Christian Traditions

Troublesome Bible Examples

2009-10-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered what would happen if Christians today were to actually follow the examples which we find in the book of Acts. I imagine that it would raise some eyebrows, and if it a minister was involved, perhaps it would even result in some disciplinary action. The teachings and traditional practices of many of the denominations today directly conflict with the words and/or actions of some of the men acting and/or speaking by inspiration in the book of Acts.

Example #1

In this example from the second chapter of the book of Acts, Peter gives his first sermon in Jerusalem. In this sermon he explains that Jesus, whom they had just crucified, was in fact the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 2:14-36). Those who heard him were convicted. Realizing what they had done, they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?' (Acts 2:37). And Peter said to them;

"If you believe these things then pray this prayer, 'Father in heaven, I come to you confessing that I am a sinner, completely lost and without hope. I repent of my sinful ways and ask for Your forgiveness. I believe in my heart that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, that He completely paid for all of my sins by His death on the cross, and that You raised Him from the dead. I confess that Jesus is my Savior and Lord. I trust in Him, and Him alone, for my salvation. I believe that through His shed blood I have eternal life. I will pray, study, meditate and live by Your Word the rest of my life. Father, I ask that You fill me with the Holy Spirit. Please come into my heart and save and sanctify my soul. I love you, Lord, and offer myself to You completely and without reservation. In the precious name of Jesus I pray. Amen.' Only faith in Jesus Christ alone can save you, and if you prayed this prayer, and meant it in your heart, you are saved."

This, of course, is not how Peter answered the question, but it is how a denominationalist minister today might have answered it. What Peter actually said is this, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Can you imagine if a baptist minister were to respond with these words to a similar question posed by some individuals to whom he had just preached Jesus? Can you imagine if a minister, at the end of his sermon, offered an invitation which closed with the words, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:16). Can you imagine the commotion, the whispers, the phone calls to other ministers, the demands from church members for an explanation? Why should it be the case that a preacher cannot say what those in the New Testament said, without some sort of addendum or disclaimer? Is it not an indication that something is amiss?

Example #2

In the eighth chapter of the book of Acts we find the story of Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-39).

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him." (Acts 8:35-38)

Now, let's consider a modern day scenario. A preacher is fishing when he meets another man, and in the course of their conversation, he preaches Jesus to him. The man readily accepts the gospel and decides that he wants the preacher to baptize him then and there. Now, depending upon the denomination to which the preacher is attached, he might have to refuse to comply with the desires a man who simply wants to obey the gospel. Why? Because there are no witnesses present? There were none to witness the baptism of the eunuch. Because any baptism is contingent upon some committee's review of the testimony of the new convert and deciding whether the conversion is a valid one? There was no such process which preceded the eunuch's baptism.

It should be troubling to any who sincerely wish to follow the Scriptures if they have any reservations about following the examples which they find there in. The Scriptures should be our only map in all matters of faith and religion. When we find that the trail that we are trodding, no longer resembles the map, it is a sure sign that we have become lost.

The Real Holocaust in America

2009-10-03T17:57:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) went onto the floor of the House and accused Republicans of wanting Americans to die, and die quickly. Many Republicans were outraged by this inexcusable characterization and called upon him to apologize. Grayson's response was considerably less than apologetic. See both videos below.

Grayson claims that there are 44,000 uninsured individuals in America who die each year and he calls it a 'holocaust'. What hypocrisy! Forty four thousand (a dubious figure at best) is nothing compared to the nearly 1.5 million annual deaths which Grayson supports and sanctions.
I am of course referring to the 'real American holocaust' which is ongoing under Roe v. Wade. Since the 1973, 55 million + babies have been aborted under the notion that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child. Democrats have actively fought to sustain this unspeakable horror.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal indicted and convicted ten Nazi leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortions," an act which the Tribunal characterized as "a crime against humanity." As with their other crimes against humanity, the Nazis protested that "we were just following orders." Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel) Chief of the RKFVD's Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that "Up to now nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity." - Nuremberg Military Tribunals,IV:1081-84. Nuremberg: NO-3512.

Grayson represents a district that is largely conservative and won his seat by misrepresenting himself as a conservative. Unless he can deceive his constituents again in 2010, Grayson will likely lose his seat.

Some Primary Rules for the Interpretation of Scripture

2009-09-12T19:26:00.000-07:00

A great many of the diverse teachings and practices which divide Christians one from another are the result of a failure to follow prudent and reasonable methods of interpreting the Scriptures. Because many have commented to me that my approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures betrays a methodology to which they are unfamiliar, I thought it best to explain the rules of interpretation which I have always followed.

1. I let the Bible instruct me (exegesis). I do not approach the Scriptures with any preconceived notions that I then try to foist onto the text (eisegesis). To this end, I let the Bible interpret itself by examining all that the Lord has to say on a particular topic. By doing this, I avoid the uncomfortable position of trying to explain away passages which do not fit neatly into a doctrinal puzzle that I am trying to construct.

2. For the Bible to be all that it claims to be (2 Tim. 3:16-17) there can be no contradictions. Any perceived contradictions are an indication of a misinterpretation. There are many hard to understand passages in the Scriptures, and many so called contradictions usually involve one of these. In these cases, I do not have to know what a passage means, to know what it does not mean. Again, letting the Bible interpret itself.

3. I keep in mind that the Bible teaches in one of four ways;

By express command of the Lord.

Through someone writing by inspiration.

By example (the Lord or someone acting by inspiration did the thing in question).

Implication or necessary inference (where the thing in question is a matter of necessary inference in order to make sense of the passage).

4. I follow the time tested elementary principles of interpretation. The following are a few which I have found to be very profitable. They are from the Elementary Principles of Interpretation by Johann August Ernesti and Moses Stuart, published 1842.

"To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably assigned some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless, and have no more signification than the inarticulate sounds of animals." pg. 19
"The literal meaning of words is the sense that is so connected with them as to be spontaneously presented to the mind as soon as the sound of the word is heard, and that is the first order." pg. 19
"All men in their daily conversation and writings attach but one sense to a word, at the same time and in the same passage, unless they design to speak in enigmas. The sense of a word can not be diverse or multifarious at the same time and in the same passage or expression." pg. 21
"There can be no certainty at all in respect to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity compels us to affix a particular sense to a word, which sense must be one, and unless there are special reasons for a tropical meaning, it must be literal." pg 22
"Words are proper or tropical, literal or figurative. First: A proper or tropical is a definite name given to a certain thing. Originally, words were undoubtedly used in their proper and literal sense. Second: Tropes or metaphorical words are called by Aristotle strangers, foreigners." pg. 34
"In no language can a word have more than one literal meaning in the same place." pg. 34

By these rules we understand that a word can have but one literal meaning in the same place and at the same time, and that the primary meaning of a word is the literal meaning unless there is a special reason for it's removal.

I have found these guidelines to be very profitable to me and I will undoubtedly be referring my readers back to them from time to time.

I have no problem with any published 'literal' translations of the Scriptures into the English. Paraphrased versions I completely reject, and I will not allow anyone to get away with making an argument based on the wording of a passage of scripture from a paraphrased version alone. The very existence of paraphrased versions of the Bible betray a great disregard for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. They are an aberration which should never have been conceived. The fact that they have found a market among the faithful is somewhat disturbing.

The Universalist Argument, Part 2

2009-09-07T13:31:00.000-07:00

In the second book of Kings there is a story that is told of how God's people began to follow their own path, and put aside the commandments of the Lord. In time the Law that God had delivered to His people was lost and forgotten. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, the book of the Law was found by Hilkiah, the high priest. The book was brought before the king and read in his presence.

When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us." - 2 Kings 22:11-13.

Now, imagine that some in our current culture would have their way, and the Bible fall out of use and be forgotten. Many years pass and the Lord's church disappears from all knowledge or memory. Then Providence intervenes and a copy of the New Testament is found, read, believed, and obeyed; and the Lord adds those fortunate finders to His church ( Acts 2:37-47). These new Christians would no doubt look to the New Testament for guidance in determining the doctrines, practices, and worship of the newly restored church of Jesus Christ. What is the likelihood that the result would be a grotesque monstrosity comprised of thousands of sects, all bearing different names, teaching different doctrines, engaging in different religious practices, and worshiping in different ways, but all claiming to follow the same guide? Yet, that is the current state of the Lord's church according to the Universalists.

The absurd rationalizations of the Universalists serve no good purpose and lend legitimacy to a condition in Chistendom which is clearly condemned in the scriptures (1Cor. 1:10). When factions do exist, they exist "in order that those who are approved may ...become evident" (1 Cor. 11:19), and conversely, expose those who are not. To determine which is which, one must turn to the scriptures, our only guide in all matters of faith and religion (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16).

There is a slogan used by many today; "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it". This is a positive statement about faith, and there is great truth in it. That truth is equally great when we examine the negative; "God did not say it, therefore, I do not believe it, and that settles it." In the practice of the Christian religion one cannot by faith do anything which is not approved by God through his revealed word (Rom. 10:17). Faith began with the revelation of His word to the world through inspired men, and faith must end where that revelation ends. If someone were to say, "As a Christian, I cannot eat meat during certain phases of the moon", this would be a practice that is not from faith since there is no justification for it in the word of God. And since it is not from faith, the incorporation of it in the practice of the Christian religion would in fact be a sin (Heb. 11:6; Rom. 14:23). The scriptures exhort us to not only test ourselves (2 Cor.13:5), but to test the teachings of others as well (1 John 4:1, 2:3-4; 2 John 9-11; Matt. 7:15).

Nevertheless, the Universalist maintain that regardless of how far a denominations teachings and practices may be from the scriptures, the members thereof are saved by virtue of their faith in Christ alone, and, as such, are members of the universal church. This is a logical argument. If a person is saved at the point of faith alone, before and without any other acts of obedience, and since the saved person is added to the Lord's church by God (Acts2:47), said person is a member of the church by virtue of their saved condition. This argument hinges on the truth of the proposition that 'a person is saved at the point of faith, before and without any other acts of obedience.

The proponents of this doctrine typically cite Rom. 3:28-30; "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Now, if a man is justified by faith alone, he is justified by it to the exclusion of all else. Yet, the scriptures teach that we are also justified by a number of other things. Rom. 3:24 says that we are justified by grace. Acts 13:39 says that we are justified by Christ. Rom. 5:9 says we are justified by His blood. James 2:24 says we are justified by works. 1 Cor. 6:11 says that we are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet again, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Now, how can we be justified by all these things, and be justified by any one of them alone? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that we are justified by faith alone, in fact, the word 'alone' is used only once in the New Testament to modify faith, and in that passage, the writer says that we are not justified by it (James 2:24).

Repentance is an indispensable condition of salvation (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 3:19). If persons are saved at the point of faith, before and without any other acts of obedience, they are saved before they obey the command of the Lord to repent. But an objector says, "It is true that one must repent in order to be saved, but repentance precedes faith". Now, how could this be? What would motivate a person to obey the Lord's commandment to repent before they believe in the Lord? And, even if they did, the motivation would not be faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), therefore, that repentance would not be pleasing to God. Once more, if a person were to repent before hears and believes the word that he must (Rom. 10:17), and since whatever we do in religion which is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), such repentance would be sin. The absurdity of this notion is self evident. No one can perform an act as part of a religion which they have not yet embraced.

And what of the confession spoken of by Paul in Rom. 10:9? Paul says in that passage that, "with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Here we have yet another act of faith in the gospel plan of salvation which may not be dispensed with, and with it we could make the same argument. We could make many more arguments to prove that the doctrine of the Universalists is false, but what we have so far is more than sufficient. The doctrine of the Universalists has no basis in the word of God, and if not from God, it is not of faith, and if not of faith, it is sinful to teach or adhere to it.

The Universalist Argument, Part 1

2009-09-03T19:37:00.000-07:00

In the book of Matthew, chapter 16, beginning at verse 13, the Bible says;

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Notice that Jesus says, "I will build My church". It is His church, and He is the One who built it. It was not built by John the baptist, (who by this point in the chronology was already dead, Matt. 14:8-10), nor was it built by some guy named Wesley, Luther, or Smith. Notice also that the foundation upon which He would build the church is the fact that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

As I pointed out in my last post, there are some 38,000 different sects of the Christian religion globally, each differing from on another in doctrine, practice, and traditions. The situation begs the question; which one is the one that Jesus built? To the universalist, the answer is; all of them. They reason that since they believe that Jesus is the Christ, they all have the common foundation, and therefore, are all His. They are all part of the 'universal church'. When Jesus said, "I will build My church", He was speaking of the church in a 'universal' sense. The reasoning of the universalist is sound, as far as it goes.

It is true that the scriptures speak of the church in both a universal sense (Eph: 3:21 & 5:24; Phil. 3:6) and as individual congregations (Gal. 1:22; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Cor. 11:8). It is true that the foundation of the church is faith that Jesus is the Christ. Where the universalist argument falls short is that faith in Christ is but the foundation. Jesus said that He would build His church on that foundation. By using the word build, Jesus is implying the erection of a structure of some sort on that foundation.

In the construction of anything, there is a foundation, yes, but there are also building blocks, mortar to bind it together, a method of construction, and a design or blueprint. We know from the scriptures that the building blocks of the church are individual Christians, (Matt. 18:20; Rom. 16:5; and Col.4:15). The word 'church' in the Greek New Testament is 'ecclesia', which literally means 'an assembly'. The 'mortar' that binds them together is 'faith', 'hope', and 'love', Heb. 11:1; 1 Cor. 13:13). The method of construction is the plan of salvation, (Acts 2, note especially verses 38-47). To these things the universalist readily agrees. But, as to the design, the blueprint; this is where the universalist argument begins to fall apart. It is the blueprint that determines the form, the shape, the appearance of a structure. The universalist must admit that the various denominations certainly do not conform to the same blueprint.

The universalists dismiss this as unimportant. There is diversity throughout all of God's creation, why not the church? Is it not also God's creation? We intend to show in part two of this series, that there is one blueprint for the church, and that it is quite important to the identity of the church as the body of Christ ( Col. 1:8).

Page Makeover: Update

2009-09-01T19:07:00.001-07:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, Political 411 is undergoing a change in focus. As you can see there have been a number of changes. As you can see, the name has been changed. Beneath that, you will notice that there is a 'Featured Verse' section which will always complement the most recent post, ( including this one). On the side bar you will find a link list of on-line reference materials. I thought it best to provide readers with the where-with-all to get their facts straight before taking issue with me in a comment. The Koine Greek/English Dictionary is not very 'layman' friendly, I will continue to search for a more suitable one. I have designed a header graphic which has a symbolic meaning.

Of all of the religions in the world, Christianity is the most fractionalized. There are at approximately 38,000 christian denominations in the world. In the beginning it was not so. Throughout the fist couple of centuries, Christians were united in one faith. The first split occurred in 431 at the First Council of Ephesus. God never intended these divisions.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. - Eph. 4:4-6

And again,

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? - 1Cor. 1:12-13

Believers are divided into groups by ideology, practice, and traditions; yet all claim to follow the same scriptures. The main focus of this page will be to examine the things that divide us, and hopefully strip them away.

I will be challenging you, and I am sure that you will be challenging me. In the process, we will all learn from the experience.

A Special Notice to My Readers

2009-08-30T19:06:00.000-07:00

As I was growing up, there came a time when my mother felt that it was time to instruct me in the finer points of social interaction. She told me what many mothers have told their offspring, that there were two subjects which should be avoided in casual conversation; politics and religion. Naturally, both became passions which I found it very difficult to avoid.

The first political blog that I started was The Patriot Page. I struggled at first to generate traffic, part of the problem was that Googlebot was not crawling my page. So I decided the start Political 411 as well, to see which page would become the more successful. As it turns out, The Patriot Page now generates more than twice the traffic of this page.

I have decided therefore, to change the focus of this page, and dedicate the subject matter to my other passion. Over the next week Political 411 will undergo a makeover. While the subject matter will be faith based, political issues will be addressed in such cases where it should be of particular concern to Christians. I would invite those readers who are more interested in political issues to visit The Patriot Page. For those of you who may be interested in seeing how this page progresses along the new path that I have set for it, please be forewarned, you will find the subject matter very thought provoking. I have studied the Scriptures for many years and find myself frequently at odds with conventional theology. As always, feel free to engage me on any issue which you feel a need to. I will be looking forward to the engaging dialogue.

The Gratitude Campaign

2009-08-24T22:22:00.000-07:00

www.gratitudecampaign.org

Pastor Manning Gives Obama Hell

2009-08-20T12:55:00.000-07:00

I would love to see MSNBC try to edit this video!

DNC Tries To Rally The Troops, But RNC Turns The Tables

2009-08-10T18:19:00.000-07:00

You gotta love this!

WASHINGTON (CNN) — National Republicans turned the tables on their political counterparts Wednesday by redirecting angry telephone calls coming into their switchboard to the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC released a Web video early in the morning accusing the GOP of inciting mob activity at town hall meetings.

At the end of the video, the DNC instructs people to call the Republican National Committee to express outrage. Callers who dial the RNC's main number to voice their concern about the DNC's charges are told to press 1, which sends them to the DNC's main switchboard.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse described the RNC's redirection as a "neat trick," but said it just further proves the Democrats' point about the GOP.

"The RNC is inciting angry mobs to shout out legitimate discussion at public events across the country and now they want to ignore people who deplore their tactics," Woodhouse said.

"Republicans don't want to have a discussion about the future of health care reform – they want to shout out – and now completely ignore – anyone who disagrees with them."

RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho dismissed the DNC's charge and accused Democrats of "trying to divert attention from the widespread opposition to President Obama's government-run health care experiment.

"The fact is many Democrats are opposed to the president's plan, including many Democrats in Congress," she said. "We wanted to make sure that callers who believe only 'rabid extremists' are opposing the president's health care plan have the opportunity to express those concerns to the DNC."

Libs Go Nuts Over Malkin's New Book

2009-08-10T09:21:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin's New book, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, has reached the #1 spot in non-fiction category of the NYT best seller list.

Malkin has been a thorn in the side of the libs since her Oberlin College days when she wrote an article critical of the Oberlin's affirmative action program. Her book, which directly exposes the myths of Comrade Obama's 'hope and change' agenda, has the libs ripping out their own hair by the roots.

Neal Bortz recently rummaged through the reviews of her book at Amazon.com looking for the negative comments. The following are the ones which he found;

Contributes to the roar of negativity and hate that is killing our political system.
I have an aversion to sideshow carnivals. You know, PT Barnum's commentary about never going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer. All you need is a freak show and a hook. In this regard, the book achieves its mission.
This book plays right into that "hater" genre. Realizing that there are a lot of folks who are ideologically extreme, undereducated and who have grown unaccustomed to thinking for themselves [not to mention those who simply cannot accept a non-white in the White house], the author decided to throw raw meat to a pack of salivating hounds
Books like this are anti-intellectual carnival sideshow fodder designed to fleece an uncritical audience
Just another symptom/source of the extreme polarization of American politics; look elsewhere for truth.
I suppose that everyone handing out five star reviews are having to squeeze this reading in between going to "Birther" conspiracy meetings and making signs to carry when they go out to harass their congressmen during town hall meetings... how very trite... how scarily inappropriate in a time when the nation needs ALL citizens to work hard to try and save our country from the remains of Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 !
March yourselves right into the ovens, you retards - the rest of us are trying to bring this country into the current century [with health care for all and jobs for any who can work]
Just another cheap hit piece paid for by the same greedy & corrupt people (the Republicans & their rich bosses) who caused The Great Depression 2 that we are just really getting into now. Pass up this junk & back our president in trying to save what's left of our nation.
This book is filled with so many distortions and outrages lies it's hard to believe that anyone sane would put this trash in print. Rupert Murdoch's pet Malkin must be making a lot of money writing this stupidity. If you enjoy right wing mindless propaganda this book's for you.
The FAR right is crazy about Obama, and they will publish crap like this book because they know morons on the far right will buy it

Keep up the good work Michelle!

Hat tip to Neal's Nuze.

AARP Members Take Over Meeting

2009-08-09T07:13:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been paying attention is aware that the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) really does not represent it's members and does not care what they think. AARP has an agenda and it is a decidedly leftist one.

As you may have seen in the MSM, last Tuesday AARP conducted a Town Hall Meeting in Dallas, in which rank and file members began to voice their discontent with the organizations support of the Obama health care plan. The AARP representatives did not want to discuss the issue, nor listen to members concerns, and cancelled the meeting.

What you may not know is that the members actually continued the meeting after the retreat of the AARP reps, as you will see if you watch the full video below. Note the complete, and even snobbish, disregard of the AARP reps toward the concerns of the members.

Your New Healthcare Plan

2009-08-08T09:44:00.000-07:00

( Click for larger view)

Oh, Yeah! This looks like a good idea!

Check out the really scary details here.

Some Down Home Common Sense

2009-05-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance

Where in the World is Obama's Birth Certificate?

2009-05-17T05:57:00.000-07:00

To date, despite numerous legal attempts to ascertain proof that Barack Obama, aka. Barry Soetoro, is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to hold the Office of President thereof, Obama still refuses to prove that he is eligible to be President. The court system, as well as his pom pom carrying cheerleaders in the mainstream media, are running interference on his behalf. Obama could easily dispel all questions regarding his eligibility by producing his birth certificate. All of us from time to time have been required to produce a birth certificate, and we are able to do so. Obama could as well. Not only has he refused to do that, he has spent no less that a million dollars to keep his birth certificate and school records under wraps. So much for transparency.

Obama supporters insist that Obama has proved his eligibility by producing a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii. While a "Certification of Live Birth" is an official document, it is not the same thing as a "Birth Certificate". A "Birth Certificate" is a long form which contains more detailed information surrounding a live birth. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands accepts only an original "Birth Certificate" as proof that an individual is a 'genuine native Hawaiian'.

According to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:

"In order to process your application (to verify that you are a genuine native Hawaiian), DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Per Hawaiian law, Statue 338.13, any certified copies of the original document can serve the same purpose as the original document.

"(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

Obama seems willing to seriously consider making public information which should remain secret to the world and to our enemies, yet when it comes to his own "Birth Certificate", Obama will move heaven and earth to keep it secret. By virtue of his own obfuscation on the matter, Obama himself has proved that the contention that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States is a valid one. Since it seems rather self evident that Obama is holding the office of President illegally, and since there are so many who are working diligently to prove that this is the case, I wonder how long it will be before there are 'Clintonesque' style disappearances and suspicious deaths.

Pelosi Lied. No Surprise.

2009-05-07T19:49:00.000-07:00

Speaker Pelosi has maintained that Congressional leaders were never told that waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) were used on terror suspects.

"In that or any other briefing we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel opinions that they could be used."

Her statements beg the question that if any in Congress found the types of EITs which might be used on terror suspects objectionable, or question the legality thereof, that the time to do so was before they were used. But, the fact of the matter is that Nancy Pelosi is a liar! A just released 10 page document shows that Pelosi was briefed on Sept. 4th, 2002 that EITs were used on Abu Zubaydah as show in the document page below (click for a larger view).

The report also details 40 meetings with members of Congress -- though not with Pelosi present – during which the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was described, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Senate intelligence committee’s chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques” for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing “described in considerable details” the techniques used, including “how the water board was used.”

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

Source: Newsmax

There was never any doubt that the Speaker was lying, it was only a matter of when and how those lies would be exposed. These days however, there seems to be a great unwillingness on the part of the Republicans to call a Democrat caught in a deliberate falsehood, a liar. So let me be crystal clear. Nancy Pelosi is not only a liar, she is a damn liar!

China Mandates Smoking Quota

2009-05-04T18:06:00.000-07:00

I hope the new totalitarian regime in Washington does not hear about this. It seems that officials in China have been ordered to smoke 230,000 packs of cigarettes a year to keep tax revenues flowing. It also will bolster sales for locally produced cigarettes.

Officials in China have reportedly been told to puff their way through four and a half million cigarettes a year.

Staff at local government offices in Hubei province were given the order in a move intended to set an example for the rest of the nation, according to state media.

And if they fail to smoke their way through 230,000 packs of locally-produced cigarettes, the officials could face fines.

Brands such as Huanghelou have been earmarked as part of the official quota.

"The regulation will boost the local economy via the cigarette tax," local official Chen Nianzu was quoted as saying in the Global Times.

The measure may also be a ploy to boost sales of local cigarette brands, under pressure from competitors in neighbouring Hunan province.

Some 350 million Chinese - including more than half of all male doctors - currently smoke, with around a million dying from smoking-related diseases every year.

State media recently reported the government was attempting to reduce the number of doctors smoking in China.

Source: Skynews.com

To fully fund SCHIP with tobacco taxes, Obama will need 22 million new smokers. With a serious budget shortfall in the SCHIP program looming on the horizon, Obama cannot afford the loss of any current smokers. Since Comrade Obama has already done a great many tyrannical things, it may come as no surprise to some if he considers following China's example.

Will This Mistake Become One of Obama's Worst?

2009-04-30T15:47:00.000-07:00

Now that Comrade Obama has completed his first one hundred days as the 'Dear Leader', many bloggers are referencing the piece by the New York Post; 100 Days, 100 Mistakes.

But here is one mistake which you probably will not see in the MSM, and it has the potential to be one of Obama's biggest. A year ago this month, the State Department issue the following statement;

“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ [al-Qaida] detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan."

This last February, an Iranian government official came to Washington with an offer to turn over top al-Qaida operatives, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list. The State Department declined the offer. Read the full story here.

If you remember, back in 1996, the government of the Sudan made a similar offer to then president Bill Clinton, regarding Osama bin Laden. While that offer was not quite on a 'silver platter', many believe that Clinton did not do all that could have been done to take advantage of that offer. How many lives will this mistake by the Obama administration cost?

Turncoat Specter Finally Jumps Ship

2009-04-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

So Arlen Specter finally comes to the realization that he is not a conservative. I've got one question for Arlen Specter; 'What took you so long?' Check out this story from the Washington Post.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

He now finds that his political philosophy is more in line with Democrats than Republicans. How could he have only just now have come to this realization? Specter's 29 year record is one which has always betrayed his true political ideology.

- He is pro abortion.
- He believes in Roe vs. Wade as "inviolate" and that "nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it".
- He voted against Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert H. Bork.
- He supported the judicial obstructionist mentality of the Democrats during the Bush administration.
- He has all but stated outright that the idea of Supreme Court rulings being limited by the principles of the constitution is abhorrent.
- He is a firm believer in race based preferences.
- He has long opposed tax reform.
- He is a supporter and friend of the International Criminal Court.

How could it be that the only person who was unaware that Arlen Specter a Democrat (at least at heart), was Arlen Specter himself. And why now? Did he suddenly bolt upright in bed this morning and exclaim, 'Oh, my God! I'm a Democrat!' Not at all. Mr. Specter has always been a opportunist, and this is just more of the same. He believes that his best chance of being re-elected in 2010 is by switching parties. "I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

Well, Mr. Specter, on your way out, don't worry about the door, look out for the boot.

Tax Day Tea Party, Fort Myers, FL

2009-04-21T07:53:00.000-07:00

Well, the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protest was, I think, a big success. There were more than 800 across the country. While the MSM tries to downplay the significance of the events and underestimate the numbers of the attendees, the Tea Parties certainly could not be ignored.

As planned, we attended the Tea Party in Fort Myers, Fl. I took a few pictures at the event which I have posted below. The event was scheduled to begin at 5 pm at Centennial Park in downtown Fort Myers. We arrived at 5:10 and there were easily about a thousand people already gathered. That number swelled to at least 2000 by 6 pm. The people gathered were not a potential terror threat as Janet Napolitano would have everyone believe. Nor were they a bunch of 'confused racists'. These were just folks. Cashiers from Walmart, construction contractors, real estate agents, executives, and grand parents. Just concerned citizens, patriots, who understand that the fast track to socialism which our leaders have set us upon will lead to a reduced quality of life for all Americans.

I observed no racially motivated signage or posters. There were no cars overturned, trash cans set ablaze, or calls for violence which are typically associated with leftwing political activism. There was nothing which could justify these obscene characterizations from Garofalo and Napolitano. While it is clear that these characterizations are nothing more than an effort to cast aspersions on the protesters, it will not have the intended effect. These protests will continue and spread. The next events and activities are already being planned. See here, here, here, and here.

Now, with respect to the MSM estimates of the total numbers of protester on tax day, those estimates place the attendance between 250,000 and 500,000. Michelle Malkin uses 'liberal math' to proclaim the Tax Day Tea Party event as the Million Taxpayer March.

The Lib-tard Empire Strikes Back

2009-04-11T19:14:00.000-07:00

There have been hundreds of 'Tea Party' events which have already been held across the country. On April 15th, there are more than 500 Tax Day Tea Parties which have been organized. This is a massive grassroots undertaking, and the libs are getting a little worried. The MSM is trying to ignore them, liberal bloggers are doing their best to minimize them, and other more activist libs are trying to obstruct and disrupt the efforts.

The Patriotic Resistance is one of the organizers of the Tax Day Tea Parties. They have been the latest target of these lib-tard efforts at disruption. Today I received an e-mail from the Resistnet National Coordinator, Darla Dawald, which describes this recent, ongoing attack. Read it below.

A message to all members of The Patriotic Resistance

All Resistnet Members

Dear Patriots,

This message is being sent to clarify some emails that have been going out to many members of several groups here at Resistnet.com.

The trolls/libs have been duplicating some of the moderators, admin, and a few other prominant members here on the site. Under that mask they proceeded to send out messages in our name. One did this acting like me and the content was disturbing. I assure you this email was not sent by me but rather by someone assumming my screen name and copying my picture as has been done to others as well.

If you should receive any more emails with questionable content pease report this to the new help desk manned by Terri M. There is a discussion to put your questions on and also you can just post it on the comment wall. Terri M or one of our staff will take care of it. If you can provide the screen name and or address of this trolls/troublemakers profile page that would be most helpful.

This is encouraging in that we are growing and are making a difference. The left is afraid of strong conservative groups. I am sure there will be more attacks and ask that you would be patient as we deal with them. But mostly we want you to know that none of us would ever send out an email with profanity, abuse of a member, or questionable content such as what was sent out recently.

On a positive note, the state groups are growing and so are the new district groups. We are making some very good strides and if you hadn't planned on joining a tax day tea party in your town we hope you will reconsider. We posted downloadable signs and flyers for you to take with you and they are great! We are all making some pretty important history right now and we have to step it up to get their attention.

We appreciate all of you who have been working very hard on taking America back to the people!

Happy Easter and may God Bless you and yours!

Darla Dawald
National Coordinator/Admin
Grassfire/Resistnet

I do not plan to attend a TaxDay Tea Party in my local area as I will be on vacation in Florida on the 15th, however, I do plan to attend a Tea Party in Fort Myers. I do not plan to live blog from the event as I will be too busy protesting against the tyranny of my government, but I will be taking lots of pictures which I will be posting for you to see.

Deliberate Under Thinking at ThinkProgress.org

2009-04-08T16:25:00.000-07:00

Earlier this evening I was watching Neil Cavuto on Fox News and witnessed the interview he had with Leslie Marshall. Later on in the evening, I found this post by Matt Corley on the Marxist website thinkprogress.org :

Ignoring Fox News polling, Fox New's Neil Cavuto claims 'tea party' protests are 'a popular wave'.

On his Fox News show today, Neil Cavuto joined the rest of Fox News in promoting the radical anti-Obama “tea party” protests, one of which he will be attending and broadcasting from next week. Arguing with radio show host Leslie Marshall, Cavuto claimed that the protests were “a popular wave” sweeping across the country. Watch it:

But Cavuto’s claim ignores a Fox News poll released last week, which found that only 36 percent of Americans said they would “be willing to join” a “tea party” protest.

In addition to the hundreds of tea parties which have already taken place since Rick Santelli went on a rant about the bankrupt liberal agenda of the Administration and Congress, there are more than 500 tax day tea parties which have been scheduled across the country. This is a huge movement.

So, the number of people who would be willing to join a tea party protest is 'only' 36 percent. In the context of political activism, actually getting out on the street with a protest sign and publicly displaying your dissension, 36 percent is a very significant number. And, the Leftards know it!

Should I Draw You a Picture?

2009-04-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

Frequently, usually at my place of work, I have an opportunity to speak to someone about politics. All too often I find these individuals to have totally bought into the notion that the rich make too much money and that the government should tax them more.

I try to explain to them that it is the rich in our free market economy who are the 'movers and shakers'. That they have the capital to invest, to expand, and to hire. That when you increase taxes on the rich, they have fewer resources to work with and the economy slows. When you tax them too much the economy begins to decline. The 'movers and shakers' not only do not have the resources to invest, to expand, and to hire; but may have to make some reductions.
Those reductions mean job losses. Despite the higher taxes on the top 5%, the job losses from the top down equate to less revenue to the government, not more. This reduction in revenue means that there will be budget shortfalls. The government has to borrow or print more money to cover those shortfalls; which means more interest on the dollar; which means a further debauching of our currency; which leads to inflation; which leads to more job losses. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

Try as I might , some just don't get it. It sounds too much like 'trickle down' to them and the media has told them that 'trickle down' is a fallacy. People have stopped thinking for themselves. I get so frustrated sometimes that I just want to throw up my hands and exclaim, "Should I draw you a picture".

Stealth Tyranny

2009-03-30T15:47:00.000-07:00

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we read; "Congress shall make no law....abridging....the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Merriam-Webster defines abridge; 1. a archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish .

The Cape Coral, Florida City Council has tried to abridge these very rights. Wink News in Florida reported the following on March 27th;

Cape "tea party" canceled; City fears too many attendees
By WINK

NewsStory Created: Mar 27, 2009 at 6:10 PM EDTStory
Updated: Mar 29, 2009 at 8:24 AM EDT

CAPE CORAL, Fla. - A tea party to protest government spending and taxing is canceled. Canceled by the government.

Why? They feel too many people could show-up.

Lynn Rosko planned to hold a tax payer tea party at Jaycee Park in Cape Coral on April 1st. The idea was announced at a Cape Coral City Council meeting, then an e-mail blast by the Republican Party and it was mentioned in the local media.

With all of that attention, the City of Cape Coral felt there could be more than 500 people attending the tea party.Therefore Rosko needed to get a permit and insurance for the event. Rosko says she's not willing to get insurance and accept liability for something that a stranger could do. Rosko told WINK News, "I have rescinded any organizing or supervision or what ever you want to call it over this tea party on April 1st."

WINK News spoke to the director of parks for Cape Coral. He says that even now if Rosko is willing to get insurance for the event he'll likely re-authorize it.

For now Rosko's event is canceled, she's encouraging people to attend the April 15th Tax Payer Tea Party in Centennial Park in Fort Myers.

Freedom Works.org reports that the Cape Coral Tea Party is now back on.

If that story makes you angry, this next one, as Glenn Beck likes to say, "will make blood shoot right out of your eyes".

Gun owners in Illinois to carry $1 million insurance policy?

February 20, 10:53 AM ·

A new gun law has been proposed by Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D-5th District) that would required that gun owners carry insurance of $1 million. It also makes gun owners liable for misues of their guns until the gun is reported stolen to police, and provide revocation of FOID cards for those who do not carry that insurance.

Under Illinois state law, gun buyers must obtain a license (FOID card) prior to the purchase of a firearm. A FOID card:

-Is required of anyone owning a firearm.
-Involves a basic background check
-No safety checks or fingerprints are required
-Is valid for five years.
-Does not automatically check or revoke the cards from people who are convicted or otherwise fall into a prohibited class after obtain the card.

The proposed law (Illinois HB0687) is now making its way through the Illinois House of Representative.

"Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful."

It is being opposed by gun owners and endorsed by gun control advocates.

No person can guarantee the actions of another. What insurance company would write such liability policies? Why would the government burden it's citizens with the expense of having to pay for such policies, if they could be had, in order to exercise their God given rights? This is nothing more than an underhanded and sneaky way of nullifying our rights. When challenged, the government can just claim that they are not revoking a right, just placing responsible conditions on the free exercise of them. I predict that we will be subjected to a good deal more of this type of 'stealth tyranny'.

Sunday Open Thread

2009-03-29T07:06:00.000-07:00

"The Obama Youth Corps" - Update

2009-03-27T09:48:00.000-07:00

As I predicted, HR 1388 has sailed through the Senate yesterday 79-19, and was renamed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and Act to reauthorize and reform and national service laws (S 277). Not surprisingly, none of the 19 'nay' votes came from the Democrats.

An amendment introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) which would have barred ACORN or any of it's affiliate organizations from receiving any funding from the bill was tabled before the vote. Vitter, you might remember, also offered a similar amendment to the 'porkulus bill' which was also defeated.

In reviewing the text of the Senate version I noticed something that may be of serious concern to all of us (the house version also contained this provision, and I apologize for having overlooked it).

It is found in sec. 1304;

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
......

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Nice! As a participant in Obama's Youth Corps one forfeits all rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Congress understands that they cannot simply suspend the constitution all at once, so they are just going to render it null and void for certain people at certain times, until, before we realize it, it no longer applies to any of us.

Our rights are given to us from God. We loan those rights to our government to do for us as a whole that which we cannot do for ourselves individually. This government has long ago gone well beyond the simple mandate afforded to it by the constitution, and we have allowed it. But, our rulers are not satisfied with the power we have unwisely allowed it to usurp. It now wants the power to tell us what rights we may exercise, when we may exercise them, and under what conditions we may exercise them.

Wake up America, the hour is late.

Obama die Jugend Korps

2009-03-21T14:30:00.000-07:00

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" – Barrack Obama, 2008

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”- Adolf Hitler

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." - Adolf Hitler

While Americans were fully engaged in righteous indignation over the 1/10 of 1% of the TARP money that AIG paid it's employees in compliance with legally contracted agreements, the US House of Representatives passed HR1388. The media barely took notice.

On Wednesday, March 13, 2009, "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" (GIVE), an expansion of the 1993 AmeriCorps program, sailed though the House on a 321 to 105 vote. Even though the bill would have passed without them, 70, evidently confused Republicans joined ranks with the Democrats in passing the bill. See the text of the bill here.

Proponents of the bill suggest that volunteerism and charity are acutely needed in tough economic times, and that this legislation answers that need. Yep, we can't let a good crisis go to waste. Opponents, on the other hand, are concerned about several aspects of the bill;

1) That community organizations which will be utilized in the 'community service' structure will be of the leftwing 'ACORN' variety; and that re-education and indoctrination would be an integral part of the training. Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union had this to say about the bill,

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations. I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

2) That the bill will be too costly, especially on top of the obscene spending that Congress has already done. Fox News reports that Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers AmeriCorps received an estimated $260 million in fiscal 2009. GIVE is an expansion of AmeriCorp, so one would expect that the funding will be increased accordingly. The legislation is estimated to cost $6 billion over the next five years.

3) That many young 'volunteers' would be forced into lengthy service due to the attractive 'benefits' and 'grants' offered to participants, but which come with length of service requirements attached. There are also very disturbing hints in the bill which suggest that mandatory service for all young people would be eventually required. From Fox News again;

The bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service." The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

I have reviewed the text of the bill and disturbing does not begin to describe the uneasiness I feel about the organization that this legislation will create and how it might be used. But given how easily it passed though the House, I expect that it will likely pass the Senate as well.

So, look out America, here comes the Obama Youth Corps.

Common Sense 2009

2009-03-20T18:51:00.000-07:00

Amen To That!!!!!

Pelosi Calls Illegal Aliens "Patriotic"

2009-03-18T14:58:00.000-07:00

Speaking at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco to an audience of both legal and illegal aliens, House Speaker Pelosi said that the current practices employed in the enforcement of our immigration laws are "un-American" and referred to the members of her audience as "very patriotic". See the full story here.

Only through the prism of the liberal mind is it un-American to enforce the laws of our country, and patriotic to violate them. An America under liberalism is an America where good is evil. Where God is the devil. Where criminals are victims. Where terrorists are freedom fighters and NRA members are terrorists. Where success is punished and slothfulness rewarded. Where forced confiscation of wealth is considered patriotic contributions. Where freedom of speech only exists when the are no dissenting voices. Where consensual sex between men and women is rape, and homosexuality is natural act. Where putting convicted murderers to death is immoral, but putting innocent children to death is a 'choice'.

How is liberalism not a mental disorder?

Oath Keepers

2009-03-14T19:43:00.000-07:00

This is a repost from The Patriot Page.

Americans Will Not Be Standing Alone

Oath Keepers-Guardians of the Republic is a webblog devoted to reminding current militatry members, vets, and members of law enforcement that their oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not to the politicians.

Oath Keepers mission statement reads;

Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders."
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.

Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.

This is what real patriotism is all about, standing up for what is right. Thank God that, thanks to these patriots, Americans will not be standing alone.

More Obama Merchandising

2009-03-14T15:49:00.000-07:00

This time it's a German frozen food company marketing a product called Obama Fingers. See the full story from SPIEGEL ONLINE below.

GERMAN FRIED CHICKEN

Tender, Juicy Obama Fingers Hit the Shelves
By Charles Hawley

A German frozen food company hopes to raise sales with a new product: Obama fingers. The tender, fried chicken bits come with a tasty curry sauce. The company says it was unaware of the possible racist overtones of the product.

Selling products has, of course, become a bit more difficult than usual these days. No wonder then that companies everywhere are turning to optimistic marketing messages in an effort to counteract the steady drum beat of negativity coming from front page headlines around the globe.

Many sales executives have drawn the same conclusion: What better poster child for hope than US President Barack Obama? There are Obama dolls, Obama T-shirts, Obama soap-on-a-rope. There is even Obama thong underwear on offer.

Not wanting to miss the boat, a German food company has now gotten into the act. Sprehe, a company that has all manner of frozen delicacies on offer, has come up with a new product it calls "Obama Fingers." Far from being real digits, though, the "fingers" in question are "tender, juicy pieces of chicken breast, coated and fried," as the product packaging claims.

"We noticed that American products and the American way of eating are trendy at the moment," Judith Witting, sales manager for Sprehe, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Americans are more relaxed. Not like us stiff Germans, like (Chancellor Angela) Merkel."

The idea, she claimed, was to get in on the Obama-mania which is continuing to grip Germany. The word "fingers" in the name refers to the fact that it is a finger food. "It's like hotdogs," Witting said. "No one would ever think they are actually from dogs."

For Americans in Germany, though, there is a risk that the product might be seen as racially insensitive. Fried chicken has long been associated with African-Americans in the US -- naming strips of fried chicken after the first black president could cause some furrowing of brows.

Witting told SPIEGEL ONLINE the connection never even occurred to her. "It was supposed to be a homage to the American lifestyle and the new US president," she said.

Well, I am not too keen on the idea of Obama chicken fingers, but if Sprehe needs an idea for a product that I might be more inclined to buy, how about Obama Toilet Tissue? The American people are about to be royally screwed by the 'stimulus bill', so make them extra soft. We can use all the comfort we can get.

Chuck Norris for President of Texas?

2009-03-10T17:45:00.001-07:00

Toward the end of the Clinton administration Bill Kristol once claimed that "in a democracy one cannot simultaneously love one's country and hate one's government." He was immediately ridiculed by fellow conservatives, and justly so.

When you love your country, you love the people, the culture, the history. But when your government is abusive of the people, antagonistic toward the culture, and seeks to pervert the country's history, it is difficult, if not impossible to love your government.

Our government has for many years been guilty of these transgressions.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence asserted the following;

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In a recent interview on the Glenn Beck radio show, Chuck Norris had the following exchange with Beck;

GLENN: Somebody asked me this morning, they said, you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future. And I said, if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country, which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower.

NORRIS: It was slower, yeah.

GLENN: Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up. And they said, where's that going to come from? And I said Texas, it's going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that, Chuck, or not?

NORRIS: Oh, yeah. You know, Texas is a republic, you know. We could actually --

GLENN: It was a country before it was a state.

NORRIS: Yeah, we could break off from the union if we wanted to.

GLENN: You do, you call me.

NORRIS: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Seriously, you do. I don't mind having that lone star on my flag. I really don't mind it. I've been out with a seam ripper looking at my flag going, I don't know, California could go. I'm just saying --

NORRIS: I may run for president of Texas. (Laughing).

Norris had more to say about this at WorldNetDaily and expounded on the "long train of abuses and usurpations" by our government which may ultimately lead to the desire of many to seek a change.

I have heard that Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light! Not that Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris. :)

Will Whoopi be "Going Galt"?

2009-03-06T18:15:00.000-08:00

We are all aware that Americans are becoming very disgruntled, not about the economy, but rather about the way this administration and Congress is dealing with it.

The Tea Parties, the beginnings of a full rebellion of Governors and state legislatures, and the phenomenon of 'going Galt' are betraying a great amount of public anger, dissatisfaction, and distrust in our government.

Even the View's Whoopi Glodberg is feeling it.

Ok, so her anger is a little half-assed, but it's Whoopi Goldberg. She's a liberal. This is unfamiliar territory for her. I am sure that as this new feeling begins to really take a good hold on her, she will be able to get in there with her whole ass. -- :)

"...Of Patriots and Tyrants"

2009-03-04T16:11:00.000-08:00

The Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal Government have been so disrespected, for so long, that one would be hard pressed to find even one individual who could recall a time in which it was otherwise. Not surprisingly, the very representatives that the people have sent to serve in the Federal Government, have become the most diligent representatives of that disrespect. This disrespect for the Constitutional limitations on government is not limited to the main body of the Constitution, but extends also to the Bill of Rights. Of those contained therein, the first eight have been trampled upon ad nauseum. The latter two, the ninth and tenth amendments, have been wholly ignored. No longer.

There are now sixteen states which are challenging the assertion by Comrade Obama and the Marxist planners in the Congress that the states have no choice but to accept the redistribution of wealth apportioned to them by the 'porkulus bill'. These states --Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia -- are currently in the process of introducing bills or resolutions invoking the 10th amendment in response to the Obama administration’s faux-“stimulus” legislation which is viewed as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and an assault on states rights. See the full story here.

This, coupled with the 'tea parties' which are occurring all across the country, is a very encouraging turn of events. Americans have been 'freedom freeloaders' for far too long. The time has finally come when Americans are ready to stand up for our country and our God given rights. I have long maintained that 'America has been engaged in a civil war since the early 1970's, we just have not started shooting at each other yet'. Hopefully, it will never have to come to that. But, we would all do well to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

The fight for freedom never ends. Regardless of the safeguards which 'we the people' have put in place, there will always be someone who will try to circumvent them. 'We the people' are ultimate guards of our liberties. Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to provide us with these liberties. Many brave men over the years have fought and died to defend them. Will we do less? A time is coming, and now is, for Americans to take a stand in defiance of tyranny.

Rush Limbaugh's First Addresss to the Nation

2009-03-02T11:14:00.000-08:00

On Feb. 28, 2009, Rush Limbaugh gave his "first address to the nation" at the Conservative Political Action Conference and was honored with this years Defender of the Constitution Award. Congratulations Rush.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

The Presentation of the 'Defender of the Constitution Award'

Dancing Christmas Lights

2008-12-24T10:22:00.000-08:00

This was sent to me in an e-mail and I thought I would share it with my readers for Christmas. Turn on your speakers and enjoy.

Liberal Quotes Worth Remembering

2008-12-20T10:30:00.000-08:00

Oh, those awful, hateful, stupid things liberals say;

“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
- Ellen Goodman

“The basic approach is wrong. Many marriages last just because people believe they are safe. My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years.”
- Gabriele Pauli

“There are no illegal human beings.”
- Dennis Kucinich

“In fact, my very first thought upon hearing of the Rev. Falwell’s passing was: Good. And I didn’t mean ‘good’ in a oh-good-he’s-gone-home-to-be-with-the-Lord kind of way. I meant ‘good’ as in ‘Ding-dong, the witch is dead.’”
- Cathleen Falsani

“You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc….Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of ‘I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?’”
- Peter Mehlman

“Probably there should be a rule against it. But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive President in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”
- Mark Singer

“[Religion is] violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”
- Christopher Hitchens

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
- William Ayers

“You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once, and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, ‘Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?’ And I said, ‘That’s what journalists do.’ And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.”
- Diane Sawyer , July 12

“The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist.”
- Richard Dawkins

“This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
–speaking of global warming opponents
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”
–Discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed
- Bill Maher

“Stop scapegoating immigrants…[Stop using] outrageous phrases like ‘illegal aliens.’”
- Howard Dean

In the plague years of the 1980s — that low decade of denial, indifference, hostility, opportunism and idiocy — government fiddled and medicine diddled, and the media were silent or hysterical. A gerontocratic Ronald Reagan took this [AIDS] plague less seriously than Gerald Ford had taken swine flu. After all, he didn’t need the ghettos and he didn’t want the gays.”
- John Leonard

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president [...] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”
- Rev. Jeremiah Wright

“(The pundits) said you can’t win in a year like this with a name like Obama. There was quite a bit of confusion at first, but it did get me free airtime on Al Jazeera.”
- Barack Hussein Obama

“When I look at what’s available in the man department [in Arkansas], I’m surprised more women aren’t gay.”
- Hillary Clinton

“I pledge allegiance to the America that can be.”
- Hillary Clinton , Nov. 21, 2001

Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.
- Barack Hussein Obama , During a speech on May 9, 2008

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” —Talking about Small Town Folks
- Barack Hussein Obama , April 6, 2008

“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”-Talking about abortion
- Barack Hussein Obama , March 29, 2008.

Poking Fun at Blago

2008-12-13T11:34:00.000-08:00

Blago's 1975 HS yearbook photo.

Hmmmm! Prophetic.

MLK's Dream is Dead

2008-12-04T14:45:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill) called upon Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to appoint a black man or woman to fill Obama's Senate seat and said that it would be a "national disgrace" if he did not do so. If any Americans where laboring under the delusion that electing Barack Obama as President would put an end to the notion that America is a racist nation; welcome to the reality. The race problem in the United States ends when self appointed civil rights leaders like Rush says it ends, and not before.

Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." King spoke these words on August 28, 1963. That was 45 years ago, and in the eyes of the self appointed civil rights leaders, nothing has changed in all the days from this day to that. America has made tremendous progress towards the fulfillment of MLK's dream. But, too many have based their careers upon racial inequities, real or imagined. Too many have seen that there are political advantages in the perpetuation of perceived racial problems in America. King had to believe that that 'one day' would eventually come. That 'one day' will never come if Bobby Rush, and his ilk, have their way.

Remembering the Troops on Thanksgiving.

2008-11-26T17:54:00.000-08:00

I know that most of the readers of this blog do not need a reminder, but please remember the brave men and women of our armed forces in your prayers on Thanksgiving Day.

The 'Fairness Doctrine', 'Localism', and 'Ownership Diversity'

2008-11-23T07:32:00.000-08:00

Tyranny begins with the silencing of dissenting voices. To this end many on the Left are calling for the reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Fox News,

"Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio.... The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That's not consistent."

Obama campaign statement on the 'Fairness Doctrine', August 2008,

"He [Obama] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Dianne Feinstein complained to Fox News’ Chris Wallace,

“In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”

"Well, I'm looking at it (reviving the 'Fairness Doctrine'), as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Bill Moyers interview with Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on PBS. Read it here.

Lou Dobbs interview with Dennis Kacinich on CNN. See it here.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) radio interview. Hear it here.

Enacted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the 'Fairness Doctrine' required broadcasters to present all sides on political issues equally. The only fairness associated with the 'Fairness Doctrine' was that it silenced political speech altogether. Broadcasters simply avoided topics which would fall under the FCC equal time rules. One blogger compares the 'Fairness Doctrine' to the 1765 Stamp Act. It is an interesting comparison.

In 1987, President Reagan rescinded the 'Fairness Doctrine' Since then, political speech on talk radio has flourished. Conservatives have dominated it. Conservative talk radio has 50 million listeners, with Rush Limbaugh taking the lions share of the ratings with 20 million listeners. Liberal talkers have had a tough time competing in the talk radio medium. Their show have trouble selling advertising for by virtue of the fact that talk radio listeners do not want to hear their shrill voices spewing negative, often anti-American, diatribes.

As far as the Left is concerned, conservative domination of the airwaves is a violation of the First Amendment. In the Liberal mind, the First Amendment not only guarantees them the right to express their opinion, it also guarantees them the right to be heard. As always, the Left is looking to the government to level the playing field. It is not enough that there is equal opportunity, there must be equal results.

While Obama has claimed that he will not be seeking a reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine', he is very much in favor of expanding upon an FCC rule known as 'localism'. Under this rule radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. More on this from American Thinker.

Obama has chosen as as his transition chief John Podesta. Podesta is president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a socialist think tank. Cap is in favor of expanding the concept of 'localism' and promoting 'ownership diversity' to solve what it believes are inequities in radio broadcasting. In a June 21, 2007 report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, CAP complained of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and recommends that to ensure that local radio stations fulfill their obligations to meet the needs of the communities which they serve, the FCC needs to exercise greater control over local broadcast licencing and the fining of radio stations who continue to air conservative talkers who are perceived to be out of step with local needs. The report also recommends that the money generated by the fines be used to support liberal dominated , taxpayer funded public broadcasting. It gets worse. Since conservative talk radio does not reflect the diverse interests of the communities which they serve, the report also recommends handing over media properties to selected minority control. One wonders how this might be accomplished. Through Stalin-esque seizure of private property? For more, go here.

Many on the Left dismiss the concerns of conservative talk show hosts as far fetched paranoia, others are in complete denial, and the mainstream press is wallowing in self imposed ignorance.

FEC 'Looks The Other Way', Right At McCain

2008-11-11T16:54:00.000-08:00

Allegations that the Obama campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions, possibly as much as 200 million dollars, have been circulating around the blogsphere for some time. The possibility of a substantial number of illegal contributions to the Obama campaign is extremely likely since the Obama web site was not using an Address Verification System (AVS) to screen donations. This would allow fraudulent donations from fictitious and possibly foreign sources. All such donations are illegal. Much of these discrepancies were detailed by Neil Munro at the National Journal.

Despite a formal complaint to the Federal Election Committee (FEC) from the RNC regarding the Obama campaign's fundraising practices, Politico is reporting that an investigation of the Obama campaign by the FEC is unlikely. The Obama campaign collected more than $600 million from at least 3.1 million donors under federal regulations which bars individuals from donating more than $2,300 to a single campaign. There is evidence that the Obama campaign facilitated and accepted fraudulent donations from sources both domestic and foreign, and that the amount of money that the campaign received which falls under the category of 'questionable' is between 150 and 200 million dollars. And yet it is unlikely that the FEC will be investigating.

But that is not the full extent of the outrageous content of this story. The FEC will be investigating the McCain campaign by virtue of the fact that he kept his promise to accept public financing, where as, Obama did not. Proving the old saying 'that no good deed goes unpunished.'

Comrade Obama on the Redistribution of Wealth

2008-10-26T19:28:00.000-07:00

That Obama is a socialist is a question that many have been asking since 'Joe the Plumber ' asked Comrade Obama if he was going to be taxing his business at a greater rate. Now more evidence of Obama's redistributionist ideology has been revealed in the form of a radio interview on Chicago's WBEZ FM from 2001.

In addition to this video are the following quotes from an August 20, 2008 New York Times magazine interview;

“If you talk to Warren, he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument. But, he said: “I do think that what the argument may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. And I also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that what you do will help determine outcomes.”

While the main stream media is is gushing over Obama, wondering if America is finally ready for a black President, many Americans are now wondering if we are blindly about to let our doom in by the front door by electing a Marxist to that office.

Biased Media Suppressing News

2008-10-26T10:55:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been following up on Obama's radical associations has heard of Rashid Khalidi. When a Jewish voter in Florida asked Obama about his association with the Jew hating Khalidi, Obama explained away any concerns in this way;

"You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

Obama continued, "To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

Sean Hannity has repeatedly detailed Obama's relationship with Khalidi as exemplified by the video below.

The left wing media has chosen the role of apologists for Obama's radical associations from William Ayers to Khalidi. Now we have learned that the media is in the business of suppressing news on behalf of Barack Obama. The Gateway Pundit has reported that the LA Times is in possession of a video in which Obama praises the anti-Semitic Khalidi and admits to having a close relationship with Khalidi which included frequently dining with Khalidi and his wife in their home.

Colin Powell Joins Wesley Clark

2008-10-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell has had an illustrious career. He was the United States 65th Secretary of State and the first Black American to hold that office. He served as National Security Advisor (1987-1989) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). He served his country with distinction in the US Army (1958-1993) and retired with the rank of General.

While Colin Powell is a Republican, he has not shown himself to be a conservative over the years that he has been in the public spotlight. Conservatives have come to expect less than conservative opinions and endorsements from him. However, many conservatives were taken by surprise yesterday when Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President on Meet the Press. I count myself among them. I certainly did not expect Powell, given his history of dedication to his country to endorse a radical socialist to the office of the President of the United States.

On the subject of whether or not Obama is a socialist, Powell had this to say;

I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis, the [McCain] campaign said, “We’re going to go negative,” and they announced it, “We’re going to go negative and attack [Obama's] character through Bill Ayers.” Now I guess the message this week is, “We’re going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have.”
Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

It is odd for a man who has served his country through the cold war to seemingly be unable to recognize the difference between socialist redistribution of wealth and the raising of revenue. It is equally odd that Powell, who served as National Security Advisor, cannot recognize a socialist politician and an enemy of the US Constitution. I am not going to spend a great deal of effort to try and second guess Powell's motives, but I have every intention of taking issue with his actions. My opinion is likely not to be received well, and I am prepared to take the heat for it.

Every US soldier takes an oath when he enlists, it reads;

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.

I respect and appreciate Gen. Powell's service to our country but, America's enemies do not exist only beyond our borders. Many of America's enemies claim to be patriotic Americans. For what ever reason, Powell has failed to recognize that fact. The socialists in our political system are domestic enemies of our Constitution. They make no secret of their intention to change it, and they have made every effort to subvert it. Yesterday, Gen. Colin Powell joined ranks with Gen. Wesley Clark in capitulating to, and lending aid to, the domestic enemies of our Constitution.

African American Voters, Listen Up

2008-10-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

The following videos are part of a video blog series. I do not know the gentleman's name but he can be found at youtube.com under machosauceproduction. He has some important political insights which should be of particular interest to the black community.

African Americans need to ask themselves a few questions;

-Who or what is really to blame for the sad state of black education in America? Read this.

-Is it really a racial issue that the prison population in the U.S. is up to 70% black? Read this and this.

-Which political party stands to gain the most, politically, from the status quo of race relations in the U.S. remaining unchanged? Read this.

-Democrats pushed banks into making more home loans to those with low and moderate
incomes, mostly through Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Read this and this. They defended Fannie and Freddy when Republicans started sounding the warning bells in 2004. Watch this and this. Now, those who purchased homes under these programs, many of whom are African Americans, find that their homes are worth less than the principle remaining on their mortgages. Since many of these homeowners got their loans with no money down, and therefore, had no skin in the game, are walking away from these mortgages. With the economy collapsing and it looks as though every American will be paying a huge price for it, of what benefit has any of this been for the black community? Misery may love company, but is this the type of equality that the black community hoped for when they voted for Democrats?

-In America, the land of opportunity, liberal Democrats tell African Americans that their success or failure depends upon who wins elections. That is insulting enough, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats, by positioning themselves as the saviors of the black community, have a vested political interest in maintaining the status quo. As long as black students are under educated, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as black unemployment exceeds the national average, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as crime in America's inner city communities remains high, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as Democrats can convince African Americans that racism is at the heart of all these problems, the Democrats have the black vote. Why would the Democrats, as a party, want any of these things to change?

These are questions which every voter, not just those in the African American community, should seriously be considering.

NBC pulls SNL Skit

2008-10-07T17:18:00.000-07:00

NBC pulls SNL skit from the NBC/SNL website. The skit lampoons liberal financier George Soros and Marion and Herb Sandler, not to mention the entire Democratic Party's cover up of their part in the economic meltdown. The liberal bias over at NBC is well known, however, it would seem that the reason that NBC pulled the skit is that Herb Sandler is 'hopping mad' about it. No response from NBC as to why it was pulled.

See the original uncut video below. Many thanks to Ms. Underestimated for the .wmv file.

Palin in a Swimsuit

2008-09-30T18:06:00.000-07:00

Well, it was only a matter of time until the 1984 Miss Alaska swimsuit photos of Sarah Palin surfaced. With the media and every Liberal blogger in the country focusing on her, digging into every nook and cranny of her past, even braking into her e-mail account, it is surprising that it took this long for them to show up.

And here is the video.

Of course, these pics are not nearly as spectacular as the bikini photo, but then, that one was made to order. As I said, the left was looking for these images from day one when she was named as McCain's VP. They were so afraid that Sarah Palin would usurp many women voters, especially disgruntled Hillary supporters, and it was hoped that images of her in a swimsuit at a beauty contest could be used to show that she was no friend of the women's movement. Feminists view beauty contests as sexist and demeaning to women. Now that these photos have surfaced, they have barely made a ripple in the political waters. Since they were so late in coming, the left has focused on Sarah Palin's views on the abortion issue instead. The latest attack came from actress Ashley Judd who characterized abortion a an issue of "women's privacy." See video below.

It shocked me to hear the issue of abortion referred to as an issue of women's privacy. The question of whether abortion on demand should be legal is a question of right and wrong, of moral or immoral, privacy has nothing what-so-ever to do with it. There is a law which requires psychologists to report patients who exhibit tendencies toward pedophilia. Can you imagine the outrage if someone were to refer to it as an issue of a pedophiles privacy.

Rebuking the Toad

2008-09-28T14:42:00.000-07:00

I received a comment to a recent post which demands a reply. The following is the comment just as it appeared;

Toad734 said...

That's funny because it always seems it's the conservatives who are trying to implement a state religion which everyone one else has to adhere to, always trying to stifle free speech or even in McCain and Palin's case, freedom of the press. The Right are the ones who want to attack the constitution with a new marriage amendment, it's the Right who is always trying to take away our civil liberties for "our safety", its the right who is always trying to get music, lyrics, videos, tv, movies, radio, art, etc. censored. It's conservatives who fought against ideas such as the 15th amendment.And by activist judges would you be referring to ones who sneak in to the court house grounds in the middle of the night to install a big statue of the 10 commandments? That's what I call an activist judge. Just because some judges are non partisan and smart and can actually acknowledge the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't make them activists just because you, uneducated in the law, disagree.

Toad makes several charges in his comments that are so outlandish that I have to wonder how he could have established their credibility in his own mind.

1). That conservatives want to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and censor the media.

Since Ronald Reagan abolished the 'fairness doctrine' we finally have a situation in this country in which freedom of speech is flourishing. I realize that the Left is unhappy with this situation and many want it reinstated. This charge may seem a little like the 'pot calling the kettle black', but in the mind of the Leftist the fact that there are so many voices now actively opposing their views it must be an effort to silence them. The Left does it's fair share of criticism of the Right as well. But the right to criticize the speech of another falls under the category of free speech. What the Left calls an effort to stifle free speech is really nothing more that healthy political debate. Conservatives have as much right to be engaged in the political debate as does the Left. However, if the Left finds that they no longer have the stomach for it, we would be agreeable to accepting the Left's capitulation.

2). That Conservatives fought hard against ideas like the 15th Amendment.

This charge betrays a great deal of ignorance. On Feb. 26 1869, the 15th Amendment passed the Senate with not a single Republican voting against it, and not a single Democrat voting in favor of it. The next day the House vote was 144 to 44 in favor of passage. All 144 in favor were Republicans and all 44 against it were Democrats. It was the Democrats who opposed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as much of the civil rights legislation which was passed during the civil rights movement of the 1960. For Toad's edification, may I recommend Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It is an excellent book on the history of the civil war and offers a perspective thereof which is not often heard.

3). That Conservatives are trying to establish a 'state religion' and that an activist judge is one which violates the religion clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No Conservative has proposed such a law, nor has any Conservative stated that he would be in favor of such a law. However, Conservatives do insist that efforts to respect the first portion of the religion clause not lead to gross violations of the second. There in lies the problem. The Left has interpreted the first portion of the religion clause in such a way that in naturally leads to violations of the second.

This 'uneducated' blogger has read no less than two books on the subject of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, as well as the essays of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The original intent of religion clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state laws regarding religion and their establishments. The concern of the framers was not that the states would use public authority and money to favor one religion over another, many did exactly that and it was an acceptable practice. The worry of the framers who insisted upon this provision was that the federal government would establish a national church interfering with churches favored in the various states.

The concept of a constitutional 'separation of church and state', established solely by activist judges, has done much to greatly curtail religious freedom in America. Communities are being restricted from using their local tax dollars to erect any type of religious monument or even a Nativity display at Christmas time. Teachers and students alike are forbidden from expressing their faith on public school property. Families or church groups visiting public monuments at our Nation's Capital are fined for engaging in prayer. Just this week, in my own state of Virgina, five state troopers have resigned following a directive that banned them from using the words Jesus or Christ in public prayers. In recent years there have even been those (mostly on the Left) who argue that the religion clause of the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for members of a religious institution to engage in political activism.

Democrats: Always Entertaining

2008-09-24T16:45:00.000-07:00

It was just yesterday that Harry Reid had said that John McCain needed to support the economic bailout measure if it was to succeed. Today, the presidential nominee has said that he will suspend his campaign and go back to Washington to work on the bailout bill and invited Obama to do the same. Now Reid is saying that McCain's involvement is not needed and wouldn't be helpful.

I love it when Republicans force Democrats to talk out of both sides of their face.

Obama responded to McCain's suggestion by saying, “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time." While this comment was intended to question McCain's ability to be president, but it also slammed Bill Clinton. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton complained more than once that he needed to "get back to work for the American people."
The use of the words "get back to work" implies that the scandal was preventing him somehow from doing his job. Clearly, Bill Clinton was not able to deal with more than on thing at a time.

At least the crisis that John McCain is focusing on is a bit more important than a President's inability to keep his 'goods' securely tucked away in his trousers.

Sunday Open Thread

2008-09-21T06:05:00.000-07:00

FOR THE NATION
O eternal God, through whose mighty power ourfathers won their liberties of old; Grant, we beseech thee, that we and all the people of this land may have grace to maintain these liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

FOR ALL IN THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY
O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Palin and Women's Rights

2008-09-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

The runaway popularity of Sarah Palin, especially with women, is enough to throw the radical feminists into fits. In some cases, feminist may be mistaken as sufferers of Tourette syndrome. One blogger characterized her as pure evil. Then there is this rant at the Daily-kook.

In an Aug. 29th press release, NOW PAC chair, Kim Gandy, emphatically pontificated that Sarh Palin is no more a supporter of women's rights than John McCain, but admitted that "like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights." Which rights? Apparently, only the right of a woman to flippantly murder her unborn child.

Chicago Sun Times columnist, Mary Mitchell, echoed the same sentiments yesterday in a piece entitled Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists. Rather than comprehensively prove the 'laughingstock' premise of the title, Ms. Mitchell spends a good portion of the piece lamenting the much chagrined popularity of Sarah Palin. The following are a few examples of this:

"Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to
steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a
skirt."

"I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain
and John McCain look like the maverick he is not."

"I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon's
feisty character in "Thelma & Louise." I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I
couldn't stand Palin's feistiness at the Republican National Convention."

"Sarah Palin makes me sick -- not because she may speak
in tongues -- but because she is a fast talker."

"It irks me that Palin is being painted as some kind of
"New Age Feminist" by the so-called 'elite' media."

"She isn't."

"Palin is a fresh face on a weary campaign trail, and a
jack-in-the-box in this election.
But Palin isn't running against Barack
Obama. McCain is, and the media seem to have forgotten that."

Having delt sufficiently with her 'cry baby' issues, Ms. Mitchell moved on to more substantive matters, like the claim that Palin is a reformer.

"But we know that the "reform-minded" is a bit of a stretch.
Palin is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power by trying to have
her ex-brother-in-law fired."

Ms. Mitchell fails to site any instances in which feminists have opposed the firing of a dangerous, child abusing, male, state trooper. Ms. Mitchell continued her piece by pointing out the ways in which Sarah Palin is a typical politician, but fails to recount the long list of atypical politicians that feminist typically have supported in the past.

From this point on in the article, Ms. Mitchell waxed hypocritical. She tried to cast doubt on whether Palin could be both a career woman and mother. How does doing that which feminists have always supported and encouraged women to do make her a 'laughingstock' to feminists. Even a former Leftist like myself cannot explain the logic.

Finally, at the end of the piece, she gets to the real heart of the matter.

"Palin's extreme views on abortion (she once said she
would be against her daughter having an abortion even in the case of incest or
rape) and her support of abstinence-only programs should make her a
laughingstock to feminists."

Yes, it is true that a woman who chooses to give birth to a child because she believes that abortion is wrong, is a choice that feminists mock. It is true that the notion of preventing a pregnancy through the advocation of abstinence is repugnant to feminists. It is also true that feminists are the the advocates of women's rights save but one; the right of a woman to have an opinion which differs from the feminazi party line.

Patriots Day From a Leftist Perspective

2008-09-13T09:28:00.000-07:00

This is how one leftist blogger commemorated 9/11, publishing only the image shown at right with no commentary. This image is meant to convey the notion that as a result of 9/11 our Constitution has been under attack, primarily from the Patriot Act. The Left's concern for our Constitution is completely phony. The Left has relentlessly attacked the Constitution as antiquated, rigid, and regressive. The left has always wanted a complete rewrite of the Constitution, and if they can't get it done through the ratification of amendments (remember the ERA), they will do it through the judiciary.

To be blunt, as a former member of the American Left, I know that the Left has no love for the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter anything that patriotic Americans hold dear. They want to destroy this country as it is currently constituted. They wanted us to lose the cold war and they now would like us to lose the war on terror. Their opposition to the Patriot Act is purely because they know it has been instrumental in keeping America safe from terrorist attacks for the last seven years. Any pretense of concern for civil liberties in this regard is completely phony.

We Will Never Forget

2008-09-10T18:31:00.000-07:00

We will never forget!

We will never forget!

We will never forget!

We will never forget!

We Will Never Forget!

We will never forget!

This we pledge to the memory of everyone who lost their lives on 9/11/2001, and their families, we will never, ever forget!

Goofy Brit Lectures Americans

2008-09-08T17:12:00.000-07:00

At the MTV Awards last night British comedian Russell Brand took advantage of the opportunity spew his political views on American politics, taking it upon himself to urge Americans "on behalf of the world" to vote for Barack Obama. The following are a few of his comments.

"Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. "But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years? "We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because, in England, he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."

I don't know who Mr. Brand thinks he is that he can come to the United States and make these kinds of insulting pontifications, but sitting here, clinging to my gun with one hand and my religion with the other, and considering his comments in the context of his physical appearance, I think that I am perfectly capable of figuring out who the retard is!

Conservatism Rocks

2008-09-07T13:40:00.000-07:00

OK, so I am an older conservative who is not on top of everything that happens in the music industry. Let's face it, most of the music industry is liberal, so the fact that a conservative rock group has entered the genre is something that might escape my notice for awhile. So for those of you who may be father behind the times than I am, let me introduce you to a few of the music videos from The Right Brothers. Enjoy!

The List

Bush Was Right

I Want To Live
(You might need some tissues for this one. I did.)

Half of Her Heart

Stop Global Whining

What to Get a Liberal for Christmas

Palin vs. Obama

2008-09-06T04:09:00.000-07:00

Since being named McCain's VP choice Sarah Palin has come under numerous attacks from the Left. The only one that has any possibility of resonating with the American people is the question of her experience. Here is a little video I found on Youtube that examines how well that argument will float.

No Contest!

Should Palin Renounce Her Pastors?

2008-09-01T08:20:00.000-07:00

The newest attacks on Sarah Palin have to do with statements made by her Pastors. Harper's has been pouring over the sermons made by David Pepper of the the Church on the Rock in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, and Mike Rose of the Juneau Christian Center, who has been her pastor since she became governor in 2006. Here are some of the statements which the Libs are having some problems with.

From David Pepper, senior pastor at Church on the Rock:

From an November 25, 2007 sermon: “The purpose for the United States is… to glorify God. This nation is a Christian nation.”

From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “God will not be mocked. I don’t care what the ACLU says. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what atheists say. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what’s going on in the nation today with so much horrific rebellion and sin and things that take place. God will not be mocked. Judgment Day is coming. Where do you stand?”

From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “Just giving in a little bit is a disastrous thing…You can’t serve both man and God. It is one or the other.”

And from Mike Rose, senior pastor at Juneau Christian Center:

From an April 27, 2008 sermon: “If you really want to know where you came from and happen to believe the word of God that you are not a descendant of a chimpanzee, this is what the word of God says. I believe this version.”

From a July 8, 2007 sermon: “Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”

From a July 28, 2007 sermon: “Do you believe we’re in the last days? After listening to Newt Gingrich and the prime minister of Israel and a number of others at our gathering, I became convinced, and I have been convinced for some time. We are living in the last days. These are incredible times to live in.”

Some of the left wing bloggers have jumped on the Harpers article and believe that Sarah Palin should have to denounce these statements of her Pastors just as Obama had to denounce the controversial statements of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. In the interest of fairness, let us re-examine the statements of Jeremiah Wright which I obtained from Fox News.

– September 2001: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

– September 2001: “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”

– September 2001: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

– April 2003: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

– December 2007: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

– December 2007: “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

– Jan. 13, 2008: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

– “Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

– “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this shit!”

The left cannot be serious! Do they really think that there is any kind of realistic comparison that can and should be made with respect to the content of the sermons of Palin's Pastors and those of Obama's? Liberals seem to have 'plug and play' brains. One of them makes an 'off the wall' suggestion and they all just fall in line and follow along. It's as if they have no will of their own. It kinda of reminds me of the following Bob Hope movie line.

Is Obama the Antichrist?

2008-08-31T08:35:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting bit of information. It appears that the keywords 'Obama Antichrist' is now the sixth most popular keyword search at Google. While I do not subscribe to the most popular interpretation of the Revelation of John, clearly many Christians do, and they are concerned that Obama may be the person of the 'Antichrist' described by the Apostle.

What is it about Obama that promotes these enquiries? Undoubtedly it is the fact that the whole 'Obama aura' is virtually unexplainable, and many are probably wondering if it might not be the result of some unnatural phenomenon. Obama speaks of change in very generic terms with little or no substance, but people respond to him as if he is making 'messianic revelations'. Last Thursday night, Obama had promised a speech in which he would "spell out exactly" what he means by change. If one reads through the transcript of that speech, one finds very little substance in his words. Much of the solutions which he offers are not new or innovative. What Obama's speeches do contain are exactly the words many wish to hear. This fact may remind some of the words of Timothy;

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to myths." - 2Tim. 4:3-4 NASV

Is Obama the Antichrist? Is there evil at work here? I am not prepared to accept the former, but as to the later, well, let us examine what may be a recent example of it. Below please find an embedded video and transcript of the words of Don Fowler, former national chairman of the DNC, joking with Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) about the timing of Hurricane Gustav potentially hitting New Orleans when the Republicans start their convention.

Transcript: "Plus they think the hurricane's going to hit (starts laughing) New Orleans about the time they start. The timing, at least it appears now, that it'll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God's on our side."

How self absorbed, how evil must one be to recognize , and be gleeful about, the possible political advantages of an impending natural disaster in which fellow citizens may lose their lives. I don't believe that I really need to comment further on this subject.

Obama the Equus Asinus

2008-08-29T19:09:00.000-07:00

John McCain set two traps in as many days for Obama and he (Obama) stepped into both of them with both feet. First was the leak that McCain might announce his VP pick on the same night that Obama was to accept his party’s nomination for President of the United States. The Obama camp, in a knee-jerk reaction, proclaimed such an untimely announcement, should it come, as “political malpractice”. Well, that announcement did not come last night to rain on Obama’s parade. What did come out of the McCain campaign was a nationally televised ad consisting of heartfelt congratulations to Obama for “a job well done”. Obama ended up looking like, well, like an ass.

Obama repeated that particular imitation of the Democratic Party’s mascot again today when John McCain announced his choice for VP. In typical liberal fashion the Obama camp attacked Sarah Palin on as many points that they could think of in two shakes of the proverbial bony finger of indignation. "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

Upon further reflection, once the criticism of the imprudence of attacking a woman who has just been named a VP candidate during a week commemorating the 88th anniversary of women getting the right to vote began rolling in, Obama and Biden came out a gave a more congratulatory response. I have no intention of quoting that response here by virtue of the fact that it is irrelevant and because it will detract from my gloating.

Kudos to John McCain for his excellent choice of Veep and for forcing his opponent to stick his foot in his mouth twice within a 24 hour period. If Obama had attended a church pastored by minister with less of a political axe to grind and more of a biblical focus, perhaps Obama would have become familiar with Eccl. 10:2, "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

Call Your Government?

2008-08-25T12:15:00.000-07:00

Many areas of Florida experienced a good deal of flooding as a result of Tropical Storm Faye. Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) who has a residence in Jacksonville, called the Mayor's office to request assistance in protecting her home from the flooding. Adam Hollingsworth, chief of staff for Mayor John Payton, ordered city crews to Brown's home. Jacksonville residence are outraged that Brown got this kind of special treatment. However, she was not the only one. Hollingsworth also ordered city crews to city Councilwoman Denise Lee's home, although she had not asked for assistance.

Regarding this incident, Brown said that she had to "call, and call, and call just like anybody else." She also said, "Anytime a citizen needs help, they should call their government."

A few weeks back there was a very heavy rain where I live. My gutters could not handle the large volume of water. The water flowed across my driveway, through my flower bed, and into the window well of my basement. Needless to say, my basement flooded. I had to stay up half the night dealing with the water and the mess. The next day I did a little terraforming in order to insure that it would never happen again. I never once thought of calling my government for assistance. Why not? Because, as a conservative, I believe that Ronald Reagan was right when he said that the nine scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Obama; "Boo Hoo, McCain Cheated"

2008-08-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

At the recent televised political forum at the Saddleback Church, John McCain clearly bested Barack Obama. McCain came across as a candidate with firm convictions, and a clear vision of how he would govern as President. Obama, on the other hand, fumbled for words when confronted with difficult questions. He looked very much like a politician trying to answer a question with just enough doublespeak to skate by. He clearly did not have the presence of mind to realize where he was and to be able to anticipate the kinds of question that he would be asked.

So how does Obama decide to cope with the aftermath of his dismal failure? Does he pick himself up, dust himself off, and move on? Does he determine to better prepare for such events in the future? No! Camp Obama dropped a bug in the ear of NBC's Andrea Mitchell, expressing Obama's concerns that McCain may have cheated. Here is how the logic of team Obama works; McCain did much better than Obama during the forum, McCain arrived at the church after Obama began answering questions, ergo, McCain had taken advantage of that opportunity to gain advance knowledge of the questions being asked. Rather than deal with the situation like a man, Obama, without a shred of evidence to support it, chose to tarnish McCains performance by accusing him of having cheated.

Mr. Obama, I have this to say to you, "Sir, you are the Democratic party's nominee for the office of President of the United States. It is the Big Leagues. It's time for you to be a grown-up."

Obamania Reaches Cult Status

2008-08-09T16:04:00.001-07:00

An L.A. based creative design company which typically spends its resources designing beer and automobile ads, has taken it upon itself to design a salute for Obama supporters. Rick Husong, owner of Loyalty Inc., explained his motivation in this way; "Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama's nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future." Loyality Inc. produced the graphic shown here.

It is a very odd and scary looking salute. If you use your imagination, you can see it being used in a Stephen King movie with thousands of people holding their hands up to form this sign welcoming some other worldly visitors who ultimately turn out to be their worst nightmare. I hope that Mr. Husong's desire is realized. I really want to see 75,000 people at the Democratic National Convention holding up their hands in this salute. The sight will give any sane American a chill. I can see fundamentalist Christians wondering if Obama might be the Anti-Christ.

I don't believe that Mr. Husong and his staff did a dynamic analysis of the fun the Republican Party could have with this salute. Here are a number that I thought of almost immediately:

It's the symbol for what we really think of Obama.
It's the 'Obama Hole'. A bureaucratic event horizon into which tax dollars disappear forever.
It symbolizes the amount of money which will be left in the economy after the taxes needed to fund all of Obama's changes are implemented.
It symbolizes the IQ of anyone moronic enough to vote for Obama.
It symbolizes the number of electoral votes Obama will get if his supporters actually start using this salute.
It symbolizes America's side of the score card in the war on terror with B. Hussein Obama as Commander in Chief.
It symbolizes the amount of relief Americans will get at the gas pump under Obama's energy independence plan.
It symbolizes the amount of experience which qualifies Obama for the office he seeks.

I could do this all day, but, I have the salute the Obama supporters should be using if they are going to be true to themselves and their ideology. I believe it to be a much more appropriate salute to a candidate who is being hailed as if he were the 'Messiah' but has yet to poll in double digits over his opponent. It serves as both a salute to Obama and a prediction for the upcoming election.

I can see it now. Obamaniacs giving each other this salute (preferably by placing the back of the hand against their forehead) as they pass each other on the street. It will be a beautiful thing.

The Commitment of Our Servicemen

2008-08-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

I imagine most people did not hear about this at the time. The liberal dominated press hates reporting any good news from Iraq. They would like us to believe that it was wrong and somehow a violation of international law for the U.S. to invade the sovereign country of Iraq. Well, it seems that the troops deployed there do not share the same sentiments. Last year on July 4th, 588 American service members re-enlisted in Baghdad. This year, in the largest re-enlistment ceremony in the history of the US military, 1,215 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines extended their military service. The ceremony was held July 4, 2008 at Al Faw Palace, Baghdad, Iraq. General Petraeus officiated. A pizzeria in Chicago donated 2000 pizzas that were shipped to Iraq and fed to the enlistees on the 4th. The media reported the donation of the 2000 pizzas, but neglected to mention what they were for. It would appear that the efforts by many self serving Dems and the liberal media has not been successful in deterring the commitment of our brave servicemen who have put their personal lives on hold to serve the country that they love.

Our service men and women know what is at stake in Iraq and the need for America to win the war on terror. To all these men and women I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to our country. We owe you a debt that we cannot repay.

Messiah Obama

2008-07-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

The media coronation of Obama has provided the political pundits with an excellent source of satirical fodder. None has been nearly as entertaining as this one which appeared on Hannity and Colmes earlier this week.

The Left views Obama as the Savior of America. The One who will be a beacon of light to the world. Armed with the way of Marx he will teach us a new way and purge the conservatism from America. With a wave of his sacred pen, he will bring healing to those who are sick and do not have health insurance. He will offer hope to the downtrodden. He will drive the whore mongers and money grubbers from our midst and bestow holy 'fairness' to all.

However, the Right understands who and what Obama really is. They have seen his like before. Those who have embraced the Dark side. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao. All these offered hope through the way of Marx, and unleashed only want, misery, and death on the planet during the last age. Barack Obama is no Savior. And this is his true appearance.

He is Darth Liberty!

Bradley-Obama 2008

2008-07-20T10:11:00.000-07:00

In 1982 Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley seemed certain to become the first black governor of California. Pre-election polling gave Bradley a double digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian. Bradley lost.

Several high profile races since 1982 in which a black candidate has run against a white opponent have followed the same pattern. This phenomenon has been dubbed the Bradley Effect, and the possibility of it being a factor in the polling of likely voters in the current presidential race has pollsters frantically trying to come up with a way to negate it.

It has already reared its ugly head in the primary race between Obama and Clinton. Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary despite exit polls indicating a sizable lead for Barrack Obama. Currently, the polls show Obama leading McCain by 5.2. If there is a possibility that the Bradley Effect is a factor in the polls, a 5.2 lead is no lead at all.

Liberal Tyranny

2008-07-13T05:46:00.000-07:00

The original intent of the liberal ideology of 'political correctness' was to curtail speech and actions which might offend someone. Through it, the left has been able to declare that particular ideas, expressions of speech, and behavior, which are legal, should be forbidden. While most, so called, 'politically incorrect' speech and behavior are unwritten prohibitions, some have been written into law in many jurisdictions; i.e., hate speech statutes. Today, 'political correctness' has grown far beyond its original design.

PC is the rule of law on the vast majority of university and college campuses in the U.S. where it is being used to marginalize conservative ideology and activities. In a free society the people have a right to speak and to write freely. They also have the right to support the advocates of ideas and policies which best represent their interests with their time and their money. Tyranny begins with the suspension of these basic human rights.

In 1949, the FCC adopted a general policy to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues was fair and balanced. This policy was interpreted by many to require station owners and operators give persons with opposing viewpoints equal time to air those viewpoints, usually free of charge. Because broadcast stations were not disposed to giving away air time and were also not to fond of having the FCC breathing down their necks, the 'fairness doctrine', as it came to be known, had the effect of limiting free speech.

Since the FCC was an agency of a Democratic party controlled government, broadcasters soon learned that avoiding government scrutiny was simply a matter of avoiding the airing of conservative Republican opinions. Conservatives found themselves in a crippling situation. Broadcasters were unwilling to give them a forum and the vast majority of publishers were liberal. Free speech effectively suspended! That is, until the 'fairness doctrine' was abandoned during the deregulation of the Reagan administration.

When Rush Limbaugh exploded onto the airwaves in the late eighties, broadcasters all over the country realized that there was a huge market for conservative talkers. Today, there are enough conservative talkers in so many markets, that one can literally listen to conservative talk all day long, even while traveling. Additionally, the popularity of conservative talk has opened up many other opportunities for conservatives to get their message out.

Liberals are in a panic. They desperately need to stop all this unwanted free exchange of ideas. 'Political correctness' works well to suppress free speech in the microcosm of a university campus, but it can hardly be applied to the same extent to the whole of a free society. Liberal Democrats in Congress are currently trying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine', as well as using 'campaign finance' law to again suppress free speech.

Fortunately, I believe that that horse has been too long out of the barn. Conservative authors are turning out a great number of best selling books each year. Conservative bloggers are confounding the efforts of the left wing media to misrepresent the facts. Newspapers lose subscribers when they publish blatant left wing opinions. Fox News Channel is now the #1 cable news network, and it already has an arguably fair and balanced format. And, worst of all, at least as far as the left is concerned, conservative students have begun to organize to fight the PC system on our nations campuses.

The monopoly that the left has held over public discourse is diminishing, and they are understandably frustrated. They know, or ought to know from their experience trying to compete with conservatives on talk radio, that in a 'real' fair and balanced atmosphere, their ideas will not prevail. They have no choice but to return to their radical revolutionary roots. In fact, they have already begun. Conservative speakers have been attacked during their lectures by left wing radicals at universities across the U.S. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Pat Buchanan are a few of those who have been attacked with a pie in the face or doused with salad dressing.

It is the beginning of what will eventually become a campaign of domestic terror, the purpose of which is to intimidate Americans into allowing a return to the tyranny of the past. However, the movement at present is to small. The radicals need an issue, a catalyst which they can use to recruit thousands of young idealist across America. They may have just what they are looking for very soon. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President of the United States, the radicals will have the catalyst they are looking for. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they are counting on it.

Obama: The Socialist Connections

2008-07-08T14:31:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about old 1960s songs lately. Today's political climate seems to have a similar revolutionary feel to it. One song in particular seems to be playing over and over in my head, "For what it's worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

"There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."

There is most definitely something happening, and under the threat of being accused of 'McCarthyism', the mainstream media will not be spending much, if any, time clarifying exactly what it is. Under the cover afforded by the 'threat', Democrats are beginning to 'come out of the closet' and be more open about their true ideological connections. One of the most straightforward of these is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly admits to being a socialist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA is the largest socialist organization in America.

In the early 1990s House Democrats established the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). ‘Progressive’, as any student of political history should know, is a form of socialism, and the CPC certainly has socialist ties. Up until 1999, the DSA hosted a website for the CPC. Of the 72 members of the CPC, 58 are also members of the DSA.

Howard Dean, the Democrat National Committee chairman, was honored at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA in 2000. In 2006, Dean spoke on the Global Challenges for Progressive Politics before the Party of European Socialists (PES). Additionally, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported in 2007 that European Socialist had met with Democrat members of Congress in Washington. Some of these Democrats were Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Cardin. According to Rasmussen’s report, an agreement was made at this meeting that Democrats and PES activist groups in various US cities would begin to work together.

The man who would be President of these United States and the current standard bearer of the Democratic Party, Barack Hussein Obama has verifiable ties to socialists as well. Obama was influenced by socialist ideology from his childhood. Obama’s father, a Harvard-educated economics professor, wrote an academic paper in 1965 for the East Africa Journal entitled, Problems Facing Our Socialism. In it he expressed Marxist and anti-western ideals. In Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of my Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama wrote of the admiration he feels for the ideals of his father. He also mentions his boyhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a poet-activist who was also a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Obama admits to having attended the annual Socialist Scholars Conferences at The Cooper Union in Manhattan while he was a student at Columbia University in the 1980s.

Beginning in 1995, (at least that is the earliest confirmable connection between Obama and the DSA), the Chicago chapter of the DSA began grooming, sponsoring, and in 1996, endorsed Obama for the 13th Illinois Senate district. In addition to the DSA endorsement, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party (NP). The New Party is a Marxist ‘fusion’ group. The NP’s Chicago chapter includes a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of Maoist, Trotskyist, and the Communist Party USA members. Also, in 1996, Obama was a panelist at New Ground 45: A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity at the University of Chicago. These meetings were sponsored by the U of C DSA Youth Section and the Chicago DSA.

If Barack Obama’s connection to socialist organizations is insufficient to convince one that Obama is a socialist, there is the fact that he has socialists working for him inside his campaign. At his Houston HQ, a campaign worker displayed a Cuban flag with the image of radical icon and mass murderer Che Guevara printed on it. There are two socialists working on Obama’s staff. One is Cornel West, an african-american studies professor at Princeton University, who serves on the Obama presidential campaign’s black advisory council. West denounces America as racist and patriarchal and describes himself as a “progressive socialist”. The other is Cass Sunstein, a professor at University of Chicago’s Law School. In his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever, Sunstein argues that the government should grant rights to citizens on a discretionary basis.

And then there is William Ayers. In the early 1970s Ayers was a leader in the Marxist terror group ‘The Weather Underground’. Ayers, along with his current wife Bernadine Dohrn bombed the Pentagon, the Capital Building, and the NYPD HQ. In a New York Times interview which was published on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs,….I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked if he would do it again, Ayers said, “I don’t discount the possibility.”

In 1995 Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraising event in their home for Obama’s Illinois Senate run. Obama and Ayers have also worked together on various community organizing projects in Chicago. They have an ongoing relationship which David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, describes as “certainly friendly.”

While Barack Obama does not claim to be a socialist and his supporters are laboring diligently to deny that he is a socialist, it is difficult to believe that he has been ideologically unaffected by the groups and individuals that he has associated himself with. A man is known by the company he keeps.

The Myth of Bipartisanship

2008-07-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

I recently saw a poll online which showed that nearly ninety percent of Americans want the two major parties to work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems in America. I was really surprised by that number. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how widely divided the two major parties are ideologically. Probably the only issue in the past year that Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that Michael Vick is a really bad person for running a dog fighting ring and being party to the death of a few dogs.

Americans need to come to an understanding of the fact that for the last fifty years there has been an ideological civil war going on in this country. The battle ground of this war has been the hearts and minds of the American people. There is a 'right' and a 'left', a 'conservative' and a 'liberal', a 'capitalist' and a 'socialist' viewpoint for every single issue, and, they are as far apart as they can be. Bipartisanship can only maintain the status quo. It isn't as if the two parties are trying to get to the same place and are just in a disagreement on how to get there. They are trying to go in opposite directions.

Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. Republicans believe in an uninhibited free market economy and Democrats want more government control bordering on socialism. Republicans believe that Americans know better how to spend their own money and Democrats think that the government would do a better job. Republicans believe in supporting America's interests abroad and Democrats seem to be more interested in supporting the interests of our enemies.

Where is the common ground?In this election season there has been a lot of clamor about change. Americans want change and are sick and tired of the status quo. If Americans want change they need to join the fray. They must stop sitting on the fence. They are going to have to examine the ideologies of both parties and pick a side. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

It is time to choose!

Obama's Patriotism

2008-07-05T10:50:00.000-07:00

On Monday, June 30th, Barrack Obama gave a speech in Independence, Missouri. In this speech Obama said, "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign, and I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." This line has gotten a lot of media coverage. However there are other statments by Obama in this speech which should have gotten more.

There is this,

"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What Obama had quoted is actually the first few lines of paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence. The first few lines of the Declaration begins, "When in the course of human events it become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,..."

Again, from Obama's speech,

"As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted."

Excuse me! Our forth century as a nation? The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, which means that we have barely begun our third century, not our forth. Add this to the fact that Mr. Obama believes that we have 57 states in our union by virtue of the fact that he has visited them all, and one wonders how well he might do on the popular game show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader".

These gaffs do not add up to a question of his patriotism as much as his ignorance. Patriotism is a difficult concept to define comprehensively. Many people define it very differently. The best definition which I have heard comes from Samuel Clemens, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." I believe this definition is one to which our nations founders whould have subscribed.

Mr. Obama's political history as a socialist leads me to believe that his administration would be one which I could not support. It is on this basis that I question Mr. Obama's patriotism.