Saturday, July 31, 2010

The REAL Reason the 9/11 Responder Bill Failed

Rep. King (R-NY) co-sponsored a bill to provide more medical coverage to the 9/11 responders. The bill was supposed to be presented for a vote under the "normal" Congressional rule of a simple majority. If the Democratic leadership had allowed a simple majority vote, the bill would have passed overwhelmingly. This was well known to all.

But when the time came for a vote, the Democrat leadership intentionally disregarded a simple majority vote and decided to require a 2/3 majority vote. This was an insidious calculation on their part, as they knew beforehand that there were not enough votes for a 2/3 majority. Even many Democrats were voting against the bill.

So, why did the Democratic leadership, spearheaded by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) intentionally choose to sabotage the bill?

Because they wanted to be able to point to the Republicans as "obstructionists" and the "party of no" when the bill failed, as they knew it would. A cheap political point, and the 9/11 responders it would have helped are the ones who paid the price for that undeserved point.

To further illustrate the underhandedness of the Democrat leadership, when the bill failed Weiner verbally attacked and abused King for the failure of the bill to pass, in spite of the fact that it was King's bill, and King voted FOR it. But that did not stop Weiner and the Democrat leadership from trying to lay the blame on King and score that political point.

King wrote the bill. King voted for it. King expected it to go to a simple majority vote, where the bill was certain to be passed. But Weiner and his thugs sabotaged the bill, intentionally, just so they could try and make the Republicans look bad just before mid-term elections.

Weiner says the fact that only 12 Republicans voted for the bill proves his point that they are obstructionists. But that is incorrect. Had the bill been presented properly as a simple majority vote, almost all Republicans were ready to vote for it. But when Weiner and the Democrat leadership changed the rules in order to purposely sabotage the bill, many Republicans chose, rightfully, to object, and show their objections by voting "no".

When Congress returns in a couple of weeks, King plans to offer the bill once again. Here's hoping the Democratic leadership does not choose to torpedo it this time just to make a cheap political point. The heroic 9/11 responders need the assistance it will provide. And we do not need Anthony Weiner depriving them of that aid.

Democrat majority take note: if you intentionally sabotage a Republican sponsored bill for the sole purpose of making a cheap political point, we, the people, will not be fooled. Your trickery and deceit will be the one thing in Washington that really is transparent. Put the stupid politics aside and provide for the 9/11 responders.


Friday, July 30, 2010


In June, President Obama and Vice President Biden announced their "Summer Tour - Road to Recovery", intent on touting their own horn about how the economy was recovering, and it was all due to their efforts. The credit goes to them, and don't anyone forget it.

Today, the report came out showing only a 2.4% increase in GDP in the last quarter - slower than the previous two quarters. This indicated a serious slowdown in the economy rather than a recovery. And guess what?

You guessed it - they both came on air today blaming Bush for the slowdown. Strange - just yesterday the economy belonged to them, but today it suddenly belongs to Bush again.

Aren't you, like me, getting sick and tired of liberals STILL blaming Bush for everything - even though he has not been in office for a year and a half?

Bush was in office only 9 months when 9/11 happened, and the liberals blamed him. They said he should have known, and prevented it. But Obama has been in office twice that long and NOTHING is his fault.

I recall that there was a Godfather in NYC (I think it was John Gotti) called the "Teflon Don" because nothing stuck to him. But he has nothing on Obama.

Over the remainder of his term, Obama will continue to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong, but will take credit for everything that goes right.

Sounds like a spoiled 5 year old. What is it in the make-up of progressives that does not allow them to take responsibility for anything that goes awry but requires they take credit for everything that goes well?

My dad, a very wise man, would have said "lack of character and integrity."


Arne Duncan - Doubling Down On Lousy Education

The United States is sadly falling way behind other nations in the quality of education our children get. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the reason we are falling behind is due to not being able to fire lousy teachers, no accountability of teaching quality and really stupid curricula designed to "liberalize" our children rather than teach them. Dumb curricula like teaching 1st graders about gay sex, or how to put on a condom. And U.S. History that does not begin until "progressivism" reared its ugly head in the 1880's.

So, what other suggestion would a very liberal Secretary of Education come up with but to extend the number of hours, days and weeks our kids spend in lousy schools learning more of the same?

Duncan wants our kids to be in school up to 14 hours per day, 6 days a week, all year long. And he says it is designed to increase the quality of the education.

Now for some common sense - the only way to increase the quality of education is by getting rid of bad teachers, holding teachers and schools accountable and providing a worthwhile curricula that is designed to teach our kids what they need to know. Adding hours to their schedule does nothing for quality. In fact, it would tire them out, and effectively prevent them from ever being children.

Moreover, think about this - most schools are cooperatives, with the average student spending at least 2 hours per day on a bus. Most students have 2 hours of homework. And most students have chores to do, especially in rural areas. If you add all those hours to even a 12 hour school day, the average child will be working 18 hours per day. That leaves 6 hours for meals, recreation, bathing, sleeping...even adults are not required to put in that many hours. When do the children get to be children?

But there is a much more insidious monster lurking in Duncan's suggestion. It is no secret that progressive liberals want to control our lives from cradle to grave. And it comes as no surprise to informed people that the best way to accomplish that is to take over the rearing of our children. Hitler understood that, and used his "youth camps" to do precisely the same thing as Duncan is proposing.

If the progressives can remove the influence of parents, they can mold the children into whatever they want. It's called "indoctrination", and it only works if you can remove outside influences - like parents.

And it has already begun. In many schools across the nation our children are being forced to learn and sing songs praising Obama. They are being taught that traditional values, and even God, are bad things. If you do not believe that, you have not seen the actual unedited videos that kids are sending via their cell phones, which have been shown on all legitimate news programs (you will not see them on NBC, MSNBC, ABC or CBS).

If you do not yet comprehend what is really going on here, you had better find out, because our entire way of life is at stake.

Progressivim (liberalism) is designed to enslave the masses by making them dependent upon government for their very existence. It has already happened in many nations around the globe. And it is happening here, with welfare, government health care, government education (the Department of Education is younger than I am - education used to be run locally. You know - when America was actually leading the world in education).

Forty-seven percent of all working Americans now depend on government for their jobs or their welfare "entitlements". And forty-nine percent of working Americans pay NO taxes at all.

If you went to school back when a good education was the norm, you can add two and two. You can see where the progressives are trying to take us.

And you can stop it at the polls, by always electing people who shun progressive, liberal ideas.
You can improve the quality of education without increasing the hours simply by demanding that "tenure" be dissolved, and by removing the power from teacher's unions. And you can demand school vouchers, which would force all schools to improve if they want to survive. It's called "competition", and it is what made this country great.

The progressive idea that everyone should win, everyone should get a trophy, and everyone should get an "A" just for trying is not only absurd, but incredibly devastating. It destroys competition - why try harder if you are going to get an "A" anyway?

Duncan and the progressives in Washington need to be stopped. And only you can stop them. In November, get rid of all the clowns who are in Washington to serve their own, personal goals. Get rid of everyone who does not think America needs to be "top dog". Fire everyone who thinks we need not excel. And toss out the jokers who believe they know better than you, and therefore do not need to listen to you.

In other words, replace at least 90% of all elected officials with people who really care about the America that George Washington fought for.


Monday, July 26, 2010


Someone posting as "anonymous" left the following comment concerning my blog on the Oakland CA city council drug cartel:

"You BLAME weed for your problems, that is a personal issue. Shoot, alcohol has not only ruined lives, but KILLS people by it self. "

Spoken like a true pothead in denial. First, let's begin with alcohol ruining lives - only a braindead person would excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. What you are insinuating is that it's OK to murder innocent people because terrorists also murder innocent people. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee instead of the weed.

As for blaming weed - I have never shirked from my responsibility. I made the decision to smoke pot for 11 years. That's on me. But that does not change the fact that it was the effects of the weed that caused all the problems. Indirectly it was me - my decision. Directly it was the weed. And it is not a "personal issue" when weed causes forgetfulness, makes you less functional on the job, makes it harder to maintain a relationship. Those things are directly caused by the weed. Not to mention the cost to your family when a person spends hundreds a week on getting stoned.

Yes, the responsibility is mine. But the CAUSE was the weed.

Yes, alcohol does much the same thing. But in case you missed it, I did not advocate on behalf of alcohol. And again, in case you missed it because of a weed stupor, I did exclude "casual recreational" use. The person who only uses it once or twice a week on their own time are not at issue. The issue is a city government becoming a drug cartel for profit. Can you name just ONE real difference in purpose and effect between the Mexican cartels and the Oakland City Council cartel?

America is a great country, but it cannot remain great for long if we put it in the hands of people who are stoned.

The commenter went on (again) saying "Your real problem is you BLAME weed for your problems instead of taking responsability for yourself. "

Well, in case your weed-befuddled brain did not get it the first few times, I have ALWAYS taken responsibility, and stated so several times. But that does NOT change the fact that the effects of the weed caused the problems. Yes, my decision. And I have always taken responsibility for that. But the effects are caused by the weed. Cause and effect.

He also said "comparing weed to MURDER INC." is a stretch, but it really is not - the principle is precisely the same - condoning bad behavior for the sake of money. I also compared it to child porn - same thing.

Strange (not really) that the commenter conveniently ignored the real question - what is the difference between the Oakland city council and any other drug cartel?

To the commenter I would say: Look, you can try all you might to excuse your abuse of drugs, my friend, but I've been there, done that. That dog don't hunt. Call it medicine or whatever you wish - it is a DRUG. It has debilitating effects while under its influence. Can it help relieve some pain or have other medicinal qualities? Certainly, same as alcohol. But don't try to BS anyone that you smoke dope for that any more than a drunk swills booze for the medicinal effects. You smoke it because you are a pothead, plain and simpe. Now maybe YOU should take responsibility for THAT.

I was smart enough to give up the weed over 20 years ago. And since then I have regained everything I had lost, and more, but only from long, hard effort. It is not easy starting over from scratch at 42. So if you are moronic enough to think I do not take responsibility for my choices, then you simply have no clue. I have become somewhat famous and incredibly wealthy because I do take responsibility. Perhaps you will someday learn to do the same - but not while you are still making excuses for your addiction.


Selling Our Souls?

In California, Maine and several other states they have made "medical marijuana" legal. They said it was to bring more money into the state, and create jobs.

Now, the city of Oakland California plans to begin wholesale growing, packaging and distribution of weed. Again, they say it is because it will bring in money and create jobs.

So I must ask the Oakland city council - if MURDER, INC. were to bring in millions in income, and create jobs, would Oakland also legalize murder? What about child porn - I hear there is a lot of money in that, too?

The point is, it is NOT okay to sell your morality, your principles, ethics or your soul. There is honest money, and then there is blood money.

I fail to see how the Oakland city council is doing anything different from the drug cartels that are raising so much havoc. They, too, grow, package and distribute in order to make the Benjamins.

As far as I can see, the Oakland city council - and any other community or state that caters to druggies by legalizing any drug - are nothing less than drug lords and should face the same consequences as any other drug lord.

Yes, I know the arguments - marijuana is "harmless", and people should be able to do what they want. But it is NOT harmless. It impairs your ability to react (and therefore drive, or even work) and encourages crime (Oakland has twice the murder rate of any other California city). Yes, encourages crime - if you are unable to function fully and clearly, you will not hold down a decent job. That results in having to turn to crime to make the Benjamins.

Look around - some of your friends (perhaps even yourself) are druggies. Do they do as well as they should, or could? If you want to be honest, you would have to say "no".

I am not talking about the casual "recreational" use. But weed has the inherent ability to turn casual use into steady use - even more so when it is legal and easily obtainable.

Case in point: Amsterdam (Netherlands) which made almost all drugs legal. The city went from a thriving metropolis to a dying city where nothing gets accomplished anymore. As you walk the streets you can see the empty shells of literally hundreds of people, stoned out of their minds. These people are not contributing anything to their community, their families or even themselves.

Have you been to San Francisco or Oakland lately? The same thing is happening.

And I speak from experience - I spent 11 years wrapped up in the world of weed, with many friends. And it was a downward spiral that detroyed a marriage, my business and eventually left me homeless.

No, weed is definitely not "harmless". And ANY city or state that legalizes, grows or distributes it is nothing less than a drug cartel.


Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Sherrod Debacle

As many of you may know, Shirley Sherrod, director of the Georgia USDA was fired for appearing to make racist statements, then offered a promotion when the White House figured they acted prematurely (as he did with the Professor Gates/ Cambridge police screw-up).

Well, here is something to chew on...

The video clip that started this flap was from an NAACP meeting. You will not find any conservatives at such a meeting, so it's a cinch that the video belonged either to the NAACP or an associate.

SOMEONE sent (conservative blog) a small portion of the video - only the snippet that shows Sherrod implying she was racist. That video snippet could only have come from an associate of the NAACP, and since it was deceptively edited to show something that was not true, you can bet it was a setup.

Someone at the NAACP used that clip, taken out of context, to set up Breitbart and other conservative media in a typical liberal ploy to damage their opponents.

What they did not see comig was the LIBERAL over-reaction. Even before conservative media could report on this, the Obama administration ordered the firing of Sherrod, and Vilsack (her boss) did fire her.

And then the much maligned Glenn Beck checked out the story (which he always does, but others often do not) and found that the clip was out of context, and that Sherrod was NOT racist. Beck defended her, and proved the case.

And that forced the Obama administration to apologize to Sherrod and offer her a promotion.

The NAACP, in an attempt to discredit conservative media, actually succeeded in arranging for the Obama administration to again have egg on their faces.

Yes, some in conservative media jumped on the story - but how could they not? They did not have access to anything but the clip.

But Glenn Beck, a very thorough investigator turned up the truth, exposed it and helped set things right.

I can only hope that after two such incidents of jumping to (the wrong) conclusions that the Obama administration has learned something - in America, you do not assume a person guilty until found innocent. That every citizen is entitled to due process, and that due diligence should be exercised BEFORE putting foot in mouth.

And to the conservative media I would suggest using greater due diligence, particularly when a news story comes from a questionable source, or comes incomplete.

And to Glenn Beck I say, "good job". Done the way reporting should be done - INVESTIGATE the facts, all of them, and then report the findings.

Beck may be a bit nutty, but I have only found him to be wrong once - and in that instance, he corrected himself in public and apologized.

And to those who "hate" Beck because of what you THINK you know about him, I would recommend watching him regularly for two weeks. You may not LIKE what he has to say, but at least you will learn something you'll not learn anywhere else - with evidence of every claim he makes.


Wednesday, July 21, 2010

What Your $1,013,162,955 Buys

From June 2009 until Marh 2010 (only 9 months), Congress spent over a billion dollars of taxpayer money on - THEMSELVES.

Here's the breakdown:

The biggest spender is Pedro Pierluisi (D) of Puerto Rico ($1.5 million), who cannot even vote on legislation. He is closely followed by fellow Democrat Jim Costa of California, who spent $1.3 million.

The biggest expense was benefits for retired federal employees showing some $80 million in expenditures.

Wasted: $114,925 is what the Democratic Caucus paid for its staff to have a getaway for the weekend to set the caucus' 2009 legislative agenda at the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Va.

$552 million in payments for all workers on the payroll. $12.5 million of that is for student loans. With what Congress and their staff get paid, they should not be getting student loans!

$18million spent on computer hardware and $5.3million spent on computer software

$7.5 million spent on office supplies (like toner cartridges and pencils), of which more than half a million went to a Washington DC company for "printer needs"

$565,373 was spent on carpet during the nine-month period while a whopping $317,304 was spent on new drapes during the same period

Since Congressmen only get paid a couple hundred thousand a year, they cannot afford to buy their own treats and snacks. $2.6 million spent on food and beverages for House reps and their staffers, of which $604, 000 was spent on bottled water alone and a ridiculous $3,061 was spent on Chantilly Donuts. $84,794 spent on companies that specialize in coffee and $9,450 was spent on Coca-Cola products

$11 million spent on newspapers and other resources

$12.5 million spent on travel - Chellie Pingree (D) of Maine was the most traveled, though Jerry Moran (R) of Kansas spent more

Remember, folks - these are rather wealthy people, who we pay exceptionally well, and spending your taxpayer dollars. Some expenses are legitimate, but many are not. It's time we tell them to buy their own damned donuts and bottled water.


Saturday, July 17, 2010


A while back the Democrats who control Congress all signed a "pay as you go" pledge - they would not pass any spending measure that was not fully funded and paid for. The Republicans in Congress also made a pledge - to not vote for any spending measure that was not fully paid for - in other words, to hold the Democrats to their own pledge.

Now the Democrats try to push through unfunded unemployment extension benefits. Not paid for, they would be added to the deficit and laid on the backs of future generations. The Democrats are breaking their promise.

The Republicans refuse to accept the extensions unless they are funded, and are therefore keeping their promise.

And now Obama, in a lame attempt at politicizing this is trying to make everyone believe the Republicans are blocking the benefits.

They are not. They are simply keeping their promise and trying to get the Democrats to keeps theirs - to FUND it. It is not that difficult to do, since there is plenty of unspent stimulus money that could be used to fund the extensions. But the Democrats refuse to use that money because it is scheduled to buy more votes for Democrats.

If anyone can be accused of blocking unemployment benefits, it's the Democrats. If they would keep their word and "pay as they go", there would be no problem and the Republicans would sign on.

This is a dishonest political game. Both parties do it. They take something that everyone needs and wants, then tack on unsavory things to make sure the other side cannot vote for it. Then they blame the other side for voting against the good things.

When in fact, they are not - they are voting against the bad things that were attached to it.

Like the funding for the war. Republicans and Democrats both agree it is necessary. But the Dems added 27 billion dollars of non-related pork to the bill, just to make sure the Republicans could not vote for it so they could accuse the Republicans of refusing to fund the war and help the troops.

That is how it is done. And it is time we, the people put a stop to it.

First, elect people who promise, in writing, to be fiscally responsible (Tea Party candidates do so, and all others should). Then DEMAND that every bill that gets before Congress is a "straight" bill - in other words, don't tack on money for a community center in Chicago to a military funding bill. Keep it straight and honest.

Only then will we be able to see the truth about who is responsible for what.

It's really quite simple - if someone offers you a sweet treat, don't accept it if they add rat poison to it.

That is what "pork" is - it is rat poison added to the things we really need. Congress people use pork to buy votes in their district, with YOUR money. And the pork gets approved because it is attached to something important, like the military budget. One senator says to another, "I will vote for your bill if you add a sweetener for me so I can get re-elected next term - give me $10 million dollars to build swimming pools and doggie parks in my home state".

It is time to bring honesty and fiscal responsibility to our government, before the government puts us all into the poor house.


Unemployment Rate - 9.5% or 22%?

I guess it depends on where you get your figures.

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was floored. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

In fact, Austan Goolsbee, who is now part of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in a 2003 New York Times piece titled "The Unemployment Myth," that the government had "cooked the books" by not correctly counting all the people it should, thereby keeping the unemployment rate artificially low.

Judging from the real numbers from real surveys it would appear the Obama administration is intentionally keeping the truth from us in an effort to make his failed stimulus spending appear to be working. The fact is, even at the governments low number of 9.5% it still proves the stimulus failed miserably.

The danger lies in lawmakers using administration numbers instead of the true numbers in making policy decisions and passing laws. If they believe the unemployment rate is "only" 9.5%, they will not act as strongly nor with as much urgency as they would if they knew it was more than twice that. And instead of focusing on health care, financial reform or 16 other less important issues they could have been focusing on JOBS, like we, the people have been begging them to do for the last 18 months.

The president, swearing many times that he would "focus like a laser on jobs" and "not rest until the economy turns around" is currently vacationing in Bar Harbor, Maine, with plans for an extended vacation at Martha's Vineyard next month. That will be four vacations in three months, not counting the 18 golf retreats, celebrity parties and photo ops. If that is "focusing like a laser" and "not resting" then my dictionary of definitions needs updating.


Friday, July 16, 2010

Most Of You Do Not Know This

By 2014 the "health care law" REQUIRES you to get tested for your BMI (Body Mass Index, or Obesity Rating) and it will be included in government records, supposedly to help them determine what medical attention you qualify for (or not).

In other words, your obesity rating will be more or less public record, and could be used to single you out either for mandatory treatment, or to prevent you from getting certain treatment because you are a risk. Total control by the government. I can already see feds pounding on the door, demanding to check your fridge and cupboards, looking for those contraband Oreo's and Twinkee's.

Liberals say, "Naw, that won't happen," but I would ask just one question - if not for the purpose of forcing lifestyle changes against your will, or to use the info to keep you from treatment, then WHY does the government REQUIRE your BMI, by law?

While you ponder on that, remember what Supreme Court nominee Kagan said to Congress last month - that it is within the right of the government to decide what foods you can and cannot eat. Yes, she said that. It was videotaped. She said that under the commerce clause, the government can regulate which foods you have access to, and WHO has access to them.

Chew on that one, folks. It's where we are headed unless we all - every one of us - waddle over to the voting booth in November and vote for those who would change this mess and make it right.


Monday, July 12, 2010

Another Gun Law To Get Shot Down

Chicago Mayor Daley, in an attempt to push his socialist agenda of no guns has once again imposed strict gun laws for Chicago - and just like the previous laws, this one will also be struck down. Apparently, Mayor Daley (D) has no use nor respect for either the Constitution nor the courts.

His new law states there can only be ONE gun per household. But if 2 or more American adults live in the household, EACH of those adults have the right to bear arms, so Daley's law, again, is unconstitutional.

His law also states that the gun must remain IN the house - you cannot even bring it out onto the porch, or take it for target shooting so you can learn to hit what you are shooting at. Apparently Daley, again, does not comprehend simple English, as in "the right of the people to BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

Like most liberals and progressives, Daley does not like the fact that the "people" have rights that get in the way of the liberals taking over altogether. Daley and his ilk hate the Constitution because it gives the "little people" power - over HIM, and all government. And people like Daley do not like that. He believes he should be the only power.

Daley needs to go. Not because he is a liberal, but because he does not respect the people or their rights. And for him to say his gun laws are to bring violence under control, that is a farce - Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet also has the highest rate of violent crime.

Here's a clue for you, Daley - if town A bans guns, and town B has armed residents, where do you think the criminals are going to go? They will go where the pickin's are easy because residents cannot defend themselves.

A place like Chicago...


Come Again?

In an AP article today, I found the following statement concerning why half of California voters are backing Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown:

"The five biggest plusses Brown's supporters see in him are that he supports the new health care reform law, is a Democrat, supports President Obama and his policies, has experience working with legislative leaders and holds a progressive view on the issues"

I used to live in Long Beach and Rialto back in the '60's. It was nice then. In the late '60's I saw the beginnings of a dangerous trend that could destroy the state - progressivism. And for the last 30 years I watched in dismay as progressives kept pushing California off a cliff. And now the job is nearly complete - California is bankrupt from all the expensive and foolish "social" programs that progressives love, but no one can afford.

And I find it amazing that today almost half of all California voters want more of the same. (The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.)

It only goes to show that, with the right piper, the lemmings will march themselves right into the ocean and drown. That is what happens when ideology trumps reality and common sense.

Although I am a conservative libertarian and do not hold with progressivism (previously known as Marxism), I almost hope Brown does win. It will finally send California into default and maybe, just maybe, the rest of us can see the result of progressive thinking before it is too late.

NOTE: The 5 states closest to bankruptcy happen to be the 5 states that have been run by progressives for at least two decades. CA, IL, NY, NJ and MA. MI and CT, also progressive, are close behind.


Friday, July 9, 2010

Summer Soldiers & Sunshine Patriots

It was December, 1776. The American army, led by General George Washington was virtually beaten. One more battle would end it.

But on December 23, 1776, as Washington prepared to cross the Delaware to engage in a decisive surprise victory at Trenton, he read to his troops an article just published by Thomas Paine. That article, from "The American Crisis" began as follows:

"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Today, we have another American crisis. And we have altogether too many "summer soldiers and Sunshine Patriots". Such people will talk about patriotism and put up a good fight with their mouths so long as it does not cost them anything or place themselves in jeopardy.

What we need are true patriots, willing to stand and be counted, to fight the good fight regardless of personal cost to themselves. We need the "silent majority" to finally get out of their LazyBoys and stop being silent. They need to take a stand, and be counted at the polls. Only then will we have a government that truly represents "We, the People."

As Thomas Jefferson once so clearly and accurately said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." If your government is not all that you think it should be, or is on the wrong track, then that is what you deserve by not taking steps to change it. If a person keeps leaving it up "to the other guy", the "other guy" will put the screws to you, in favor of himself. Every time.

It is only 3 months to the mid-term elections. If you are a "sunshine patriot", do nothing. But if you are a true American patriot willing to stand and be counted, do just two things:

1) Get informed. Not from the mainstream media - they only tell one side of the story, to suit their agenda. Whether you like Fox News or not, at least they give the WHOLE story, and you will learn a lot. For example, only FOX reported the ACORN mess for the first couple months, and only FOX is reporting that the Department of Justice refuses to proceed to prosecute the New Black Pathers for voter intimidation AND that the DOJ policy is now, according to Congressional testimony "if the victim is white and the defendant black, we will not pursue the case."

Find out what is REALLY going on, and not just the one-sided crap being fed to people by the mainstream media.

2) Once informed, get out and VOTE. No matter the weather, no matter what else you may have to do, make arrangements to vote.

I'm just sayin'...


Tuesday, July 6, 2010


Today, the incompetent Attorney General Eric Holder filed suit against the state of Arizona on the basis of "preemption". In other words, the federal law pre-empts the state law under the so-called "supremacy clause."

But here is the problem, and any first year law student can verify it: the supremacy clause and preemption is only a valid basis for suit if the state law conflicts with the federal law.

It does not. The Arizona law basically says, "Hey, ya know the federal law that makes being here illegally a crime? Well, Arizona is applying that exact same law as a state law - so that which is illegal under the fed law is now illegal also under state law."

There is NO conflict at all. In fact, the Arizona law is even easier on illegals than federal law, and the Constitution permits states to pass laws that do not step on federal toes. Fed law does NOT prevent authorities from racial profiling, but the Arizona law does. And that is permissable.

It's like the speed limit - the feds put a maximum speed limit of 55 on interstates at one time. States could REDUCE that to 50, or 45. But they could not INCREASE it to 65 or 70.

What would NOT be permissable is if the Arizona law were to require stiffer racial profiling than federal law.

Someone should give Holder the boot - HARD! This is not his first big screw up. Remember he wanted to try Sheik Kahlid Mohammed in New York in criminal court? And even AFTER the government won its case against the New Black Panthers on voter intimidation, Holder dismissed the case - AFTER IT WAS WON - stating the DOJ did not have the evidence to win. But they had already won.

And now this.

Holder is nothing short of an incompetent dolt, incapable of even being ON a jury. He should not be Attorney General. Heck, he should not be the White House dog sitter.


Thursday, July 1, 2010


I was going through a bunch of material gathered after 9/11. And I noticed that many, many liberals blamed Bush for 9/11, stating he should have somehow seen it coming and stopped it. Note that Bush had been in office for just 9 months.

Obama has been in office for 18 months, and the economy is Bush's fault, the 10% unemployment rate is Bush's fault, the stock market is Bush's fault, immigration is Bush's fault, and even the oil spill is Bush & Cheney's fault.

So, why is it that Bush is responsible for things after being office 9 months - and even after being OUT of office for a year and a half - but Obama is not responsible for ANYTHING after 18 months?

I'm just askin'...



So I'm listening to President Obama and his speech on immigration. It is truly amazing how he can spin ILLEGAL immigration into something that is not really wrongdoing.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants - LEGAL immigrants. We have immigration laws for a reason, and whenever any person breaks those laws, they have committed a crime. And those who commit crimes should not be exonerated simply because, as Obama put it, "they are simply looking for a better life."

Pardon me for being blunt, but a bank robber is robbing banks because he is looking for a better life. Should we also exonerate them as well? How about Bernie Madoff? The mugger in the park?

Liberals simply do not comprehend, because they live in a world of ideals instead of a world of reality. Yes, it would be great if everybody could come here, unfettered, and chase the American dream because we have open borders. But that is not reality, and here are just a few of the reasons why:

1) We do not need more criminals, and many criminals are coming here from other countries, including the latino gangs

2) We do not need terrorists coming here, for obvious reasons

3) Room. American schools, cities, and streets are already overcrowded. With open borders, we would be swamped with hundreds of millions more people. Currently a population of 300 million, and suffering overcrowded schools, prisons, streets and hospitals, imagine if that were doubled to 600 million. Imagine twice as many cars on the roadways during your commute.

4) Jobs. Where would we all work? Not only are there not enough jobs, there are not enough businesses to accommodate that many more people. Lines at any store would be 4 times longer, and prices would skyrocket as demand quickly surpasses supply.

Obama also used the same tired mantra that we have to grant amnesty because there is no way to round up 11 million people.

He is wrong, and he knows it. He knows that you can grant immigrants a "guest worker" pass that allows them to live and work here WITHOUT granting them a path to citizenship. And he also knows that if current immigration laws were enforced and employers could no longer hire illegals, we would not have to "round them up" - without a source of income they would leave on their own.

He knows this, but chooses to ignore it because it does not help him push his agenda.

NO pathway to citizenship should be made available to ANYONE here illegally. You simply do not reward people for breaking the law. Period. Give illegals a choice - stay, work, enjoy America as a GUEST WORKER, or go home and return LEGALLY. Only those who choose to enter LEGALLY should be granted any path to citizenship.

Obama, just because we may let them stay does not mean we must give them a path to citizenship. The ONLY reason you want to give lawbreakers citizenship is to pad the ballot box with grateful Latino votes.

Stop politicizing this issue. It is too important.

First, secure the borders. Any EMT will tell you that you must stop the bleeding and stabilize the patient before doing anything else.

Second, give illegals a choice - pass a criminal records check, then get a Guest Worker pass. NO path to citizenship, ever, unless they return home and re-enter legally, to show respect for our laws. If you want to be a citizen, return home, then re-enter legally. Take your choice.

Obama wants "comprehensive" reform that ties securing the border to amnesty. We already tried that. In the '80's, Reagan said he would grant amnersty if the government would secure the border. He granted the amnesty. But the border was never secured, which is the ONLY reason we have this problem today. Had the border been secured, we would not be arguing this and the problem would not even exist.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No, Mr. President, secure the border FIRST to show good faith. Then we can talk about what to do with the illegals already here.

Now Obama has said, "We can put politics aside" to do this. However, his entire speech was politics, and his suggested solutions are strictly political - granting amnesty with a path to citizenship, as if one requires the other. It does not. That is a POLITICAL solution, for political purposes.

There are 6 BILLION people on this rock. At least 20% of those would prefer to be in America. Imagine open borders that would allow that billion to come here, quadrupling our population virtually overnight.

We do not have the room. Nor the housing. Nor the businesses required to sustain so many. Nor the schools. Nor the highways. We simply do NOT have the infrastructure to support open borders.

And that is why immigration must be carefully metered, so as not to swamp the system that supports us and provides the "American Dream".

Open borders would make it the American Nightmare.