everything!
We must redistribute the wealth!
We must spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow!
We must.......

We are watching, on a daily basis, the utter destruction of America as we have known it. The war to destroy the Republic (anyway, what is left of it) is coming from within, not from foreign soil. The above list is a partial accounting of what has happened in the past two years. These measures have not helped save America or it's economy or our way of life, they are designed to systematically disable capitalism and to restrict liberty. They will ultimately, if not reversed very soon, destroy the greatness of our nation.

We did not and do not need the above government interference and regulation. What we do need is less government, less taxes, less regulation; and more freedom, encouragement and opportunity to pursue the happiness guaranteed to each citizen.

What we desperately need is comprehensive reform of our government! It begins with the election, this year. We the people must send the professional politicians back home and take control back of an out-of-control Washington. They have awakened a sleeping giant that has been busy living their private lives across America. They wanted CHANGE, they are going to get it!

Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them! That has changed! Winning is everything! If the Right does not win control of Congress this year, the losses will be irreversible two to four years down the road.

A Final Parting!

You may have heard those words before. They are usually associated with bad or sad news. This article is no exception. I have bad news!

Today, I went to the barber shop for a haircut. A new barber was there and she cut my hair. As she was not familiar with me and my desires, she would ask me questions as she went. As I was paying attention to what she was doing and where she was working, I was waiting to make sure she did not ignore the top of my head. My experience had been, recently, that my regular barber would finish without even touching the top of my head. I have no idea why, because she still wanted a full $10 fee. As I was able to do maintenance at home, this was not a big deal; but, this time I wanted the barber to make sure my top hairs were not too long. I am not a real big fan of the "comb-over" look.

When she finished the sides and back, before I could say anything, she asked me, "Do you want me to do something about the fuzz on top?" WHAT?! "FUZZ"?! I wanted my HAIR cut!

Well, not to hurt her feelings (remember, she is new), I answered, "Yes." The next thing I knew, she was using electric clippers to buzz my fuzz. Yep, the top hair is totally gone, now, both of them!

I used to have hair above my side part. Today, I parted with the part. Nothing for a good four inches across the top. When I got home and looked in the mirror, I realized that I now have a "Dan-do".

Not So Fast!

Have you ever been sucked into agreement through sly wording, manipulation, or mob rule? Have you noticed how some people, who are trying to gain advantage or push an agenda, try to make it sound like he has total consensus? He will begin his pitch with something like, "Everyone agrees...", or "The experts all agree...".

This is the way Al Gore begins many of his speeches, something like, "There is complete consensus among scientists that climate change (i.e. global warming) is a serious threat."

"Everyone agrees that the health care system is broken..."

When the argument begins with "everyone agrees"; but you do not, it puts you at a considerable disadvantage because the stage has been set that the "fact" is unanimous and you are the only one who has not seen the light, yet.

Well, it recently dawned on me that this same technique is being used on all of us and no one seems to be challenging the premise. Have you heard this statement, "Everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed."

Take a step back and ask the question, is the U.S. immigration system broken? Is it broken and in need of total retooling, or is there another problem? It seems that many of us have bought the premise that the system is broken and we must pass another law (comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty for illegals already here) in order to get a handle on the problems we are facing.

I believe that we are being fed another manipulative line. The Left and many on the Right are all singing the same tune. All we hear is that the immigration system is broken and the only argument is on what needs to be done to fix the system. One thing that everyone agrees on is that we have a problem, but what is the problem? We have immigration laws already on the books. We have several guest worker programs that worked for many years. We have some who legally come to America through the current system.

The real problem is the lack of political will in Washington to enforce the current laws. Politicians realize that the citizens would not accept a general amnesty for those who broke the laws unless they can include this as a part of a broader solution to "the problem".

We could complete an adequate fence on the Mexican border. We could train and fund an adequate number of border agents to properly guard our border. We have the technology to use along the border to detect those who attempt to cross. We could increase the number of workers allowed under guest worker programs. We could enforce the laws that target those who hire illegal aliens. We could deny those here illegally from obtaining taxpayer funded benefits. None of this takes another law or changing a broken system. All it takes is the political will to enforce the laws and build the fence.

Next time you hear, "Everyone agrees...", tell them, "Not so fast!" It's OK to be disagreeable!

Garbage Can

Much is happening on the political stage, so much so that it is time for another episode of the trash can.

1. Border Security - Currently, in Pinal County jail in AZ, there are illegal aliens from seven different Arab (or Muslim) countries.

2. Abortion - Over the past six years, the US government has handed over $2.3 billion of your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. They were recently audited and could only account for how and where $657 million was spent. The other $1.6 billion has apparently disappeared.

3. Army - June 14th was the 235th anniversary of the US Army. First year was 1775.

4. Taxes - Obama just pledged millions of your tax money to Gaza for building homes, etc.

5. Obama's friends - William (Bill) Ayers is one of Obama's friends. This guy, along with the Weather Underground organization, launched an attack on the U.S. in the 1960's and 1970's. Mr. Ayers was charged with some bombings but got away with it due to a technical error in court proceedings. Back at that time, there were around 250,000,000 people in the U.S. Their goal was to take over the U.S. and to "re-educate" the masses. They were prepared to eliminate (kill) 10% of the population that they believed would not be re-educated. That is 25,000,000 citizens that they were willing to kill in order to eliminate any resistance to their goals. This information is from an interview with a former FBI agent who infiltrated the group.

6. Obama's friends - Van Jones, another Obama associate, recently claimed that he believes the U.S. is at a turning point, right now. The radical Left believes America is tipping over in a direction that the radicals desire.

7. Illegal Immigration - The Secretary of the Department of Labor made a TV commercial encouraging employees, both "documented and undocumented" to contact the DOL if they believe they have been treated unfairly in wages. In other words, our Federal Government is offering to help illegal aliens sue employers.

8. Illegal Immigration - Jon Kyl, Senator from AZ, told a crowd that he had had the opportunity to meet, one-on-one, with Obama concerning the open border between AZ and Mexico. Kyl told the crowd that Obama explained why he was not going to secure the border. He said that if he secures the border then the Republicans would have no reason to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. So, Obama is holding us all hostage to open borders and illegal immigration, on purpose, in order for him to have leverage to get passed his amnesty plan.

9. Dollars - For the year of 2009, the U.S. has 2.8 million millionaires.

10. Illegal Immigration - A plan has come to light in Washington. Obama has sent a plan to the Department of Homeland Security, laying out how he is considering a "blanket amnesty" to all illegal aliens in our country, done by an Executive Order. This is what he is considering as a way to get millions of additional Democrat voters signed up, if Congress fails to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.

So, this is the "Change" we have been waiting for?

Danger - South of the Border

A recent news story on FOX News has brought to the light a story that had little attention. As the Sheriff of Pinal County, Paul Babeu, told FOX that violence has spilled over the border resulting in setting aside Buenos Aires Wild Life Reserve, as "OFF LIMITS" to Americans.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this area was closed to Americans in October of 2006. The area is located along 80 miles of the border with Mexico and south of Interstate 8.

Along the south side of I-8, signs warn Americans to stay out of that portion of Arizona due to potential violence by armed Mexicans who smuggle drugs and humans through the area on a regular basis.

Sheriff Babeu stated that his department does not have the staff, funds or arms necessary to combat the Mexican drug cartels who are now controlling a portion of Arizona. He continues to plead for help from the Obama administration, but no help has been given. In fact, the promised fence along the border was suspended by Obama.

"It's literally out of control," said Babeu.

Recently, a private group of citizens placed hidden cameras in the area south of Interstate 8, in Arizona. They filmed smugglers with machine guns leading groups of Mexicans loaded with drugs. These films were made many miles from the border as the groups approached I-8.

Yes, there is danger south of the border, but the border is now Interstate 8, ninety miles into Arizona.

The above photo is Arizona's lovely Sonoran Desert, after illegal immigration.

The Coming Jewish Ghetto

How many times will the Jewish people be confined to ghettos?

How did this all start? Why are the Jews under constant persecution from just about everyone else? From Old Testament times the "chosen people" have had trouble maintaining a homeland. They were exiled to Egypt, dominated by the Romans, scattered abroad with no place to call home. They spent centuries without the the right to call Israel - the place God promised to them - their home. In recent history, while scattered among the nations, they endured the wrath of the Nazis. Those who escaped or survived were rewarded with an international solution in the late 1940's. Israel was re-established as the nation for the homeland of the Jews. This was the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy. Jews from around the world migrated to Israel - their home.

Around 1516, in Venice, the Jews were required to live in a certain area. This is the first use of the ghetto as a description for a containment of the Jews. As Hitler began his hate-filled persecution of the Jews in Europe, during the 1930's and into the 1940's; they were rounded up and forced to live in crowded conditions in various cities in walled areas referred to as ghettos. This time, the cure from the ghetto was worse than the disease. As concentration camps could handle the volume of humankind who were relegated to their confines, the "final solution" was being exercised as fast as the gas chambers, mass executions, starvation, disease, and ovens could deal with the sheer masses.

Arising from the Holocaust, a people began to go "home". For the first time in their lives, they had a homeland. Israel belonged to the Jews-per United Nations mandate.

As you can imagine, this was not good news to everyone. Basically, all of their neighbors were less than neighborly. Israel, with approximately 10,000 square miles of territory (which is comparable to Maricopa County in Arizona), is fairly small. It is home to approximately 6.5 million people, of which about 5.5 million are Jews (which just happens to be less than the number murdered by the Nazis during WWII). Other than on the west side, where it borders the Mediterranean Sea, it is surrounded by Arab nations. In these countries, the large majority of the population are Muslim with approximately 230,000,000.

In order to preserve Israel as the Jewish homeland, they have had to fight the Arabs in several wars and deal with terrorist attacks and rocket attacks as almost a way of life. Until Obama became President, the U.S. was the strongest ally Israel had. Currently, Israel is pretty much on its own. Now, no matter what action Israel takes, the rest of the world condemns it. They are expected to not protect or defend themselves against aggressive actions of their sworn enemies. They are being pressured to give up nuclear weapons, which they have for self-protection as a deterrent to belligerent action of others.

The recent news of the attempt to break the blockade of Gaza and the Israeli response has further unified the rest of the world, including the Obama administration, against Israel. Much of the Liberals and major media outlets in America tend to paint Israel as the aggressor and occupier. There are continuous demands on Israel to accept peace treaty terms, which, for some reason, always tend to favor the Arabs. Even when the Israeli government has accepted such terms, their enemy never agrees and never accepts the Jews as legitimate neighbors.

One of the main "peace" proposals currently being pushed on Israel from Obama and others, includes a plan to split Israel. The pro-Arab group considers it unfair to have Gaza (on the Mediterranean Sea and west border of Israel divided from the Arab territory of The West Bank, which is on the east border of Israel. So, their solution is to divide the nation of Israel and join Gaza with the West Bank. The fact that the result would then be an Arab controlled area between the north and south parts of Israel does not seem to be of concern.

Even though Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, the Palestinian Arabs will only be satisfied with taking Israel back from the Jews. The demands on Israel to continually concede more and more space to the Palestinians and the plan to divide north and south Israel further diminish the territorial homeland.

At some point in time, based on the direction things are headed, the Jews will be confined to two ghettos - one to the north and one to the south. Do you think that the Arabs and/or Muslims will then be content? Of course not! They will not be content with that part of the world while Jews occupy any portion.

When will the USA step forward, again, and support Israel and her right to be at peace in their own country? Well, from recent happenings, not anytime soon. Although widely condemned, Helen Thomas openly expressed the anti-Semitic (hostility towards and prejudice against the Jews) attitude that not only exists in much of the world but is rising within our borders. Her outrageous comments demonstrate a level of hatred and stupidity that has not been openly expressed by many here, prior to this. What she did was put an ugliness to the once hidden face of anti-Semitism in America.

Where are we headed, as a former ally of Israel? Based on the Bible, Israel will survive with the protection of God and the USA will evidently disappear from the scene.

Duty, Honor, Country!

As we spend the three-day weekend enjoying the rights and privileges that we so often take for granted, let's pause to remember those who have bought our freedom with their blood. From before the United States became an independent nation, there have been those willing to fight and die, if necessary, to gain and secure the liberty we have come to expect.

Seldom do most of us consider that America is unique, that Americans enjoy privileges only dreamed about in most of the world. That did not just happen. The inhabitants of the colonies did not wake up one morning and read in the paper, while they sipped their coffee, that the King of England had granted them freedom and independence.

These men and women saw an opportunity to enjoy a level of freedom that could only be gained at great cost. They weighed the cost and decided it was worth the hoped-for benefit. Independence and freedom from England was not guaranteed, in fact it was not even probable. Through much of the War for Independence, it appeared that England would be victorious.

Read the following quotes (copied from the website at PatriotPost.US - This site has a wealth of very good information about our country, documents, fight to keep our liberty, etc.):

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) ·
"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." (John Adams) ·
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson) ·
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." (Thomas Paine) · "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams) ·
"Give me liberty or give me death!" (Patrick Henry) ·
"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" (George Washington)

The Declaration of Independence concludes with the following sentence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The 56 men who then applied their signatures to that document meant every word of this pledge. Some lost their lives, it cost others all they had; but, they held onto their honor and eventually won their freedom.

Since that time, Americans have viewed freedom as something worth fighting for. Many have laid down their lives to protect and defend freedom for America and many more have died fighting for the freedom of others around the world.

Memorial Day is one day each year when we as Americans should remember those who gave us what we have. Thousands upon thousands of men and women have shed their blood for our freedom.

Currently, our armed forces are fighting in other countries. This past week, another milestone has been reached in one of these wars. We have now lost 1,000 American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. 1,000! We can read the headline announcing this fact and proceed on to other stories more interesting, or we can stop and say a prayer for our fighting men and women and ask God to protect them and bring them home safe. We can pray for the families of these 1,000 soldiers, that God, in all of his love and mercy, will grant them some measure of peace. This is just the latest 1,000 - on top of the many 1,000's who have been laid to rest.

Below are 1,000 dots. Each one represents one soldier killed in Afghanistan over the past few years. Each of them volunteered for the military. Not one single one of them were drafted and forced to serve. Each one has a name. Each one has lived a real life, though brief in endurance. Each one left behind family who loved them - parents, siblings, some spouses and some children.

....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................

God bless American and those who fight to defend her! Thank you!

Counter-Terrorism

The United States has a Chief of Counter-Terrorism, John Brennan. What do you imagine might be his job description? Common sense would lead us to believe that he would have considerable responsibility for countering the threat of terrorism. In other words, he is one of the top dogs who is supposed to be keeping us safe. He is supposed to oversee the gathering of intelligence and tying all the pieces together - connecting the dots. I would imagine he has a large staff and an even larger budget. Yet, with all the technology at his disposal, the Patriot Act, and the power and authority of the US Government behind him; he and his crew continue to not connect the dots and miss clear signs of someone going to the dark side. They even had a phone call from one terrorist's dad, telling them that his son has gone bad and is dangerous, and they could not connect the dot.

We have had more terrorist attacks and close calls on US soil in the past year, under the Obama administration (BOA), than we had in the seven years after 9-11, under President Bush. Why is this? Well, it is because the BOA has had trouble admitting or acknowledging that we even have an enemy or that we are at war against terrorists who desire to kill all of us. To the BOA, all of this is a reaction to what the US has done wrong and when BO apologizes to our enemy and the rest of the world, everything should be fine.

Well, all is not well. All BO has succeeded in doing is weakening our position and defenses. Even though more time has elapsed with more opportunity to focus on our enemy and gain meaningful intel, we seem to be going backwards in our counter-terrorism efforts. As others have said, "Being lucky is not a good foreign policy."

So, what has the department of counter-terrorism been doing for the past 15 months? If you connect the dots, you may find the answer. Dot #1-According to the BOA, we are not at war against foreign, radical terrorists. We are not to even refer to them as terrorists or our fight as a war on terrorism. Dot #2-The BOA is willing to use the "terrorist" label, but not applying it to our real enemy. To the BOA, the real terrorists are domestic. Our government is watching out for the dreaded tea party members, pro-democracy demonstrators, returning military veterans, citizens with conservative bumper stickers, gun owners, blog writers, radio talk show hosts, etc.

These people are the real threat to his government. Obama is less concerned with foreign terrorists who are planning the destruction of our country and the killing of our people, than he is with his political opponents. Dot #3-Counter-terrorism in the US, under the BOA, is dealing with the domestic threat to Obama's power and the radical, liberal agenda. Counter-terrorism is concentrating it's resources and efforts towards silencing conservatives and stopping any movement that attempts to stop Obama and his plans to cripple America.

By the way, John Brennan was in the news this week for something he recently said. He told some people about his love for the city of Al Quds. You may not have heard of that city, or maybe you have... That is the Muslim name for Jerusalem. Why would an American official use the Muslim name instead of the common name that other Americans use? Could it be that he sees it more from the Muslim perspective than from the American perspective? He attended college in Egypt and has spent many years since college working in various Arab countries.

This sort of reminds me of our President - Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, wait, we are not supposed to use his full name, it sounds too Muslim - others might get the wrong idea.

Dot...Dot...Dot...

Scientists, Can You Trust Them?

Which came first, the planet or the hogwash? Are there any "facts" that they announce as new discoveries that are not grossly exaggerated? Let me give you a some examples:

1. From www.livescience.com we have a series of photos of sharks. Next to one photo we have the following comment: "The photographer Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch, who is devoted to educating the public about sharks and shark conservation provided this interesting fact: 'At least 100,000,000 sharks are killed annually many to provide for the trade in shark fin soup…'''

I don't know about you, but I think that would make an awfully lot of shark fin soup! But, it is presented as "this interesting fact". So, how do we relate to a number, such as 100 million sharks being killed each year? If the fishermen were working five days each week of the year and ten hours each work day, they would have to catch and kill 641 sharks every second.

2. From www.space.com we have this story. "Primeval Planet: Oldest Known World Conjures Prospect of Ancient Life" By Robert Britt, Senior Science Writer. The article tells us that astronomers have discovered a planet that is older than all other known planets. This one is 12.7 billion years old. (Yes, 12,700,000,000 years old.) Then they admit that this discovery will force them to rethink when and how planets form. (If you do a proper search, I would imagine you could find numerous resources where the scientists have previously told us the facts of how planets formed and how old they are.) Then they admit, "The discovery raises the prospect that life may have begun far sooner than most scientists ever imagined." (Again, you can find previously published "facts" about when life began.)

The article tells us that another "expert" who is not involved with this discovery, called the news, "mind-boggling". The real part of this story, that is mind-boggling, are the claimed "facts" and figures.

We are then told that this newly found world is almost as old as the universe and was formed when the universe was only one billion years old - according to the researchers at NASA. The age predictions made as gospel truth are pretty amazing, but that is not all.

The experts then tell us the planet spent the first 10,000,000,000 years in a fairly routine orbit around a fairly typical star. "Then the planet was booted from its stellar orbit and captured by the gravity of another star that was well into its death throes." This fact they know about a planet that is, according the their calculations, 1,302,000,000 miles away from Earth, is too small and too far away to observe, and occurred 2,700,000,000 years ago.

Another expert involved with the project tells us that this planet "formed" in an orbit that is 2-8 times as far away from it's star as the Earth is from the sun.

As we get down further into the story, we find this sentence, "The planet has not been seen or imaged directly, so final proof of its existence awaits further study."

What! You hold a news conference to announce a major discovery, the oldest known planet. You tell us how old it is, how it was formed, that it changed what it rotated around over two billion years ago, what it is made of, how big it is, that its orbit takes 100 years, etc. Then, we find out the one statement of fact in the whole story, you are not sure it even exists!


What is wrong with all of this? It seems like all of these experts have to find some way to get noticed. So, they predict some unbelievable event and promote it as a given fact (such as global warming, the big bang, evolution), or they discover some previously unknown object (though they cannot prove it is even there, like the planet in this story), or they claim to have the biggest (or oldest, or smallest, or furthest) discovery. Part of it is probably ego, but another part has to do with funding. The constant stream of "new" discoveries provides an avenue to go after grants and other funding for their pet projects.

I really do not have a problem with some expert coming out with a new theory or an outrageous claim. I just am tired of all of this being presented to us as fact and absolutely true. If you think you found a planet, tell us that you think you found a planet. Fine, but I don't want to hear that you dated the age of something you are not sure even exists to 12.7 billion years old. I also do not want to hear you state as fact, the age of the universe. Do you realize how foolish that makes you look? Give us a break! Tell us what you KNOW and then what your theories are. It is this kind of outrageous claims that make people doubt just about anything you say.

God Bless America?

We had better be praying for God to bless America. Since the 1960's, our government and courts have been enacting an agenda to remove God from the public conscious. What has been revealed by all of this is the neglect of the parents and churches to do their jobs. If parents were fulfilling their responsibility to lead and direct their children in the beliefs that they hold, the government and courts would not have been successful in indoctrinating the last couple of generations of students coming out of public schools.

There appears to be a growing segment of the population who reject the notion of there being a God, the creator of the universe, the supreme ruler over everything and everyone. Christianity is openly mocked. This has not been helped by numerous, nationally known preachers falling from grace and having publicized affairs. It has not been helped by TV evangelists faking miracle services. It has not been helped by some TV preachers constantly appealing for the money of the viewer of their programs.

When the negative side of religion is in the spotlight and the churches are watering down the gospel of Jesus, it becomes even more important for the family setting to be the refuge and educational setting for the establishment of the next generation of strong believers.

We and our children (and grandchildren) are constantly being bombarded with anti-Christian propaganda. A couple nights ago I tuned in a program just to see what it was like. I had heard a lot of negative comments about the show, "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO. I saw that it was on and checked it out for myself.

Mr. Maher stated that he is having a contest to determine the "stupidest state in America." He showed a playoff bracket with eight states in the running. Arizona was one of them and he commented, "Arizona is the odds-on winner for the stupidest state in America." I guess he forgot the line in "Forest Gump", "Stupid is as stupid does." Even though his comment grew loud applause, all he really did is show his own stupidity. It was clear that he either had no idea what the law says or he purposely lied about it's contents. Bill also referred to Sarah Palin as "Mrs. Moron". This also drew loud applause and laughter.

But, the main portion of what I watched had to do with Christianity bashing. Bill had a panel of three people on the show, two men and one woman. One man was a politician from New Jersey and stated that he is a Christian and attempted, a couple times, to interject some defense of Christianity into a conversation that was not going to allow a fair dialogue. The other man was from CNN and did not have much to say in this segment. The woman and Bill each claimed to be atheists. As they were proudly discussing their atheism and putting down believers, Bill had these comments to add: "I hope Obama is an atheist." "It is a delusion that religion is under attack in this country." "People who believe in God are deluded." The lady added, "The Bible supports gay marriage." Bill also commented about the Supreme Court and the religious makeup of the court. He said that most of the court is made up of Catholics and Jews. He added that they "believe the same nonsense" as Protestants. As he was making fun of Christians, he said, "To know what will happen when you die is arrogant." His audience, from the sound of the laughter and applause, appeared to be of the same mindset.

(Gal 6:7 KJV) "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap."

America, founded on Christian principles, has strayed away. Obama said, "America is not a Christian nation." It once was, but is now heading away from God. Just as Obama likes to say, "Elections have consequences"; well, so does our citizens rejecting God.

(2Ch 7:14 KJV) "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Notice the big "IF" in the room?

(Mat 5:45 KJV) "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

With the widespread rejection of God in America, has God withdrawn His hand of blessing?

Yes, we better be praying! We better be pleading for the Father to bless America again and pull us back from the brink of collapse. I don't know if you would call the U.S. an empire, but the example still holds true. All great empires from the past have fallen from the lofty perch they once enjoyed. Only God knows the answer for America. Until the results are in, God can still turn things around and states that He will "if"... Now, will we? Will we as a nation humble ourselves and pray to the one true God? Will we seek His face and turn from our wicked ways?

BO Uses the "T" Word!

For the past year we have been told that we are to no longer use the "T" word. The BO administration (BOA) has stated that "terrorists" are "enemy combatants". We do not call the attacks against us as terrorism or the people who carry them out as terrorists. Our media tries to de-emphasize the Arab or Muslim background of these poor and misunderstood individuals. Prior to having any facts about those who carry out terrorists attacks, we are "officially" told that it must have been done by some lone, isolated, depressed, middle-aged, white man, a Christian, right-wing, tea party and NRA member who listens to Rush or Palin.

So far, the BOA is batting "0". They have been exactly wrong each and every time. All of the recent attacks and attempted attacks have been Muslims, each and every one of them.

But, with all of the media and BOA downplaying of the Arab/Muslim connection, BO has recently surprised just about everyone. Not only is he using the "T" word, but he has gone further than what Bush did when the Left and BO sharply criticized him. Bush came under attack by gaining the authority to listen to phone calls of US citizens without first obtaining a warrant, if they were suspected of having a link to terrorism. Bush also detained the enemy without a trial, when captured on the battlefield, and one of those held was a US citizen who was caught fighting against us. When Bush did these things, the Left actually found and dusted off their old copies of the Constitution and found a place where it states that this cannot be done. He came under extreme ridicule for not following the Constitution.

During the last presidential campaign, BO was asked a question on a survey of the candidates, presented by the Boston Globe: "Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" BO's answer: "No, I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants."

BO also joined in attacking Bush over the eavesdropping on the phone calls of citizens as being unconstitutional.

So, where does our fair nation stand now that BO and the Left are in charge? Once elected, BO had a revelation that the extra powers Bush assumed under the Patriotic Act could come in handy and he not only kept them but has expanded them. The Bush "Terrorist Watch List" has been expanded under BO to include conservative, U.S. citizens who have bumper stickers or attend Tea Party events. As to the detainees, most are still in Gitmo (the same "unlawful" prison camp that BO vowed to close on several occasions with several deadlines now come and gone).

BO has never been accused of not pushing the bar further than his predecessor. But, the recent announcement and articles about his latest move pretty much astound everyone.

BO, our leader who publicly denies the terrorist threat to our nation, has apparently ordered the CIA to assassinate, on sight, anywhere they find him, a U.S. citizen. There will be no trial, no evidence, no defense, no witnesses, no verdict, no additional sentencing. The order, by the President, is to kill him.

Who is the target? He may be as bad as they come but at this point, he is an American citizen and what is left of the Constitution should still apply. Remember the old saying, "Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Well, that does not apply, according to BO, in the case of someone that the BOA believes to be participating in acts of terrorism. Anwar al-Awlaki, and American-born, Islamic cleric is believed to have crossed the line from encouraging attacks against his homeland to helping plan or carry out such attacks as a member of Al Qaeda.

Your first reaction may be, "I agree with BO for the very first time, if you find the guy, gun him down, stop his radical work and end his threat." We are talking about the murder of a U.S. citizen, by our government, wherever they find him. My personal feelings are that if there is good evidence against him that he is helping to kill Americans at home or abroad, try to find him, attempt to apprehend him and bring him back to face justice. But, if he fights back, when found, use the means necessary to prevent his escape and protect the agents sent to capture him.

This is a "slippery slope". We the People need to be very careful about supporting moves by our government (whether on the Right or Left) that shred the rights and protections of the Constitution. There is a long list of past situations where the initial order, though unconstitutional to some degree, was supported due to the specific circumstances or the extreme danger presented by the individual being targeted.

Once we decide that there are "special circumstances" that mandate the ignoring of the Constitution, where will the new line be drawn that we will not cross? Will each of us take the position that as long as it does not affect us personally, we will not object? When they come to take a stranger's "assault rifle", we are fine because we do not have one or want one. When they take guns away from citizens in a natural disaster, we do nothing because we still have our guns. But, when they knock on my door and demand my rifle and the registration of my pistol, I cry foul and want everyone to support me against the trampling of my 2nd Amendment Rights.

Our Constitution IS NOT the "living document" that the Left claims. It IS the supreme law of the land and it was supposed to be followed, not ignored by our government. It IS a document written in fairly plain language with pen and ink. It is not very long but contains the basic framework for the running of the Republic.

In spite of all the attacks and rhetoric about how Bush is going against the rights of the people, BO has just made Bush's agenda appear amateurish. BO has claimed the right to have the CIA kill U.S. citizens without due process of law. The facts of the individual case should not be relevant, but the principle being established should frighten us all. The President is not our king, he is not a dictator, he is not the supreme decider of justice and fairness for the masses. He is supposed to be serving the American people, not robbing from them and killing them. The claim that al-Awlaki is now an acting terrorist may or may not be accurate. That is why we have trials for our citizens and is why as citizens, we have constitutionally protected rights to a defense and a fair trial.

Remember, it was not very many months ago that the BOA-Homeland Security, sent out a warning to all local law enforcement agencies to watch out for the potential terrorists: returning veterans from war, those who listen to conservative talk-radio, tea party members, those with conservative bumper stickers, etc. I and most of you fall into the BOA "terrorist watch list" parameters. In fact, the only part of me that does not fit their list of dangerous factors, is that I am getting past middle-age.

When we allow our government to stretch the Constitution a little here and there, before long, it will not fit anymore. We will not be able to defend ourselves based on the Bill of Rights, those are outdated and ceased to be literally interpreted ages ago. Give an inch to the government and they will take a mile. This is especially true with the BOA as they have stated that the Constitution is a negative document that would attempt to stop them from doing what they want.

When we accept a watered-down version of the Constitution, a "living document" that changes with the evolution of modern society, we have accepted no Constitution at all.

Historical Milepost

Over this past week, we have passed the 65th anniversary of VE Day. VE Day was May 8, 1945, the day Germany surrendered, unconditionally, to end the portion of World War II in Europe. Although this brought great celebration throughout much of the world, the war was not over. Japan would fight on another three months, consuming thousands of more lives.

As the following generations lose the Greatest Generation, we also appear to be losing the remembrance of the events of WWII. I am sure there were some stories, but I did not hear of one single mention of the anniversary of VE Day. This was one of the largest, historical events in modern time.

Why do you suppose the media seems to have completely ignored May the 8th? I have some ideas: 1-They were too busy celebrating Cinco de Mayo. 2-To remind the public of this history changing event would be to focus on the greatness of what America and her military helped accomplish. This is counter-agenda for the Left and in their minds, is best left unmentioned.

For my part, I cannot express the depth of gratitude that I feel for those who fought for our country.


Over the past couple months I have been watching the new HBO series, "The Pacific". This is a ten-part story of the island warfare during WWII. It has been absolutely unbelievable watching what those men endured. It is based on true stories and follows a few Marines through the war. If you want to build your appreciation for the US military veterans, watch this series. I will offer a warning, it is violent and very gruesome.

The first couple episodes dealt with the introduction and the battle for Guadalcanal. This was an island that most Americans had never heard of before. Yet, we landed on its beaches and left the blood of 2,261 Americans soaking in the sand and mud.

At the end of this battle, as the survivors were leaving on a troop transport ship, a man working in the kitchen asked four of them, "How bad was it?" He got no answer and turned to walk away. One Marine raised his head and asked him if he had ever heard of Guadalcanal. He answered that everyone back in the states has heard of Guadalcanal. It is on the front page of every paper. He then told the Marines, "You are all heroes".

I instantly had a mental response to that declaration, when I heard it in a TV show that only showed bits and pieces of battles during two episodes describing a weeks-long engagement with the enemy. My thought, "Who wants to be a hero?" If that is what it takes to be a hero, no one in their right mind would want to reach the goal.

None of us who have not been engaged in heavy battle can comprehend what it must be like. It is no wonder that many come home and do not talk about their experiences. It is not that they have forgotten, but it is that they can never forget. They have not gotten "over it", but have learned to bury it somewhere, hoping that it will never raise its ugly head and bring back a flood of emotions that cannot be controlled 65 years later.

What is our job? Never forget what they did for all of us and never stop showing appreciation for their sacrifice. God bless each and every one of them!

Economical Signposts

Over the past few days there have been some "new numbers" pertaining to the economy.

1. The unemployment rate hit 9.9% for April. This was up .2% from March. Obama (BO) and his administration (BOA), along with the media hailed this as good news. Why? Because they spun the bad news into a story about how the higher number of people on unemployment was a sign of encouragement. They broadcast this as meaning that more people who were unemployed were seeing reason for hope and had re-entered the hunt for a job.

Since the unemployment number reflects the number of people collecting unemployment, not the total of those seeking employment, I would have a question of the BOA. Why would unemployed workers who are entitled to unemployment stop collecting benefits due to discouragement with the job situation? Why would they wait until they are encouraged to go back and begin collecting unemployment benefits again? Doesn't it make sense, if you were entitled to these benefits, that you would continue to collect them until the benefits expired or you found a job? Of course it does and that is exactly what really happened.

The increase in the unemployment number was not due to some encouraged, unemployed workers who decided to go back and start collecting the rest of their benefits while they re-entered the job market. The increase was due to those who are still discouraged and still unemployed who now qualify for additional benefits. Recently, Congress approved extending unemployment benefits to cover a longer period of time. So, those who have no job and had previously expired all benefits came back to take advantage of the extended coverage period.

Anyone who claims that as good news is deceitful.

2. The most recent numbers set a record for the total number of people on food stamps. We have the proud distinction of having 40,000,000 people on food stamp welfare. Based on government figures, the average monthly benefit, per person, for food stamps is $101. That relates to $4,000,000,000 per month for this program.


It appears that we are quickly approaching the "change" for America that Obama "hoped" for. Reaching BO's goal will be a transformed United States into a typical, socialist nation that is following the European example. The goal of the Left, for decades, has been a ruling class made up of them and the dependant class made up of us. They have been accomplishing this, little-by-little, by such things as: the dumbing-down of a couple generations, the constant attack against anyone who opposes their agenda, win elections at any costs (cheat, fraud, lie, steal), open borders, out-sourcing jobs (yes, I believe that the whole propose in the so-called, good intentions of outsourcing jobs was to eliminate more of the better jobs with higher pay and force those workers into a lower level of employment or unemployment), the attack on our capitalistic economic system, the removal of God from the public viewpoint, the attack on the Constitution, the enlargement of welfare programs, promoting class envy, the constant demonization of "big business", and the unending drumbeat of playing the "race card".

These are not separate fights the Left is fighting; they, along with others, make up a combined and coordinated effort to undermine our country and transform it into something our Founding Fathers fought and died to prevent.

The Arizona Boycott

Being in Arizona, we are hearing a lot about various boycotts being announced against our state. All of these are due to the recent signing into law, SB-1070, the new anti-illegal immigration law.

Here are just a few of the boycotts:
1. Al Sharpton has called for a boycott of the whole state, which would include coming to AZ or doing business with the state. He said he will also pressure the Major League Baseball (MLB) to cancel the 2011 All Star game planned for AZ.
2. The city council of West Hollywood voted to prohibit any city employees from traveling to AZ, to encourage city residents to not come to AZ, and to possibly impose future economic sanctions against the state.
3. Boston city council voted to boycott AZ. It is a city ban on doing business with the state of AZ, any cities in AZ, and any business in AZ who supports the bill.
From the Boston Globe website: "Ross said he was 'outraged when I heard about the Arizona law that requires anyone who looks ‘reasonably suspicious’ to be stopped and asked to prove that they’re a legal resident of the United States. The last time people were stopped and asked for papers in this country, it was during the era of slavery.'"
This is a typical example of the ignorance being openly demonstrated by those across the nation who have no idea what they are talking about. There is not one thing in that quote that is accurate.
4. Washington DC, New York City, and Los Angeles are also considering similar actions to that taken by Boston.
5. An online petition is calling for an AZ boycott. Here is one example of the comments left by the people who have signed the petition: "I am more afraid of the legal residents of Arizona than I am of the illegals ones. They are scary people - narrow minded and probably Republicans. Boycott Arizona"
6. Hispanic News which is from AZ has called for a boycott against the whole state. They are planning to protest any convention who comes to the state. They plan to protest at the entrance to the Grand Canyon. They will try to discourage any business from moving into AZ. Here are some quotes from their article:
" Hispanic News believes Arizona has become the new apartheid for America brought about by overt hatred of Hispanics."
"Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) providing sage advise said, “Our economic sanction is: Do not do business with a state that is propagating the idea separate but equal treatment under the law can be codified.”
"Arizona SB 1070, which will become Arizona law 90 days after the state legislature’s present session comes to an end, will bring havoc on Arizona directly turning Arizona into a Gestapo state violating the civil rights of Arizona Hispanics by significantly increasing police profiling of everyone with a brown face."
7. Mario Solis-Marich, a progressive (liberal) radio talk show host: "Arizona is the Alabama of the new century and Maricopa County is the new Selma. America and the world should boycott GOP Governor Jan Brewer's red state."
8. From article in the Washington Post newspaper: "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome has directed city employees to avoid business travel to the state, and city officials are contemplating ending all contracts with Arizona-based companies. The Mexican state of Sonora canceled a cross-border meeting that was to be held in Phoenix in June. A group of independent truckers from California have launched a five-day boycott of the state and refused to transport goods in or out. The National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators said Thursday that they are pulling out of a conference they had planned to hold in Scottsdale."
Did you notice that the Mexicans in Sonora Mexico are boycotting coming to AZ. The law has not taken effect but is already accomplishing its goal.
9. People are boycotting games being played by the AZ Diamondback baseball team, even when they are in other cities.
10. Charles Barkley is protesting the new law as being racist. Clearly, he has not read the law or is intentionally misleading his blind followers.

The Google search "boycott Arizona" had 2,900,000 hits. I will not bore you with all of them.

You would believe, listening to the media, that the rest of the country, the majority of AZ residents and the rest of the world is all planning on boycotting AZ by not coming to our state or buying any products produced here. Early on, there was a call to boycott Arizona Ice Tea. That idiot failed to notice the tea is made in New York.

One good thing about the US, the people are free to make choices as to where to travel and what to buy (up until the Federal Government mandated buying health insurance), so each person can boycott AZ if they want. It seems that they have not realized that the people of AZ, who strongly support this law by a large majority, are also free to boycott the cities and states and businesses who boycott our state.

The state will lose some tourism and convention dollars but I believe we will gain other dollars from those who support the new law and from those who realize AZ should be safer with fewer illegal aliens around. This is in addition to the millions we will save by not having so many on social programs and in our schools.

There are other states who like what we just did and are considering something similar for their states: TX, UT, ID, OH...

Adios, Amigos!