Saturday, October 31, 2009

Finally, people are beginning to question the constitutionality of this "Healthcare Reform"

Constitutionality of health overhaul questioned
Legal scholars divided over Congress' authority
By Donald Lambro

Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.

While this debate has been overshadowed by other issues involving the plan's nearly $1 trillion cost and its government-run option, the constitutional argument strikes at a pivotal part of the health care plan's finances.

In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a "mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action."

"The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," the CBO said. The statement was part of an analysis of then-President Clinton's ill-fated health care reform plan, which also required that all Americans purchase health insurance plans.

...Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, asks, "Where in the [Constitution] is the power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance?" His answer: Nowhere.

"The business of providing health insurance is now an entirely intrastate activity" beyond the regulatory sway of the federal government, he said.

Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued in an Aug. 22 column in The Washington Post that Congress has no constitutional power to tell people what they must buy.

I would hope that more people would begin to question the constitutionality of all this healthcare reform business.

Tranparent what?

Transparent nonsense
Obama hinders public's right to know
By Quin Hillyer
The Washington Times

The candidate whose most identifiable promise was to provide open and transparent government instead is leading an administration rife with secrecy, stonewalling and prevarication.

The administration repeatedly has stiff-armed Congress, the media, outside organizations and even a prestigious independent government commission. It has raised "none of your business" from an adolescent rejoinder to a public policy - to keep the public in the dark.

Before examining examples of this alarming trend, let's remember what newly inaugurated President Obama said in a big press conference on Jan. 21, his first full day in office. His words and tone could not have been more clear:

"The way to hold government accountable is to make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made [and] how they're being made. ... Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known. ... The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it."

Fine sentiments. But this is the same president who promised to abide by campaign spending limits - until the time came actually to do it. Likewise, these pledges were quickly tossed into the sewer of power politics.

Consider the president's unfathomable decision to support the radical leftist, anti-American, would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya when all the lawful authorities in Honduras removed him from office for subverting the clear text of the Honduran constitution. Even the American Law Library of Congress concluded that the Honduran Legislature and courts acted lawfully, yet the Obama administration actually has imposed sanctions on the Honduran people, who long have been our allies.

Since July 8, 16 senators have been asking the State Department to explain the legal rationale for its stance. They received no substantive response. When Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, and three House members traveled to Honduras, U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens urged them to read a memo by State Department counsel Harold Koh explaining the administration's analysis. On Oct. 6, the senator's staff specifically requested that memo from the department. No response.

Twice this month, I requested the memo. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused, saying the memo officially is "classified" because of "the nature of the information used in the analysis" and that it also is subject to "attorney-client privilege." Finally, he said it is privileged because it is a "pre-decisional" and "internal deliberative document."

It goes on to give more examples, but do we really need more? Come on, this administration and congress make the secretive Dick Cheney look like he was shouting from the mountain top!

In 568 words, what's wrong with 1,990 pages

Note: I borrowed the headline from:
Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
Washington Examiner

Here is the full text of Boehner's radio address:

I’m House Republican Leader John Boehner. At the beginning of this year, I told President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Republicans would be ready to work with them whenever possible to address the nation’s biggest challenges. I also said that where there are differences, it was our obligation as a party to explain to the American people how we would do things better. And on the "stimulus," the budget, the energy bill, and health care, we have done exactly that.

As a matter of fact, only Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and make it easier to obtain quality, affordable coverage without imposing a massive burden on the American people.

We first released our health care plan in June, and over the last six months, we have introduced at least eight bills that, taken together, would implement this blueprint. You can go right now to and get all the details, but for now, I just want to share with you four ideas Republicans have proposed:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

These are four smart, fiscally-responsible reforms that we can implement today to lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford. Again, you can learn more about these and all the health care initiatives Republicans have supported by visiting

The best way to get a sense of what Speaker Pelosi’s takeover of health care looks like is to actually look at it. Just shy of 2,000 pages, it runs more than 620 pages longer than the government-run plan Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993.

This 1,990 pages of bureaucracy will centralize health care decision making in Washington, DC. It’ll require thousands of new federal employees. It’ll put unelected boards, bureaus, and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially life-saving treatment.

And it won’t come cheap. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill will raise the cost of Americans’ health insurance premiums; it will kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates; and it will cut seniors’ Medicare benefits.

We now have a choice: we can come together to implement smart, fiscally responsible reforms to improve Americans’ health care or we can recklessly pursue this government takeover that creates far more problems than it solves.

It’s clear where the American people stand on this issue. They‘re frustrated and fed up. The ‘stimulus’ bill isn’t working. Unemployment is rising. The debt to be paid by our kids and grandkids is exploding. And now, Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care.

Enough is enough. Breaking the bank and taking away the freedoms Americans cherish is not the answer to the challenges we face.

This coming week, Republicans will continue to stand on principle, defend freedom, and fight for our better solutions to make health care more affordable and accessible for American families.

Thanks for listening.

Huh. Who knew that the Republicans had proposed anything? Where's the coverage of the Republican bills? Have they made it out of committee? If not, who is blocking them? Where are the journalists covering this story?

Friday, October 30, 2009

AP-Obama: End-of-life counseling in health bill

It's alive! End-of-life counseling in health bill
Oct 29 03:03 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - It's alive.
The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to 'death panels' for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.

The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.

The next thing you know AP will be claiming the healthcare bill will "impose an array of new taxes, fees and government mandates on major players in the health industry, including insurers, doctors and drugs and medical devices makers" that will eventually put private insurers, medical device manufacturer's and drug maker's out of business (at least in the U.S.).

Oh, wait...

Health care businesses at risk in House overhaul
Oct 30 03:27 AM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The health care overhaul bill produced by House Democrats would impose an array of new taxes, fees and government mandates on major players in the health industry, including insurers, doctors and drugs and medical devices makers.

Among the industries targeted in the bill are medical device makers—one of the few that failed to cut an early behind-the-scenes deal with Obama and Democrats to help pay for an overhaul. The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips and heart stents to the legislation Democratic leaders unveiled Thursday.

The measure is less kind to drug makers, an industry that did strike a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to cough up $80 billion in the health overhaul. While precise figures were not immediately available, it appeared the House legislation would target the industry for much more. And it would give the government power to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Health insurers, who would gain tens of millions of new customers under the health plan, nonetheless would be ensnared by some potentially costly new measures, including eliminating their long-standing antitrust exemption.

They voiced particular concern about Democrats' inclusion of the government-run insurance plan. Karen Ignani, the chief of the insurers' main trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the so-called public option would "bankrupt hospitals, dismantle employer coverage, exacerbate cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid, and ultimately increase the federal deficit." She said the result would be that many people, including seniors, would lose coverage or face higher costs.

Seriously, what's next? Is global warming is a hoax? Obama actually didn't do anything to justify a Nobel Peace Prize? Democrats really are the party of big socialized government? How did these slip through the editors at AP-Obama?

Where are these people represented in the media?

A couple articles from one of America's Greatest Thinkers:

Dismantling America
By Thomas Sowell
October 27, 2009

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

He goes on to make some amazing points. I strongly encourage you to read the entire article. Actually, I strongly encourage you to read everything ever written by this man. Thomas Sowell is what MLK, Jr. was talking about in the "I have a dream" speech. God Bless him!


Dismantling America: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
October 30, 2009

Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said-- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.

After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.

"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."

and later: seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.


Is this is an incrimination of the American public or the American press?

I recieved this as an email (one of those fwd:fwd:fwd's). I found it to be unusually cutting in its distinction of the double standard we are witnessing in the United States of America today.

I am not sure whether this is an incrimination of the American public or the American press.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's ahypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Hmmm .. Obama's home town newspaper turning against him...?

Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals
October 20, 2009

Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration.

You say that's hardly news? But it's been the message sounded over and over by the White House. Top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on one of the Sunday news shows, "He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression." In San Francisco, Obama talked of being "busy with our mop." White House heavy hitter Rahm Emanuel used the worst-economy-since-the-Depression line on a public TV news show.

You'd think it's October 2008, the final month in the Obama presidential candidacy, rather than October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. Yet the Obama White House is in full campaign mode -- maybe because it needs to mask the shortcomings of the Obama presidency.

Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion.

Yet just a few months ago, the Obama camp was singing a little different tune. It was under criticism for the $787 billion stimulus package it bulldozed through Congress on grounds that massive spending was needed to keep the unemployment rate from breaching 8 percent. When joblessness hit 9.5 percent in June, Vice President Joe Biden said, "We misread how bad the economy was."

They inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, or the economy turned out to be worse than they thought. Which is it? It can't be both -- unless your brain is completely addled by the Obama charisma.

Ouch! It is pretty tough on Obama and Mr. Huntley even takes a whack at CNN & MSNBC. How far left do you have to be when the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES implies you are in the tank for BHO?

No wonder Obama can't decide if or when to send troups to Afganistan...

CAPITAL CULTURE: Obamas big on White House gigs
By NANCY BENAC (AP) – 17 hours ago

Just some of the musical highlights of the Obama's first 10 months in office:

But the Obamas are demonstrating a commitment to use the White House to promote the arts in a huge way. And they're not just tapping safe, living legends: Fresh faces like bachata band Aventura and Mexican pop sensation Thalia (who lured Obama on to the dance floor briefly) shared a stage with gray eminence Jose Feliciano at last week's Fiesta Latina.

The Obamas' musical push started on Day One, when the Wynton Marsalis Quintet played for a private inaugural celebration party of 100 at the White House.

A month later, the White House brought in Earth, Wind and Fire to entertain visiting governors. And days later, the Obamas hosted an East Room tribute to Stevie Wonder that featured Tony Bennett, Martina McBride and Wonder himself. The president called it "the most accomplished Stevie Wonder cover band in history."

Since then, the lineup has zigzagged all over the musical spectrum.

The first installment of the Obamas' ongoing White House music series was a June day devoted to jazz that included daytime workshops for 150 young musicians and an evening concert headlined by Paquito D'Rivera.

That was when Michelle Obama let it be known she wants her daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be "aware of all kinds of music — other than hip-hop."

In July, self-proclaimed "city boy" Barack Obama presided over an evening of country music that brought together Alison Krauss and Union Station, Brad Paisley and veteran Charley Pride.

Next up: classical music in November. And beyond that, the White House is exploring events to feature opera, dance and perhaps film.

It's nice to know BHO can fit in a few concerts between his rounds of golf. Too bad he has only made 25 minutes in the last 80 days to talk face to face with his commander on the ground in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. I guess this is why it is taking so long to make the decision as to whether to send more troops to Afghanistan or not.

Typical limousine liberals.... Playing the fiddle (or in this case, watching the fiddle player) as Rome (or in this case, Afghanistan) burns....

Very dire warnings on BHO ceding U.S. Sovereignty

Bo nails it....

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Great! I can't wait to find where the other $699,997,700,000 goes...

$2.3 million in federal stimulus money is going to pay for Tampa Bay area beauty school tuition
St Petersburg Times
Times Staff Writer

More than $2.3 million in federal economic stimulus grants have gone to eight Tampa Bay area cosmetology and massage schools to pay tuition for the hairdressers, masseuses and nail technicians of tomorrow.

That's swell news for those who see the beauty trades as a way to gain a firmer footing in the job market. But is there truly demand for more beauty school graduates at bay area salons?

Not really, said Monica Ponce, owner of Muse The Salon in Tampa.

"Instead of encouraging more people to go to beauty schools," Ponce said, "they should probably help the stylists who are unemployed."

Some area salons are hiring in this economy, but even industry lobbyists say beauty school is rarely a ticket to a thriving career.

Only 1 to 2 percent of beauty school graduates will be working in the field five years from graduation, said Bonnie Poole, treasurer of the Florida Cosmetology Association.

Nice... At least our tax money is not being wasted.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

We need more "Joes"...

Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep

SURPRISE, Ariz. — An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on people who are in the country illegally launched a crime and immigration sweep in northwestern metro Phoenix on Friday, a half day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose sweeps have led to allegations of racial profiling, said the rebuff from Washington won't stop him. He said he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

"It doesn't bother me, because we are going to do the same thing," said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. "I am the elected sheriff. I don't take orders from the federal government."

Why do we not have more Joes in the U.S.? Why is it so hard for people to do what is right and not what is Politically Correct? We just need more Joes...!!!

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Washington Times: Proving once again that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...

I wonder what kind of press this story would be getting if we had a Republican controlled congress and a GWB in the WH....?

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects
Study finds $2.6 billion taken from guns and ammunition
By Shaun Waterman

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

The administration's budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.

"The operation and maintenance title is fully funded," Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill....

$20 million for Humvee maintenance at an Army National Guard installation in Maine, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republicans. The senators said cuts in the maintenance program proposed by the administration would result in the "layoff of 175 employees in a region already suffering" from the recession.

$20M to Snowe & Collins in Maine...hmmmm... I wonder why.....?

Is all it D.C. lost when AOL is no longer covering your butt?

I feel like I just saw Walter Cronkite declare "The war is unwinnable" and LBJ say, "If we lost Cronkite, we've lost the American people. We're finished"

When you loose the libs at AOL, I think it means the worm is beginning to turn... I mean, what could be next? The New York Times....?

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Sick & Pathetic....

This is what happens when liberal democrats control a city & state for many, many decades. This is what the democrats want us all to become. The people interviewed are "model citizens" according the democrat party. They are the people sucking on the teat that is the American taxpayer..... Sad, sad, sad.... There are a lot of founding fathers, Revolutionary War Veterans, Civil War Veterans and dead Civil Rights Leaders like MLK who are rolling in their graves.


More sick pathetic selfish sociopaths here (note these selfish b*****ds are saying the city needs to be held accountable). THE CITY? What about looking in the mirror?

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

"I'm Mad 2" is almost here.... Watch the draft of the intro video...

Here is a rough draft of a great video by Bob Goshen, motivational speaker.

He is starting a new movement called "I'm Mad 2". This is the video that will be on their new website ( when it gets up and going. Bob is straight shooter recommended by Zig Ziglar.

And as you will see, he is very persuasive. Let's pray the right people are watching....
Watch the video here...

The sheer Hypocrisy and Hubris of the Democrat Party still Amazes the Senses...

In the first corner we have the president from his own White House Website:
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. [Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...]

Government should be participatory. [Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...]

Government should be collaborative. [Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...]

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

Apparently, San Fran Nan and Dingy Harry did not get the memo....

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
Washington Examiner
October 6, 2009


Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.

"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.

But Baird warned of public backlash.

"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."

Have they no shame....?

That is a rhetorical question:

1) They are politicians

2) They are Democrats.

So, the answer is, of course they have no shame when it means more consolidation of power in Washington D.C. The more power they can consolidate in D.C. the more people will depend on them to dole out gifts like "free" healthcare, "free" tax credits toward new cars, "free" {insert desire here}. That is what Democrats have been doing for 70+ years. Ever since the implementing the "Raw Deal" by FDR. They want the people sucking off the teat that the government sow. That is how Dems get elected.

And in the process they have destroyed the black family making this the fourth generation of blacks to grow up in families where the father was replaced with a government welfare check. Where kids learn to beg and ask for handouts rather than going out and working for a living.

Government run healthcare is game, set, match. It is the end of us even pretending to have freedom & liberty. This will make you beg the government for the basic freedom such as your right to life, your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness. It will all be controlled by the government machine....

This is why they cannot have the American people, the citizens of this once great nation, reading the bills they write and maybe even imposing their own opinions on the GREAT AND MIGHTY, THE ALL POWERFUL AND OMINPOTENT, THE CONGRESS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US! How dare them! How dare them!

I call on each of you to call your representatives, hell, call ALL the representatives and remind them they are they to do our bidding, not the other way around! Here is a list. Call now & call often.

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Michael Moore, "Hippo"crite extraordinaire...

Michael Moore...

His name alone makes be bristle with disdain. It's not so much that I hate him, it’s just that, well I kinda hate him.

He is an absolutely untalented hack, made famous by the smarmy fringe media (Note to new readers: Fox News Channel is main stream. The rest are fringe lackeys...) propping him up through undeserved attention. Yuck!

Here is a guy who charges from $25,000-50,000 per speaking engagement, makes millions on movies (not his latest, but on some of them) and by any ordinary measurement he is exploiting capitalism in his attempts to destroy capitalism. If he actually lived in a country like the ones he looks up to (Cuba, Venezuela, etc...), he would be making propaganda films or be in jail. (Likely he would be in jail, as he is not a good enough filmmaker to actually get away with making films in any other country).

So here we are:

His latest movie is box office failure (big surprise - though, I'm sure it will become required viewing in schools)

Now for the cherry on top:

The Fat B****** does not even have enough intellectual integrity to use union labor when making his films...


Thursday, October 01, 2009

"Safe School Czar", as in "Safe Sex Lunatic"

I have to admit, being someone who has a fair amount of experience with sexually broken men of all sorts (all back grounds, all colors, all shapes & sizes), I find this particularly offensive. It frightens me that a man like this could be thought in high enough regard to be advising our president. It saddens me that we have finally come to this point. If we are not now Sodom & Gomorrah, we can certainly see it from here…<br>
Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case
Kevin Jennings was teaching high school in 1988 when a gay student confessed an involvement with an older man. Rather than reporting it, he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."
By Maxim Lott
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

[Note emphasis mine]
President Obama's "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings said Wednesday he "should have handled [the] situation differently" when he didn't report an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when a sophomore boy confessed an involvement with a man in Boston. He told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities." [Really? Legal or medical authorities? Really? He still doesn't know which one he sould call? Really? And this monster is advising the president?]

Jennings insisted that he believes his office could help keep other new teachers from making the same mistake.

His defense comes amid additional discoveries about his past statements on his interaction with the gay high school student, referred to as "Brewster" in his 1994 book "One Teacher in 10," and a speech he gave in 2000.

In his 2007 autobiography, "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir," Jennings discusses nearly the same story but calls the student "Robertson."

On page 162, Jennings writes: "Robertson soon told me the tale, about someone he'd met in Boston, how he thought he loved him, how heartbroken he was when his calls never got returned..."

On page 169, he continues: "As the fall wore on, Robertson continued to drop by my office to chat, often updating me on his latest 'adventures.' Sometimes these startled me, and I began to underline the importance of safe sex to him. One day he snapped back, 'Why should I use a condom? My life isn't worth saving anyway.'"

[How many times did he have to discuss his stupid irrational self-centered decision before someone finally said, "Hey, dude, you screwed the pooch on that call"? Is there no one in his life to aadvise him, at the very least, "Hey, man, shut up about that story. You blew it, man. You should be embarassed, not proud of that decision."?] Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools, but critics say he's not qualified for the job.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says Jennings' past remarks about the incident call into question the sincerity of his new statement.

"It's not as though, 'oh, this was a youthful mistake I made as a brand-new teacher, but now that I'm an adult I realize that I handled it wrong.' Because he has told this story as recently as last year, in another book, and has not expressed any regret until now. So that indicates to me that this is more out of political necessity than it is about genuine remorse," Sprigg told FOX News.

Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton declined to comment on Jennings' statements about the incident, since it took place in 1988. [Apparently, as long as you were wrong 20-30 years ago, it doesn't count.]

But, Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, dived into the fray, saying he is "honored" to work with Jennings, whom he defended as "uniquely qualified for his job" -- a sign the White House is digging in against the mounting criticism. [THIS is the battle they are choosing? THIS is the gay man they are deciding to take a stand on? Really?]

Jennings also released a statement on his past writings on drug use.

"I have written about the factors that have led me to use drugs as a teen. This experience qualifies me to help students and teachers who are confronting these issues today."

On page 103, discussing his high school years in Hawaii in the early 1980s, Jennings wrote: "I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned."

Sprigg said he would like to see a more specific statement from Jennings.

"We still haven't heard a clear and explicit statement from him that no one of any age should use illegal drugs, including marijuana. That would seem to be a prerequisite for the position he is in," he said.

He also said that the whole situation reflected poorly on the vetting procedures of the Obama administration.

"I suspect that the vetting procedure for Jennings was fairly superficial... This controversy about the possible statutory rape was raised in 2004 when he received an award from the NEA. So it's not like it's been a secret. So I think it shows yet another failure of the Obama administration's vetting process." [Well, if he's good enough for the NEA, then by God he is good enough for this administration!]