Average Joe Patriot

I'm just an average Joe who has read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and most importantly the Bible. Our Greatest Nation began with these documents as our guide. Please educate yourselves by reading them before believing anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth.

With the current gross abuses from our leadership in Washington, I want to share with you what I see as I see it. These abuses have been increasing as we have traveled down the road of history. Without refocusing our goals through the lens of our founding principles, we will surely loose our way.

Make no mistake, a take the side of the American People and the principles which make this country great. I don’t care about partisan politics, fluffy rhetoric to mask the lies from self-serving elitists who have lost their higher calling.

Please do not idly sit by and watch the destruction of our Greatest Nation which has inspired freedom in the midst of darkness for over two centuries. We can have real change, with real results. But it starts with you, the American People who collectively share the legacy of having giving more for our fellow man than any other country in our worlds history.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Reports: An executive order to pay off pro-life Democrats?


March 20, 2010


Both Left and Right are hearing rumors that the Dems are drafting an executive order to quell pro-life Democrat opposition to the government health care takeover plan.

Daniel Foster reports the buzz at NRO. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic tweets it here.

If Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak and his pro-life colleagues are feckless enough to sign on to the nationalization of 1/6 of the American economy and the bottomless generational debt it will incur for another worthless Obama promise and empty scrap of paper, God help us all.

President Obama meets with Democrats on the Hill at 3pm Eastern.

Work that reverse Midas Touch, Mr. President.

Steven Ertelt at LifeNews reports:
- It appears Rep. Bart Stupak has no deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a last-minute attempt to stop the massive abortion funding in the Senate health care bill. As a result, Pelosi is moving forward with a Sunday vote on the bill and is meeting today with top lieutenants to see if she has enough votes.

According to The Hill, Pelosi made it clear at mid-day today that there will be “no separate votes” on any single issue, including abortion funding.

Conversations are reportedly still ongoing and there may be some attempt to accommodate Stupak and his coalition of pro-life Democrats, but Pelosi appears to be ready to see if she has enough votes for Sunday afternoon.

House Republican Leader John Boenher says she doesn’t and several different whip counts say she would need all of about 12 undecided members and a few of the Stupak group to get to the 216 votes needed for the bill. The numbers make it appear Pelosi is about 10 votes away form that magic number.

Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois told PRI radio that, “There’s still time” for Pelosi to change her mind about a deal and that “they still need the votes.”

But pro-abortion Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky says there will be “no vote” on a Stupak deal.

“There’s not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak…there’s been no deal whatsoever. He’s been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation,” she told TPM. “We think we have the votes regardless, and we’re going to be moving forward. Yes. We do think we have the votes without him.”

Key undecided or leaning lawmakers right now, according to whip counts LifeNews.com has seen, include: Reps. Matheson, Carney, Dahlkemper, Nye, Schrader, Pomeroy, Space, Driehaus, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Lipinski, Mollohan, Tanner, Lynch, Rahall, and Baird.

Who am I????


I'm just an average Joe who has read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and most importantly the Bible. Our Greatest Nation began with these documents as our guide. Please educate yourselves by reading them before believing anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth.

With the current gross abuses from our leadership in Washington, I want to share with you what I see as I see it. These abuses have been increasing as we have traveled down the road of history. Without refocusing our goals through the lens of our founding principles, we will surely loose our way.

Make no mistake, a take the side of the American People and the principles which make this country great. I don’t care about partisan politics, fluffy rhetoric to mask the lies from self-serving elitists who have lost their higher calling.

Please do not idly sit by and watch the destruction of our Greatest Nation which has inspired freedom in the midst of darkness for over two centuries. We can have real change, with real results. But it starts with you, the American People who collectively share the legacy of having giving more for our fellow man than any other country in our worlds history.

ACORN 'dissolved as a national structure' but don't let it fool you.....


The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

"ACORN has dissolved as a national structure of state organizations," said a senior official close to the group, who declined to be identified by name because of the fierce conservative attacks on the group that began when a conservative filmmaker caught some staffers of its tax advisory arms on tape appearing to offer advice on incorporating a prostitution business.
The videos proved a rallying point for conservatives who had long accused the group of fomenting voting fraud. Though the videos did not produce criminal charges, they appear to have been fatal to the national organization.
"Consistent with what the internal recommendations have been, each of the states are developing plans for reconstitution independence and self-sufficiency," said the official, citing ACORN's "diminished resources, damage to the brand, unprecedented attacks."
The new organizations, he said "will be constituted under new banners and new bylaws and new governance," he said, consistent with the recommendations of an outside panel.
Much of the group's strength lay in its local chapters in places like New York, which appear to be continuing to operate as normal. New York's City Hall Newsreported today that the local group there had re-emerged under the name "New York Communities for Change."

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Complete disgrace to our Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say Wednesday if Democrats have enough votes to pass historic health care legislation, but hinted that they're poised to use an arcane parliamentary process to get it done.
Hoyer's Republican counterpart, Rep. Eric Cantor, acknowledged that such a process is permissible under House rules. Under the procedure, a Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if Housemembers voted in favor of a rule governing a separate bill with amendments to it.
Cantor, R-Va., said he couldn't understand why Democrats would use such a parliamentary detour with a bill of this magnitude and reach.
Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" to say if he had the 216 votes necessary to pass the legislation in the House, Hoyer, D-Md., replied, "I don't have a precise number. Having said that, we think we'll get the votes. ... We think we will have the votes when the roll is called."
Appearing on the same show, Cantor asserted: "They don't have the votes yet ... The problem is, there's still a lot of uncertainty surrounding this bill. The American people think there's a better way."
The partisan parrying has increased in intensity in the past few days as President Barack Obama and House and Senate Democratic leaders have increased pressure to at last resolve the health care issue, which has been before the Congress for over a year. Obama is due to leave Sunday on a trip to Asia, and he has said he wanted it finished by then.
In the interview Wednesday, Hoyer, D-Md., maintained that support for the 10-year, $1 trillion health care remake has gone up in recent weeks.
"We're going to have a clean up or down vote on the Senate vote," he said. "That will be on the rule. ... This is not an unusual procedure."
Cantor retorted that "this is a process that you can avoid a direct up or down vote on a bill."
Democratic Party chairman Tim Kaine voiced confidence on NBC's"Today" show that the bill will pass, saying "we're in the last throes of labor before something good happens. ... We're not taking anything for granted but we feel good about the outcome."
Asked if "deem and pass" is being used to provide cover for Democrats worried about voting for the measure, Kaine replied, "I don't think there's any cover to be found. Everyone's accountable."
(This version CORRECTS NEW throughout to UPDATE with addl quotes, background information; corrects forum for Hoyer and Cantor remarks to ABC, sted CBS. ADDS photo links; Will be led.)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich to vote "yes" on health care


By Sabrina Eaton, The Plain Dealer

March 17, 2010, 10:12AM
kucinich-steps-off-Air-force-one.jpgRep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland steps off Air Force One at Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland, Monday. He flew in with President Obama for Obama's visit to Strongsville.
UPDATED AT 11:03 A.M.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich waited until Democrats had won last November's health care reform vote before casting his ballot against it on the House of Representatives floor.

This time around -- pressured by everyone from President Obama to Moveon.org -- the Cleveland Democrat had no luxury to dawdle before taking a stance. He announced at a Capitol news conference this morning that he'll vote "yes" on the bill's latest draft.
"I have doubts about the bill," Kucinich said. "This is not the bill I wanted to support. . . However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
Bill opponents pounced quickly. Said an e-mail alert from the National Republican Congressional Committee: "Left-wing icon flips from 'No,' exposes so-called moderates."
President Obama called Kucinich's switch "a good sign."
"I told him thank you," said Obama.
Kucinich's move came after months of insisting he'd oppose the bill because it doesn't do enough to curtail insurance company abuses. Kucinich advocates bolstering Medicare and expanding its coverage to include all Americans.
But he acknowledged this morning that his choice now is to either vote "no" on principle, and thereby possibly block the biggest (though imperfect) advance in health coverage in decades, or compromise for the good of the estimated 30 million more Americans who could gain insurance.
"I have taken this fight further" than many other Congress members, Kucinich said, citing his two presidential campaigns in which he advocated universal coverage and his bill introduction and other attempts in the House to get single-payer insurance.
He told reporters that if they want to see first-hand the tough economic and health-care choices that many Americans face, they should "come to the 10th District in Ohio and you'll understand."
Kucinich's field office on Cleveland's West Side routinely helps constituents with their social services needs, and that includes dealing with insurance matters, he said. He cited his own impoverished childhood, saying, "I grew up understanding what it meant to struggling families who did not get adequate care."
"I understand the connection between poverty and poor health care," he said.
As an adult, he has struggled with Crohn's Disease, and although he follows an alternative diet as one way of dealing with it, he also has had "access to the best" health care around.
"I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is," Kucinich said.
His recent criticism of the bill included a column he authored for last Sunday's Plain Dealer, in which he wrote: 
Even with the few modest improvements in the bill, the insurance companies will still have dozens of loopholes to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill."
But Democrats are struggling to round up the 216 votes they need to pass the bill amid heavy lobbying from its opponents and its supporters, and Kucinich''s arms were twisted.

President Obama personally lobbied for his vote Monday on a ride to Cleveland aboard Air Force One, and at a health care reform rally in Strongsville. Picketers descended on Kucinich's Lakewood office to register their displeasure with his announced opposition to the package slated for consideration this week.

Monday, March 15, 2010

A speech from a college graduation ceremony somewhere in Texas. ENJOY!!


"I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. 

This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

 
 
This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.



By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.



Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

 
 
 Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

 
 
 

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear 'I feel.' From the Right you will hear 'I think.' From the Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

 
 
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. 

Conservatives think -- their identity is centered on the individual.

 
 
 Liberals feel their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

 
 
 In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.




 
If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.



Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job!

 
 
You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

 
 
 Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for the research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth, he then wants to apply relevance to our broad base society to impact or way of living; an agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

 
 
Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tinhorn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million- dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit.



That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has: power that you do not have; a power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals. You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one-ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.




Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.




Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

 

First is that favorite buzzword of the media and academia: Diversity! You have been taught the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity thing again. Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.

 
Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word 'diversity' you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about 'rights.' We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called 'rights' in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

 
 
 You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

 
 
Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no 'right' to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.

 
 
 You may also think you have some 'right' to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be 'homeless person' for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

 


By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase 'less fortunate' a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

 
 
To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is 'less fortunate' is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was 'fortunate.' The dictionary says fortunate means 'having derived good from an unexpected place.' There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.


  

If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of 'fortune' or 'luck,' then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This 'success equals luck' idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as 'people who have won life's lottery.' He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. 

One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled 'The Greatest Secret in the World.' The lesson? Very simple: 'Use wisely your power of choice.'

 
 
That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, 'Look! He did this to me!' than it is to look into a mirror and say, 'You S. O. B.! You did this to me!'

 
 
 

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

 
 
 Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

 
 
 Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. 

You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

 
 
 The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

 
 
Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

 
 
Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns.

Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: 'The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it. The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more 'fair.'

 
 
You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ... there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of 'poor' you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as 'living in poverty.' Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.

 
 
 How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is 'living in poverty,' the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas , or how much is in your savings account.

It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty.'

 
 
 This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? 

Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be 'living in poverty' spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

 
 
Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of 'poor' is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

 
 


I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. 

That's OK, though. I still have my PhD in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows nosensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth so, get over it.

 
 
 Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

 
 
 

* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.

 
 
 

* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.

 
 


* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.

 
 
 

* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

 
 


* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.



* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.



* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

* Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

 
'1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

 
 
2. Use wisely your power of choice.

 
 
3. Go the extra mile... drive home in the dark.

 
 


Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can. Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.

 
 
Class dismissed'

Friday, March 12, 2010

"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."


1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare
hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Open Thread: “Planned Economy or Planned Destruction

1934
A political cartoon from 1934 has resurfaced, that proves the old adage that “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. Look at all the details, and I think you’ll see how uncanny the similarities are between then and now. It’s positively frightening!

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

"The Proposal"


When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.

Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore:

Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years

(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)

$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:

Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends,holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on thecampaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it. "Downsizing."

Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.

 Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

If you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, ignore this,
otherwise, it's time to "downsize" Congress..

 "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan (1986 )

Monday, March 8, 2010

PSALM 2010

A Song Of Obama's Greatness


Obama is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Republican party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
I am glad I am American,
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog .....
And Obama was a tree.

Friday, March 5, 2010

To all my Christian Friends... Pray for our President!!!!!! This gets ugly....

And what was it he said to all of you that were in Washington,

DC last week..... "Don't question my religion!!” ???

Obama prays though, as seen here.... clearly.

Consider this; having read the Koran for myself, it teaches several tactics which should concern all of us!!!


  1. When you are surrounded by your enemies, a devoted Muslim must lie about the nature of Islam until enough influence and strength has been accumulated to subdue the infidels in your midst.
  2. One must only proclaim the peace that Allah offers through the teachings of his prophet Muhammad. And use women and children to communicate this message of peace.
  3. When peaceful gains have been sufficiently made to gain cultural and governmental control, Islamic Shariah law must be implemented to maintain control. 
This is OUR President at a MOSQUE prayer session LAST WEEK AT THE WHITE HOUSE, on the site where the INAUGURATION is held every 4 years!

He canceled OUR CHRISTIAN NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER"...Now...THIS. 
Praying to Allah Muslim God
Please understand that this is in no way an attack against Muslims. I have no ill will toward any law biding, peaceful Muslims which represent the vast majority of their faith. I would gratefully accept them into my home and invite them to explore possible alternatives to their beliefs.

We must realize that like Germans during the first half of the last century and Russians during most of the last century, the people are not a evil but the source of the movement in their nations is in every way.

Please do not hide your head in the sand on this one, or pretend that this is all just radical quack talk. This is a real threat and we need to be aware. 

Pray for our President. Pray and share your heart and love with a Muslim friend or neighbor. These are our most effective weapons against this infectious threat to our nation. 




Wednesday, March 3, 2010

$7-A-Gallon Gas Needed to Meet Government’s CO2 Cuts


Posted By Nick Loris On March 3, 2010 @ 12:08 pm In Energy and Environment | 4 Comments
$7 a gallon gasoline [1]
As the national average of gasoline creeps to three dollars a gallon [2], economists are warning that high gas prices in the United States could slow the economic recovery. Other countries’ economies are recovering more quickly and increased production and activity is putting upward pressure on oil prices. That coupled with a relatively weak US dollar spells trouble for American drivers. Throw in carbon dioxide cuts and gasoline pricescould reach unprecedented levels [3]:
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs [4]. The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.”
If you think it’s out of the question, it’s not. Members of Congress are working with oil companies now to levy a carbon fee on the transportation sector [5]: “Key senators are weighing a request from Big Oil to levy a carbon fee on the industry rather than wrap it into a sweeping cap-and-trade system that covers most of the U.S. economy. If accepted, the approach — supported by ConocoPhillips, BP America and Exxon Mobil Corp. — could rearrange the politics of the Senate climate debate and potentially open up votes that may not be there otherwise.”

Such an approach would do nothing but cause more economic pain for American households. Higher gas prices lower employment, income, and spending, and Americans will have to dip into their savings to pay for higher gas prices. Heritage economist Karen Campbell details these effects in her paper [6], “How Rising Gas Prices Hurt American Households.”
Furthermore, a carbon fee would do very little to reduce CO2 emissions. As Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman points out [7], gasoline prices have already reached these levels in Western Europe where nations have made commitments to cut CO2, yet we are outperforming them in terms of emissions reductions.
Higher fuel prices adversely affect just about every aspect of the economy. Food prices, for instance, will increase as it costs more to harvest, manufacture and transport food. And as the price of airline tickets rise, people will travel less. It may be easier to support these policies when public transportation is readily available – although the cost of public transportation will rise as well. However, many parts of the country do not have access to public transportation and have to drive a significant distance just to get to a grocery store.
Indeed, the rural, poorer areas will be hit hardest by a spike in gasoline prices as residents in these areas spend a larger percentage of their income on fuel. When gasoline prices passed the $4-per-gallon mark, Fred Rozell, pricing director at a fuel analysis firm said [8], “This crisis really impacts those who are at the economic margins of society, mostly in the rural areas and particularly parts of the Southeast. These are people who have to decide between food and transportation.” This map [9]provided by the New York Times shows the percentage of income spent on gasoline throughout the country.
A targeted approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will give us the same results as a cap and trade system: Lots of economic pain for negligible reductions in emissions.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/03/7-a-gallon-gas-needed-to-meet-government%e2%80%99s-co2-cuts/
URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Gas_Buying090225.jpg
[2] creeps to three dollars a gallon: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
[3] could reach unprecedented levels: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/
[4] Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs:http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19972/analysis_of_policies_to_reduce_oil_consumption_and_greenhousegas_emissions_from_the_us_transportation_sector.html
[5] levy a carbon fee on the transportation sector: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/03/03climatewire-senate-trio-hopes-to-hit-pay-dirt-with-carbo-56291.html
[6] these effects in her paper: http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2162.cfm#_ftn1
[7] points out: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed052608b.cfm
[8] said: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html
[9] This map : http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/09/business/20080609_GAS_GRAPHIC.html#tab1

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Professor denies Global Warming theory

By RAYMOND BRUSCA

Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”

Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.

“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.

Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.

In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.

In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

Geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, the lead author of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — whose members, along with Gore, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — said in an interview that Happer’s claims are “simply not true.”

Oppenheimer, director of the Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, noting that he advises Happer to read the IPCC’s report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings.

The University is home to a number of renowned climate change scientists. Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Stephen Pacala and mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow, who are co-chairs of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) and the Princeton Environmental Institute, developed a set of 15 “stabilization wedges.” These are existing technologies that would, by the year 2054, each prevent 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. They argue that the implementation of seven of these wedges would be needed to reach target emissions levels.

Neither Pacala nor Socolow could be reached for comment.

Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.

“Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don’t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,” Happer noted. “I’m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.”

The CMI has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 — by five years.

The Marshall Institute, however, has received at least $715,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation and Corporate Giving division from 1998 to 2006, according to the company’s public reports. Though Exxon has challenged the scientific models for proving the human link to climate change in the past, its spokesmen have said that the company’s stance has been misunderstood. Others say the company has changed its stance.

Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist” claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.

“There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,” Happer explained. “They can’t even do that.”

Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.

“[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn’t change at all,” he explained. “So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand.”

The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.

“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”

Monday, March 1, 2010

Obama's Terrorist-Shielding Envoy to the Muslim World

On Feb. 20, 2003, Professor Sami Al-Arian of the University of South Florida was arrested by the Department of Justice for his leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization. Al-Arian was a radical supporter of Islamic terrorism, a man who announced at rallies that he sought "victory to Islam" and "death to Israel." He created the organization in America, designed, at least in part, to bring terrorists to U.S. soil.

On Sept. 5, 2004, law student Rashad Hussain spoke at a Muslim Student Association (MSA) conference. The MSA is in and of itself a troublesome organization, which has been repeatedly linked to terror -- but that wasn't the main problem. The main problem was Hussain's speech, in which he explicitly defended Al-Arian, calling his prosecution "a sad commentary on our legal system … a travesty of justice … [one incident in a] common pattern … of politically-motivated prosecutions."

On Feb. 28, 2006, Sami Al-Arian pled guilty to conspiracy to help Islamic Jihad.
And on Feb. 14, 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to his Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference.

When news broke of Hussain's 2004 statements, Hussain immediately called reports mistaken, explaining that he had not uttered those words. Unfortunately for Hussain, Politico.com quickly recovered a tape of the MSA conference. Hussain then backtracked, stating, "I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves. The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome." Very reassuring.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is standing by its man, the same way they originally stood by communism-friendly Green Czar Van Jones. This is troubling not only because Obama consistently elevates those who champion anti-American causes, including Jones and Hussain, but also because of his original selection of these people for powerful posts.

The simple fact is that Hussain is not a problem merely because of his 2004 comments. He is a problem because of what he believes about the Muslim world in general.

His views are laid out in a report he did for the Brookings Institution, entitled "Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy." First, he states that those in the United States ought to drop the term "Islamic terrorism." "The terms 'Islamic terrorism' and 'Islamic extremism' validate the terrorist claim that their ideology is, in fact, rooted in Islam," Hussain writes. For the same reason, he wants to end the use of the terms "jihadist" and "Islamofascist." This is pure bunkum, implying as it does that the Muslim world takes its cues on how to interpret Islam from Christians in the United States. But Hussain knows that. His intent isn't to protect the United States -- it's to protect Muslims globally (including radical Muslims) from having to face additional scrutiny at the airports or in the press.

Hussain's argument quickly becomes more pernicious. He argues that Americans should quit asking the Muslim world to value freedom and democracy, and instead focus on working with non-terrorist imams to convert Muslims to a non-terrorist version of Islam. In practice, this means that the U.S. should "work with Muslim governments, religious leaders … on the ground in the Muslim world." In short, cash and public relations help for governments like the Saudis, and imams sponsored by those governments. Again, this is ludicrous on its face -- the idea that Muslims around the world will accept American non-Muslims or Christian-backed Muslims preaching about the true meaning of Islam is laughable. We don't have the legitimacy to preach about Islam. We do have the legitimacy to preach about freedom and democracy.

Putting the most benign spin on Hussain's writings, he is a Muslim who hopes to convert terrorist-leaning Muslims to non-terrorist Islam. But it is not enough to convert them to non-terrorist Islam if that version of Islam is also antidemocratic and fascistic. It is far too easy for non-terrorist, freedom-and-democracy-rejecting Muslims to slip over into terrorist Islam. Hussain provides the best example of that -- after all, he himself slipped over that line in 2004 by endorsing the terrorist Al-Arian and ripping the U.S. justice system.

President Obama clearly agrees with Hussain's plans for the Muslim world. But we in the real world do not have the luxury of pretending that such plans are either realistic or morally righteous. They are neither. They justify continued repression and evil in the Muslim world, and they leave us wide open to attack in the Western world by failing to properly recognize the enemy.