New Use For Gene Therapy

Scientists at the University of California San Diego and Harvard University determined that people who carry a variant of the DRD4 gene are more likely to be liberals as adults, depending on the number of friendships they had during high school. They published their study in a recent issue of The Journal of Politics.

It only goes to show what I've said all along: Liberals are genetically inferior. Liberalism IS a mental disorder!

Two types of treatment may be utilized as a cure. The more costly option is gene therapy, which would require years of testing and crippling government beauracracy, and the other is cranial-rectal extraction, which is relatively inexpenseive and, besides causing loss of liberal friendships, is generally free of side effects.

Hope and Change Unveiled

"Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top," President Barack Obama told an audience at the University of Wisconsin.. "Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"
He went on to tell the mass of students, "In every instance, progress took time, in every instance, progress took sacrifice. Progress took faith."
He then gave three examples of what he meant: "You know, the slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, they weren't sure when slavery would end, but they understood it was going to end.” [Never mind that it was Republican President Abe Lincoln who ended it!]
“When women were out there marching for the right to vote, they weren't sure when it was going to happen, but they kept on going. When workers were organizing for the right to organize and were being intimidated, they weren't sure when change was going to come, but they knew it was going to come." [Now we can’t pay the massive deficits that organized labor has caused.]

Of course, you may not have noticed that for those past accomplishments - the abolition of slavery, the establishment of women's suffrage and the recognition of organizing rights for laborers - people and government focused on very specific demands. Obama is promising “change” without providing any specificity; “Change for the sake of Change.” Perhaps that’s why he’s spending so much time pontificating to young and inexperienced college students who, generally speaking, after reading a chapter of the Communist Manifesto, spend whatever free time they have boozing and carousing.

For what, I must ask, does Obama clamor from behind the veil of “change?” Besides Socialized Medicine and government takeover of industry, perhaps the story of Johnathon Irish is a good example:

His new born child was snatched from he and his fiancé by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers, an organization that collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S. More specifically, Oath Keepers' members promise not to obey any order "to disarm the American people," conduct warrantless searches, "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" work to impose martial law, invade or subjugate any state, blockade American cities, put Americans in detention camps or "make war against our own people."

Does that sound bad, or worthy of alarm? It does to me, but only because it’s ridiculous that our own military and police would think they needed to make such a pledge in the first place!
It was the administration of “Hope and Change” that seems to have made this a quasi-crime. Remember the federal Homeland Security Department document of April 2009 entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment?” If you don’t, I’ll refresh your memory. It contains the following definition:

Also targeted in the report are veterans, folks anticipating additional restrictions to their Second Amendment rights, and those concerned about the loss of U.S. sovereignty. This report implies that one harboring these sorts of views is a racist as well as a potential terrorism suspect.

Johnathon Irish told World Net Daily (Oct. 8 2010) that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'" Officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Is this what Obama has in mind?
November is right around the corner. "Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top, Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"

Is It Really Wrong to Call Obama A Socialist?

From the time their children begin middle school, most parents come the conclusion that with whom their kids’ associate and their interests is a good indicator of what they’re own children are up to. As the saying goes, “Birds of a feather flock together.” But it isn’t just teenagers to whom this analogy is applicable; it’s pretty much apropos for everyone, and every institution.

Consider the two of the most recent rallies in Washington DC. Attendees picked up after themselves at one (the larger) rally, and left a pig sty behind them after the other:

1.) Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Tour featured Beck, Sarah Palin, Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King Jr.), and Marcus Luttrell, former U.S. Navy seal and recipient of the Navy Cross. The speakers came together with a very large crowd to discuss, guess what, restoring honor. Billed as a religious gathering, there was still plenty of politics injected into the speeches, all in support of Conservative ideals.
2.) The liberal “One Nation Working Together” which featured such speakers as Self-confessed Communist and former Obama appointee, Van Jones, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Socialist), NAACP President, Ben Jealous (Socialist), Mariam Wright Edelman (Socialist) and others (virtually all socialists). This crowd came together, or rather, was bussed in, to show support to Barack Obama’s agenda, and to promote Socialist change.

Not only has he appointed many Marxists to his administration (Ron Bloom, David Bonior, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browner, Heather Higginbottom, Samantha Power, Hilda Solis, and Van Jones), any and all rallies conducted in his honor or to support him are always full of the most rabidly Marxist individuals and groups who, by the way, do not represent a fringe element at such gatherings, but rather, make up the core of those in attendance. Is it any wonder that so many people believe Barack Obama to be a Socialist? Birds of a feather… Below are more pictures of the "One Nation" rally.

Hey, how about that Amnesty idea?

Get this!

“(Fox News Oct. 1, 2010)- A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence. The request was made at a recent San Diego conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers. Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border. But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.”

So let me get this right (forget for a moment that we deport these people at the expense of the American tax payer, and that to transport them to their home towns would cost us even more); in the last three years, of the 80,000 illegal immigrants that have been deported to just one border town, 35% of them have committed crimes in our country, and over 11% have committed violent crimes here in the United States? 7,000 rapists? 2,000 murderers!?

I suppose these are the “jobs” our liberal friends say we need illegal immigrants to do since none of us selfish, lazy Americans will. What… are they working for the Mafia? All of them are, of course, criminals since they entered the country illegally. But inquiring minds want to know more, such as:

1.) How many of these illegals were convicted of crimes in Mexico before coming up here?
2.) Are the numbers and percentages similar of illegals deported to other border towns?
3.) How many are guilty of crimes for which they weren’t caught or prosecuted?

So how can anyone, especially the politicians who are charged with protecting the citizens within our borders, consider providing legal status beyond our current methods which require background checks? The only common sense conclusion is that we need better border protection and we need to justly punish those who break our laws. Besides the economic implications, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will mean giving amnesty to the 35% who commit crimes. Over 11% of those to whom we give amnesty will be rapists and murderers.

Do you understand that Democrats? President Obama, are you so desperate for votes that you’re willing to put the well being of your citizens, and their very lives, at such risk? Doesn’t sound like the kind of change we need to me.