Smartuckus' Guide to the Republican Field

Barack Obama is going to lose in 2012, and not by a small margin. I’m thinking that with sustained unemployment of 9.2% or worse, not only will he lose, but by Reagan-like landslides. The question remains: Who is going to be the victor?

There are eight candidates still in the fight, and one, Sarah Palin, who has yet to make a decision. Those eight include Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

Of those eight I think that only three have a shot at winning the Republican nomination. Huntsman is not only too liberal, he’s a virtual unknown. Gingrich on the other hand is very well known; you either love him or hate him, but his checkered past will prevent his nomination. Likewise, Ron Paul is considerably well known, and while most of the conservatives agree with his economics, he has unveiled his naïve, if not downright crazy, foreign policy ideas. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are not quite so well known, and it shows. Of those still in the running, the three that stand out are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.

One thing I can say - and I believe I can speak for every conservative – is that we are tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party has not nominated the kind of leader most of us want, and that the country needs, since Ronald Reagan. George H. Bush inherited the nomination simply because he had been Reagan’s Vice President. Other Republican nominees did not have enough appeal to overcome Ross Perot’s third party candidacy, and as a result we got stuck with eight years of Bill Clinton who set the stage for the housing debacle of 2007. Finally, although George W. Bush was not the first choice of conservatives; it was either him or Al Gore, or John Kerry afterwards.

Given that the three most likely candidates to win the Republican nomination are Romney, Perry and Bachman, we need to consider who, if any, are candidates that we can fully support, and who are candidates that would be nothing more than a lesser of two evils.

Romney is the media-crowned favorite. We are told that he “looks presidential.” But what of his substance? To me, Romney is more of a career politician more likely to do what he needs to keep his job rather than to make a stand. He would compromise with liberals, seeking that middle ground that always results in more liberalism and more socialism. Proof of that can be found in his pushing for and signing into law, Massachusetts’ healthcare law which socialized medical care in that state. Since then costs have, predictably, skyrocketed, just as quality of care has been diminished as healthcare workers have either been laid off, or have moved to other states to practice medicine, and entire hospitals have been forced to close. Romney continues to claim that while socialized medicine is not right for the entire country, it was right for Massachusetts. Foolish pride doesn’t sound very presidential to me.

Perry has done a terrific job in Texas by keeping taxes low and not creating or signing endless (not to mention mindless) job-killing government mandates. But part of his apparent success is due to the effect other states’ mandates and tax policies have had on their own businesses. People and businesses have moved to Texas because of fiscally detrimental liberal leadership in other states, and not necessarily because of anything Perry has specifically done. Contrary to Conservative principle, Perry did sign an executive order in February of 2007 mandating that all girls receive a vaccination for HPV, a virus that causes cervical cancer, when they reach the sixth grade. There was an opt-out available for families who filled out a conscientious objector form, but that hardly ameliorated the outraged state legislature, which quickly and emphatically overrode the order. At the time, Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, the sole manufacturer of the vaccine. Is this another example of “politics as usual?” Forget for a moment that although the FDA had approved the vaccine, which is manufactured from cell linings from an aborted fetus; it was not thoroughly tested, and has resulted in deaths in the US and around the world. Contrary to the Washington political pundits, I don’t think Perry is going to siphon off support from Bachman. I think Romney supporters will gravitate to Perry, and that may very well be a good thing.

If Sarah Palin doesn’t get into the race, that leaves Michelle Bachman. I am hoping that Palin will simply endorse Bachman, especially since their views are virtually identical. Palin would certainly siphon supporters from Bachman, and given her unfair treatment by the liberal media, I believe Palin would have the most difficult time defeating the incumbent out of all the a-list candidates in the field. But should she surprise the Washington elites and simply throw her support to Bachman, Michelle could easily hang in there. She has shown remarkable ruggedness in staving off the typical sexist, misogynistic and dirty attacks of the Left, and even those from some Republicans. I think that under this scenario, and given enough time, Romney and Perry might wither under the spotlight instead of her. Both have been set up to fail, since both are considered seasoned candidates and “presidential looking.” One gaff and either could become as toxic as Howard Dean in 2004.

Of all those still in this race, Bachman is the most principled; a far cry from the career politicians everyone has grown so weary of. Watching her debate people from Anthony Wiener to Tim Pawlenty over the past 12 months while being unfairly criticized and slandered, yet coming out on top is a testament of her character. Should she win the nomination I think she’ll go on to mop the floor with Obama and replace Reagan as the standard bearer for the Republican Party.

Free Healthcare!

That's what CNN thinks Obamacare should bring us. (Click here for story).

The story's opening sentence set the tone: "Contraceptives, sterilization and reproductive education should be covered by health insurance plans with no cost to patients under the health reform law, a new report recommends."

Funny, I thought these wacky liberals wanted the government out of their bedrooms? I mean, if the government can rob Peter to pay for Paul’s vasectomy or Paula’s IUD, shouldn’t Peter have some say in what Paul and Paula should or shouldn’t be doing? Let me put it another way. My tax dollars go to subsidize school lunch programs. Do I want the schools to make bad nutritional choices or to be so overly-nutrionally-minded that the kids opt out of lunch altogether because lunch tastes terrible? Do I want food that my tax dollars paid for to be thrown away? These little school lunch scenarios aren’t made up; they happen all over the country. In some school districts kids were not allowed to bring their own lunches and snacks from home because the school officials didn’t think that they were good enough for the children. (In reality the school lunch programs were subsidized by the tax payers and the schools made tons of money for their teachers unions... but that's a different story).

Applying the same sort of scenarios to contraception, sterilization and reproductive education I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to ask that if the government is going to provide these services “free” to the consumer, then how long will it be before men and women are forced to use a particular product (as we’ve seen with our new light bulbs), or to be sterilized to save the planet from over-population and global warmin? Given that liberals work according to the process of incrementalization, isn’t this just one more step toward that and tax-payer funded abortions? And how much more will the tax payer have to fork over to cover the costs of these services for illegal aliens, just as they do with school lunch programs? Either most people are mistaken about those wacky liberals, or the “stay out of my bedroom/I have a constitutional right to privacy” mantra isn’t really about privacy and personal choice at all; it’s about people engaging in every vice they choose and keeping the consequences private while getting everyone else to pay for their bad decisions; you know, Socialism.

In a tone that can only be called cheerleading, CNN tells its audience that the Institute of Medicine has made these recommendations to the secretary of Health and Human Services. "Historic" is the way HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described the report, adding that "we will release the Department's recommendations of what additional preventive services for women should be covered without cost sharing very soon."

Sebelius, not us tax payers, gets to decide what we are going to cover because by passing “Obamacare,” the Democrats have given her that authority. Under Obamacare, health care has been nationalized. Among the roughly 700 references in the law to "the Secretary shall" is one mandating that the secretary shall decide which health care plans are acceptable in America and which are not. If a plan does not comply with HHS mandates, companies and individuals who purchase their products will have to pay a fine. In other words, under Obamacare, the secretary of HHS decides who gets covered for what.

The secretary is now considering whether all health plans in America will have to cover birth control, annual HIV tests, well-woman care visits, annual counseling on sexually transmitted diseases, breastfeeding support and counseling including rental of breast pumps, and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic abuse. These services should be covered "without any co-pays or deductibles," the report by the Institute of Medicine urges. In other words, these products and services should be "free" for all women, not just for the poor, and without regard to the moral code of the individual tax payer.

I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, and chances are neither did you. Any time the government uses the word “free” you just know it’s going to end up costing many times more than it used to. As the great P.J. O'Rourke put it many years ago, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it's free."

Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty Just In Time for Dexter, Season Six Premiere!

One has to assume at the moment that the Jury found Casey Anthony - the despicable Florida woman who murdered her almost three year old daughter and then implicated her father in trying to cover up the “accidental” death (not to mention sexual molestation) – innocent due to lack of evidence. At the same time most of the country finds the jury guilty due to lack of intelligence. This is not the only case that screams for the creation of professional juries.

Did the jury come from the same pool of village idiots that acquitted O.J. Simpson sixteen years ago? Simpson, formerly number 32, is now known as inmate #1027820 at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada, not for the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman mind you, but for robbery and other felony charges he committed in 2007. His extended stay there is obviously the result of a better jury; one not easily enchanted by common defense attorney charades.

Unfortunately, Simpson is in Nevada and behind bars. Fans of Showtime’s Dexter know that it would be a little too difficult for Dexter Morgan to pull that one off. But Casey Anthony lives in Florida, Dexter Morgan’s own playground, and will soon be out of jail and protective custody.

A lot has changed in this country from the days where people would say, “This looks like a job for Superman!” Today’s verdict has a lot of people saying, “This looks like a job for Dexter Morgan!”

When Up Is Down And Down Is Up

The world is a very different place from what it was when I was a kid. Back then “up” was up and “down” was down. My parents helped make sure that I knew right from wrong, and even though I didn’t always practice what they preached, I always knew when I was doing something wrong and felt worse for doing so. Guilt was a powerful consequence. Not so today. The liberal mindset is turning everything upside down. It seems liberals no longer even understand the concept of morality. For them what is moral is simply what is legal, and vice versa. That is why liberals put such emphasis on things like gay marriage being made legal: if something that has traditionally been considered immoral is made legal, guilt stops being a consequence.

For conservatives there is a clear difference between the law and morality, and it is understood that morality will almost always be the higher standard for which we are required to strive. However, our laws are generally a reflection of our moral values. Historically speaking, when a society adopts laws in opposition to moral values it is a society on the brink of extinction. We are told by our liberal friends that we can’t legislate morality, yet they are always working hard to legislate immorality.

How much longer do we have now that our government openly admits that it believes that it is wrong not to plunder from the earner in order to redistribute his money to the ever-growing dependent unwashed masses? (Click here for story)

Or to focus government time and money on turning the moral order upside down? (click for story)

Recently there have been all kinds of news stories written regarding the estimated 163 million abortions performed in China and India since 1970 for the purpose of gender selection. In this story (click here) the idiocy of liberalism is fully exposed and yet most readers won’t see it. Liberal dumb-dumb Eleanor Clift champions the so-called “right” to choose… to murder the unborn, but sees the resulting choice of gender selection as the real evil because girls and women aren’t empowered by it or something. What kind of tortured logic is that? The same kind that would tell us we are immoral for not allowing the government to steal from us: Up is down; down is up!

The Helen Kellerization of the History of the Catholic Church.

Almost every student in the last 60 or more years has read about Helen Keller via some history textbook vignette that tells us about how Helen Keller overcame total deafness and blindness to become a fully functional citizen. She learned, with the help of Anne Sullivan, to read raised letters and even to speak. American education regarding Keller has been aided by several different Hollywood productions all named The Miracle Worker. But that’s about the extent of it. Most do not know that Keller went on to graduate from Radcliff College near Cambridge, Massachusetts. What almost no one is ever taught is that Keller was a radical socialist. She joined the socialist party in 1909 and was involved in almost every radically leftist cause of her time. She was even a co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which, unlike its name suggests, is still constantly aiding socialists and their causes today.

Most people in the United States understand that socialism deprives men and women of their God-given freedoms and their justly-earned compensations – profit and property – which is exactly why Helen Keller’s radical socialism is not included in those textbook vignettes and Hollywood movies based on her life. Historical revisionism has made Keller a hero far beyond her due, but if the truth of her adult life and her villainous associations became common knowledge, it would skewer her reputation in the realm of public opinion.

This “Kellerization” is rampant today in all forms of history, especially political and religious. The Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) liberalized the Catholic Church to such a degree that it no longer resembles the ancient religion from which it sprang. Today it has more in common, in many ways at least, with charismatic Protestant denominations than it does with its Apostolic origins. The liturgical abuses of the Novus Ordo Missae that have been carried out by the consiliar church’s “presbyters” over the course of the last 50 years are so common and so extreme that one can only come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo Missae is itself a liturgical abuse.

It isn’t just the Mass that was replaced either. Add to that the “evolution” of Catholic teaching, whether that be dogma or doctrine based upon dogma, and discipline – and please note that this so-called “evolution” is nothing more than a "complete rejection." There is an old saying, summarized in Latin, “Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi,” or, “we believe as we pray.” Catholics don’t pray like they used to, and they certainly don’t believe what they used to either. Many "catholics," like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and most of the clergy are nothing but dyed-in-the-wool socialists. Catholic Social Justice is nothing more than code for Marxism. The United States Bishops (sic) have turned the word "charity" upside down, whereby they tell us it is our duty to allow the government to legally plunder our earnings so that they might be spent to feed and clothe the needy. They can't possibly be ignorant enough to think that this is what happens! These dollars aren't spent on the needy, unless by "needy" they mean "unions and Democrat Party campaign contributions."

The changes of Vatican II, from replacing the Mass to rejecting nearly 2000 years of dogma and discipline, are the main reasons that the number of Catholics has diminished substantially. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has become "any religion is as good as another while on our way to Communism." Not only is Catholic membership way down, there are far fewer priests (or presbyters as some would call them), and the numbers of religious (nuns and monks) has dwindled almost to zero. Of those who still claim to be Catholic, only 22% say they attend Mass – or rather, its replacement - regularly. The changes are also the reason that the Church is infected with sexual deviants and perverts of the worst kind. That’s not to suggest that sexual deviancy and criminal behavior never occurred before Vatican II, but it was in fact extremely rare by comparison until the 1960’s, and when such abuses did take place, the Catholic hierarchy were quick to punish the offender and remove him from ministry. During the middle Ages for example, this sort of behavior by priests was considered so egregious that the offending priest was ceremoniously defrocked as each of those participating would remove a single priestly vestment and slap one side of the offender’s face. The priest then had the tendons in his hands sliced clean through to prevent the thumb and fore finger from ever closing, thereby depriving him of his ability to hold the sacred species (only the thumb and fore finger were consecrated to touch the host). Once the ceremony was complete, the offender was turned over to the state for punishment; usually execution, or in some cases, life imprisonment. Too bad we don’t handle these perverts in the same manner today.

Homosexuals, who according to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Study make up the vast majority of criminal deviants in the modern priesthood, were forbidden to become priests prior to the Council. And even though the ban against homosexuals in the priesthood was reiterated by Pope John XXIII in 1961, very few bishops enforced it once that council had liberalized the Church. In 2000, the liberals went bonkers when some started speculating that the ban was going to be re-introduced.

And yet, with overwhelming evidence that clearly illustrates the root problem – Vatican II and its modernist, even socialist theology, the Kellerization of the facts continues. So bad is people’s understanding of that reprobate council and its effects that many think of Vatican II and the post-consiliar popes as conservative! Karol Wojtyla, former Soviet mole and Bishop of Krakow was elected pope (John Paul II), reigned over the church longer than any previous pope, and did absolutely nothing to protect child victims of his criminal subordinates. He spent most of his time apologizing for the Church’s heroic deeds, such as the Crusades, all so as not to offend Muslims and others who have different religious beliefs, and involving himself in syncretic (not to mention condemned) prayer gatherings. And yet he has been placed on the “fast track” for canonization, in violation of the church’s prudential rules governing canonizations. Indeed, the mob is clamoring for even more liberalization! (Click here)

Helen Keller overcame one form of blindness and deafness, but remained blind, deaf, and dumb, in a manner of speaking, for the rest of her life. Those who champion the liberalization of the church, despite the facts, are just as stupid.

Semper FABULOUS!

This last June 5th, 2011 story by David Alexander should be a wakeup call to the nation. I don’t have the Marine sergeant’s name, but the question he asked is pure dynamite:

"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.

"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.

"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."

I know that Gates was shaking in his boots, and probably still is. This is exactly what he fears will happen. He knows it’s going to happen. In fact, the proof that he knows it’s just a matter of time is the rest of his canned response. Given that Gates was prepared to answer the question the way he did tells me that those at the top are indeed worried about a possible mass exodus of the many opposed to the Obama Administration’s social engineering in the military. And I am disgusted that someone like him would stoop to falsely equating beliefs and opinions to immoral behavior. This is just as disingenuous as equating “gay rights” with civil rights for blacks:

"The reality is that you don't all agree with each other on your politics, you don't agree with each other on your religion, you don't agree with each other on a lot of things," he added. "But you still serve together. And you work together. And you look out for each other. And that's all that matters."

Well, maybe that is all that matters to the brass and to the current administration, but it is not what matters to those serving and those who might otherwise have chosen to serve in the years to come. Politics and religion are matters of belief and opinion. The homosexual lifestyle is a behavior or set of behaviors, which most of those serving in the military find reprehensible, immoral and incompatible with the moral code of conduct they strive to put into practice, and which is spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not to mention the honor codes of all of our military service academies. “I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” The homosexual lifestyle is a lie because it cannot live up to the truth of the biological (and primary) purpose of the sex act; procreation. To expect military personnel (who are not mentally disordered) to tolerate this unnatural behavior is to ask them to lie and lower their own standards, not to mention those of the military.

Gates said training was underway to prepare the services for the new policy.
"If we do this right, nothing will change," he said. "You will still have to abide by the same rules of behavior, the same discipline, the same respect for each other that has been the case through all the history of the Marine Corps."

Bull shit! Everything will change! The same rules of behavior will not exist, they will simply be “revised” out of the UCMJ! The affect of this nonsense will be shattered troop morale and discipline. Gates knows it; they all do. They just don’t want to admit it publicly. The next question is: when are we going to have to start drafting our military?

Never Trust A Fart

It was recently suggested to me that my criticisms of Obama and his administration are unfair; the result of narrow minded and skewed conservative propaganda, namely Fox News and Rush Limbaugh – you know, the typical baseless liberal drivel.
I try to deal in the facts, no matter the source. My friends might be surprised to learn that I do get information from several liberal sources, specifically the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, several Democrat Party web sites, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Laurence O’Donnell, Ed Shultz and a number of other ones. That I disagree with nearly all of them does not mean I do not read what they have to say, and, in a few instances, actually agree with them. For example, Bill Maher, perhaps the most despicable of them all, expects the Catholic Church to hold predator priests accountable for their crimes. I know that he is a rabid anti-religionist, but I have to agree with him on this, because justice is a necessary, meaningful objective no matter what you believe.

A liberal friend of mine made mention of a list of Obama’s accomplishments on the Internet – as if such a list would exonerate him from the state of our union today. I suppose the existence of the list is well known to liberals, but it is obvious that the contents of the list are not, or else my liberal friend would not be so quick to point it out to me. The list, which I link to below, perfectly illustrates the fallacy of liberalism whereby their standards are purely symbolic and completely free of substance. To many liberals, it isn’t necessarily what someone thinks that matters, but only that he or she is thinking, unless of course it’s a conservative doing the thinking. Notice that the author of this list, Professor(!?) Robert P. Watson has a Ph.D. and is the Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University in Boca Raton Florida. (Mental note to self; don't send your kids there). I looked for other lists that people might have created, but the Watson list is by far the most popular, having been published on numerous websites. I found the first copy posted on The Daily Kos – if you click the link you can see for yourself.

Bear in mind, as you read each item, that Watson describes his list as “impressive.” Asks yourself these questions:

1.) “Is this a substantive, measurable accomplishment?”
2.) “Is it actually true?”
3.) “Is this ‘accomplishment’ good for the country? Is it sound domestic or foreign policy?”

I found, to the point of laughing out loud, that the majority of the list did not include actual accomplishments. If I “announced plans” to clean the kitchen but didn’t really clean it, would my wife accept my announcement as an accomplishment? How long could I keep my job if I “intended” to make it to work, but didn’t? Is “hiring the first Latina in my department” something I can add to my résumé?

Other items on the list may be measureable, but either a specific item was accomplished by others, or the accomplishment was bad for the country, as in the case of the stimulus bill and “Obamacare.” In fact, I can’t think of a single item on the list that I would call a bona fide accomplishment. It’s true that the list is old, but I have to ask, “Has Obama done anything good for the country since he took office?” The cost of living is up, and is going to go way higher as higher fuel prices and out of control inflation – due entirely to his detrimental energy and economic policies – kick in. The true measure of his “accomplishments” is just now being realized at home and abroad. Unemployment is higher than when he took over, despite what he promised when ramming his stimulus down our throats. The deficit is ridiculously higher because of his administration and the Democrats in Congress. The amount he will add to the national debt by the end of his first (and hopefully, only) term will be more than all other presidents combined! He aligns himself on the wrong side every time, from the "Beer Summit" to the ransoming of children's education in the latest union bruhaha. Smear tactics by those merchants of hate in the liberal press go unchallenged while conservative rhetoric is sacrificed on his altar of free liberal speech.

Respect for this country abroad is in the toilet because of him. Great Britain, Israel, and to some extent, Pakistan, once our staunchest allies, now keep us at arm’s length at best, and openly criticize us at worst, and our traditional enemies are still our enemies, only now they are growing stronger while we are growing weaker both economically and militarily. China, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran are emboldened by his weak leadership. Support for and control by the Muslim Brotherhood is expanding in Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and virtually throughout the entire Islamic world.

Where is that once vaunted “Hope and Change?”

Obviously the liberals will continue to blame George Bush, but doing so is dishonest, proven by four years of Democrat congressional control and super majorities in both houses of Congress and Obama’s own reign of over 2 years. Besides, shouldn’t Obama have the decency to accept responsibility given that, on June 3rd, 2008, accepting the nomination of his party, Obama’s infinite hubris led him to say:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.”

Lofty promises; none of which have been obtained. Rather than slowing the rise of the oceans, Obama has us sinking to the bottom under the cinder-block-weight of our massive debt. Who will they blame in another two years? And if, God willing, Obama is defeated in 2012, will his Republican successor get the same mileage out of blaming Obama? Doubtful, given the intellectual dishonesty of people in the media and academia like “Professor” Robert Watson, and the mindless liberal masses – devoid of critical thinking skills – who accept the notion that Obama can add a bullet point to his list of accomplishments every time he farts – or intends to.

American ills not caused by unions

I haven’t written in a while because so much has been going on in my own life and especially, in the world, I just couldn’t figure out what would make more sense to write about. I sat down several times to write about the Tucson AZ shootings and the outrageous accusations made by liberals, especially in the press, attempting to link the murderous actions of that lunatic Loughner to conservative political speech, all while excusing by way of omission the hate speech and lies offered up minute-by-minute by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth liberals. But I didn’t need to – conservatives have done a spectacular job of derailing this worse than usual liberal smear job, especially Michelle Malkin. I recommend that everyone visit her website, http://www.blogger.com/www.michellemalkin.com.

A couple of days ago something caught my eye which hasn’t received a lot of media attention so I thought I’d throw in my two cents worth on this one. It’s an article written for the Detroit News by James P. Hoffa, son of Teamsters Union heavy man Jimmy Hoffa, titled “American Ills Not Caused by Unions.”

I take exception immediately to just the title. I often find myself wondering about liberals/socialists/modernists: “Is this one of the stupid or gullible ones, or is this one of the clever mendacious types?” There are no in betweens; liberals are either ignorant or they are liars, or both.
His title is a ploy, a sophism, typically employed by liberals, whereby a statement is made to defend a non-existent accusation, thereby making it seem as though his adversaries are treating him or his cause unfairly. This is precisely why the stupid liberal thinks that good conservatives are a fringe group of extremists. Has anyone ever said that unions are responsible for America’s ills? Not to my knowledge. I would posit that the modern day union is partly responsible for some of America’s ills, but that for the most part unions are a symptom of a far greater ill. And I think Hoffa knows this; he knows that that is the real criticism. His article begins:

“The 19th-century robber baron Jay Gould once said, ‘I can hire half the working class to shoot the other half.’ Gould's vision of class warfare is being played out today in the shameful attacks on public employees.”

“What shameful attacks?” you might ask. I was just as curious, so I kept reading:

“These attacks are secretly financed and planned by modern-day Jay Goulds who aim to keep their own taxes low.”

So, people who want to be able to keep what they earn are “attacking” the poor unions by demanding they be allowed to keep their own money? That’s like saying that the evil homeowner viciously attacked the poor homeless thief who broke in to eat and help himself to the contents of the homeowner’s safe. Don’t believe me?

“Some vastly powerful corporations and billionaires want to cripple all unions and turn America into a low-wage banana republic.”

Hoffa, true to his name, paints the modern day union as the saving grace of the downtrodden worker, and anyone or any entity that disagrees is “powerful” and “eeeevillll!” Anyone who knows anything about unions these days can tell you that the public unions deprive taxpayers and under-perform. How many hundreds of billions of dollars of state deficits are out there purely because of the ridiculous sweetheart deals made between liberal Democrat state legislators and governors (like Jerry Brown of California) and public unions? Talk about Robber Barons! How about those (unfunded) pension plans offered to automotive workers, teachers, miners, etc., etc. There is no money to pay for them! So now it falls to the taxpayers, some of whom hadn’t been born when these slimy backroom deals were made? Say again? That’s fair? Hoffa goes on:

“They're succeeding. Across the country, new governors and new legislatures are demanding cuts to jobs, pensions and concessions from public employee unions. Their demands are nothing more than payback for the billions of dollars that the ultra-rich have poured into political campaigns.”

You mean ultra-rich like George Soros, David Gelbaum, Herbert and Marion Sandler, Ted Turner, and Tim Gill, who heap millions upon millions onto the Democrat machine that built up these unions in the first place? Here is another liberal canard – 'the rich only contribute to conservatives.' Funny how the aforementioned multi-millionaires and billionaires never appear on the members lists of the country club of evil rich folk.

“Scapegoating public employees has almost become a sport. In New York City, a city councilman accused sanitation workers of a deliberate slowdown in removing snow during the Christmas blizzard. It turned out that slow snow removal was actually caused by the layoffs of 400 workers and the failure to call a snow emergency quickly enough.”

Gee whiz! What caused the layoffs of 400 workers? It wouldn’t have anything to do with New York City’s debt crisis, would it? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the union’s failure to accept renegotiated contracts to help save those 400 jobs….would it? And by the way, in that now famous video of the union employee who carelessly tried to free a snow plow despite repeatedly smashing into an SUV… did he do that because 400 workers got laid off too? How come 400 employees were laid off, but he didn’t get fired for that? Oh yeah – he’s in a union that protects bad employees.

“In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich wants to ban collective bargaining for public employee unions and get rid of the prevailing wage.”

As well he should! These people are paid by the taxpayers who do not get to directly supervise them. That’s why the quality of work by unions usually sucks!

“In Wisconsin, Scott Walker suggests banishing unions for government workers. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he won cooperation from unions because he threatened "to take a bat out and hit you."

What’s wrong with either of these!!!???

“Christie's threat isn't funny to anyone who remembers the Memphis sanitation strike in 1968. All the workers wanted was to earn above-starvation wages and to be respected as human beings. Peaceful workers were gassed, dragged, arrested and threatened by armed National Guardsmen in tanks.”

Another sophism - that people didn’t respect the sanitation workers as human beings. These peaceful workers shut down sanitation work which affected the entire city – poor included. The bottom line, as with any employee anywhere, is that they don’t need the power of collective bargaining since they already possess the power of individual bargaining; if you don’t like your job or your pay you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

“Only after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed while in Memphis supporting the struggle did city officials come to their senses and recognize Local 1733 of AFSCME as the bargaining representative for the sanitation workers. Just think where those workers would be today without a union.”

Hoffa is just full of sophisms! He makes it sound as if King Jr. was assassinated because he supported the strikers! Nowhere has it ever been suggested that this was the case. By trying to connect the two, Hoffa is engaging in the worst sort of opportunism. Rather than being the savior of poor workers, unions stifle and constrain the natural human ambitions and individualism that allow us to rise above the economic and cultural status in which we are born. I can imagine where those sanitation workers might be today – they might have decided to work elsewhere for better pay; they might have pursued better educations and earned degrees with substantial bargaining power.

“It's time for a reality check. Government employees did not blow a hole in any state budget, including Michigan. Economist Dean Baker points out that shortfalls were almost entirely caused by the recession. ‘If revenue had increased in step with normal growth (2.4 percent real growth, plus inflation), state and local governments would have had an additional $290 billion since the start of the downturn,’ Baker notes.”

Another fallacious argument. Notice how Hoffa shifts focus from all unions to simple government employees. No one denies the recession deeply affected state budgets. The real problem is why the recession affected state budgets so deeply. Furthermore the rise in the numbers of government employees increased dramatically since the recession. Since Barack Obama took office there has been an increase of over 200, 000 government employees and that number is bound to go up to facilitate new legislation such as “Obamacare.” The real issue here is that our government, at the federal, state and municipal levels is spending too much money on entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare and other welfare programs account for over half of the yearly federal budget. Medicaid is crippling the states. Now throw in lifelong pension plans for union employees and not only are states out of money, they are in a major debt crisis. State budgets need to be recession-proofed, and one way to do this is to cancel all the sweetheart deals created between unions and their corrupt and complicit partners within the Democrat political machine. One last bit of B.S.:

“It's also important to remember, as economist Robert Reich points out, that the typical public employee's pension is only $19,000 a year.”

Robert Reich is one of those “economists” who provides anecdotal evidence to people like Hoffa so that these sophisms can be created in the first place. Notice that lifelong healthcare, at taxpayer expense, for these employees is purposefully not mentioned. The “typical” public employee pension is an average of all the pensions. So those who retired 30 years ago or longer when a pension of $17,000.00 a year with lifelong healthcare was considered decent are included. Hoffa fails to mention what the average will be in say, oh, 10 years.

It isn’t just that unions are bad by the way. It’s the tactics they use. Just today it has been reported that a teacher’s union in Wisconsin has resorted to some outrageous methods in a collective bargaining disagreement there. Click the link to watch some video – but the fact is some teachers are pulling students out of class to have them join a protest against the governor. This is being done without the consent or knowledge of the kids’ parents, and as the video shows, the kids don’t even know for what they are protesting! Looks a lot like the majority of Obama 2008 supporters to me. No, America's ills may not be caused by unions; they are caused by socialists like Hoffa who turn the natural social order upside down in order to acquire peer recognition, wealth and power.

The Dangers of Our Growing National Debt.

If someone had said, two years ago, that there would be riots in the streets of London and Athens as a result of their respective Euro-Socialist governments, he would have been labeled as an extremist, a kook, a crank and/or a fear-mongerer by those on the left. And how about now?
The national debt of the United States has now surpassed 14 trillion dollars, and the fiscal debate is about to get very ugly. Liberals want to raise the debt ceiling in order to continue their out of control spending, and conservatives want to cut spending programs to reign in and pay down the debt.
Funny; that liberals assume they are more educated than their conservative counterparts, yet they just aren’t smart enough to see the impending disaster looming just over the horizon. We’ve seen this pattern before: how many times were the liberals warned that the housing market bubble, inflated by bad loans and interest rate gimmicks, was going to burst in a manner reminiscent of the Hindenburg, resulting in a similar catastrophe on our economy?
Get ready for the Hindenburg Part Two! Our growing, massive debt is already problematic, but the consequences of letting it grow larger will be cataclysmic. Just look at all the European Socialist countries whose government run programs have had very dire circumstances: Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Great Britain. These countries are implementing “austerity” programs to contend with their economic woes, and who is suffering the consequences? The people, of course: the very people who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of their governments’ largess. In several cases these nations have paid off their huge debts by borrowing money from other countries, going deeper into debt. Thus their financial problems have only been placed on hold. Sooner or later, someone’s going to have to pay the piper!
These nations are puny compared to the United States, and don’t generate nearly the GDP we do. But knowing that, should we feel secure? You know the old adage: The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Consider the fact that our national debt dwarfs all others. Consider too that our states and municipalities are carrying their own massive debts and will be forced to look to the federal government, a government with no money, for bailouts. The only solution will be for the feds to print more money, causing massive inflation. The value of the dollar will shrink. And this is why our economy is so precariously moored.
China, our main creditor, not to mention our primary adversary, is already pushing the international community to drop the dollar as the monetary unit of international currency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/asia/24china.html This is the lightning strike that will bring our economic Hindenburg crashing down in flames. Indeed, measures are already underway to accomplish this very thing! http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2011-01/05/c_13677915.htm
In the U.S., we pay far less for gasoline than other nations because we don’t have to pay international exchange rates to purchase oil. Ever wonder why gas prices are double in Great Britain than they are here, or why gas is nearly $10.00 per gallon in other countries? In part the answer is exchange rates. If, as China hopes, the dollar will be replaced by the yuan, our per gallon price for gasoline will increase drastically – perhaps even double! This in turn will ripple throughout our entire economy. Everything will cost much more: bread, eggs, grains, meat – everything that is transported by petroleum-powered vehicles! Energy prices will also skyrocket as a result. Airline tickets?: How about double what we pay today?
In the end, our socialist-like programs, the ones our governments have foisted upon the back of the tax payer, are going to ruin, not just the poor for whom they were ostensibly implemented, but everyone.

The Changing Nature of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Prior to the presidency of Bill Clinton sodomy was a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), rightly described as conduct unbecoming of any member of the armed services, and punishable by dishonorable discharge.

When “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was passed in 1993, it was hailed by liberals and homosexuals as an end to discrimination against gays. However, there were restrictions: gay soldiers were not allowed to serve openly. Conservatives knew then that the policy was only just a first step toward the decriminalization of homosexual activity under the UCMJ, a classic example of the incremental approach toward the furthering of the liberal agenda, and that eventually, if liberals continued to have their way, all restrictions against gays serving in the military would be eliminated.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will no longer apply to gays, but will by default apply to all those who disagree with gays serving in the military. For those service men and women with properly formed consciences, vocalizing any opinion against gays serving in the military will mean the effective end of their careers.

When women were allowed to begin serving in combat units and aboard naval surface combatants the military spent a lot of time and money indoctrinating soldiers, sailors and marines all about the evils of sexual harassment, which resulted in many false accusations and unfair treatment of active duty personnel. I know because I witnessed such treatment first hand. The same treatment undoubtedly awaits straight service men and women who would vocalize opposition to gays serving in the military. They are the ones who will be discriminated against. Promotions will not be granted to those who don’t go along with the policy.

Mark my words: The military is going to shrink over the next decade or two due to lack of recruitment at a time that we can ill afford it. How many officers and key military leaders will resign remains to be seen, but there is going to be a huge leadership vacuum that will be filled only by those who are willing to lower their own moral standards – in other words, those who are unfit to lead. With so many global threats, present and future, this was the worst time to engage in this silly social engineering within our military. Barack Obama and his administration pushed this legislation to score cheap political points among gays because he’s concerned about losing their votes in 2012. Small wonder that he waited for the lame duck session to push this through, knowing that a conservative House majority would have put a stop to it. There are Republicans to blame too; Olympia Snow and Scott Brown among them.

In ten or twenty years I hope people will remember that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was the effective end of our all voluntary military. By allowing gays to serve openly the recruitment of those with moral stands will fall drastically, and without the draft we will lack the manpower to defend this nation and its interests. Until then I guess those who remain can have a gay ol’ time.

Coming Soon - The Marlboro Baby?

The United States Government has decided that roles such as the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel must now be portrayed by various sick or dead people, and that cigarette manufacturers must display the new leading men, women, and cadavers on each and every package of cigarettes. To audition, the dying or deceased must have smoking related illnesses or must have died from them. According to Federal health officials it is hoped that the new packages will shock people into quitting the habit or not starting in the first place. You can read about it here:

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm

Oh the hypocrisy! Can you figure out where I am going to go with this one?

Several attempts have been made to require abortionists to provide information to those seeking abortions so that they are allowed to make a fully informed choice. Such information should, pro-life advocates assert, contain ultrasound images of the soon-to-be-aborted, and graphic images of aborted fetuses so that women will know that what they are about to destroy isn’t just a mass of cells as is commonly, not to mention falsely, claimed by abortion workers and supporters. In other words, pro-life advocates want women to make an informed choice. But as is usually the case with liberal causes, informed consent doesn't sit well with liberals and their favorite Marxist politicians. Graphic images of the aborted are deemed by them to be “extreme,” "fanatical," “cruel,” or just plain “disgusting.” The real reason is of course that if most women, especially young women, actually knew what they were about to do, they might just decide to choose life for their unborn children, and that wouldn’t sit too well with the abortion mills and their fanatic partners at NOW and NARAL.

Maybe what smokers need is a Joe (Camel) vs. Wade type of battle. They could argue things like, “It’s my body and I can do whatever I like with it.” Perhaps we need to designate a 100 foot area surrounding every tobacco shop so that the anti-(smoker's) choice groups will have to wave their signs from a safe distance. Matt Lauer can interview executives from R.J. Reynolds so that they can describe how they are harassed and live in fear. Phil Donahue can invite a smoker to smoke a cigarette on live T.V., and describe how it feels to do so from behind a curtain.

Yes, I know it’s absurd. But when you think about it, isn’t the double standard just as absurd? And if we don’t stand up for ourselves who knows? Perhaps they’ll soon be banning Happy Meals!

What next? NO COMPROMISE!

Many pundits are throwing in their two cents on what direction the Republican Party should take now that they have won mega wins in the House, state legislatures and gubernatorial seats across the nation, as well as depriving the Democrat party of a super majority in the Senate. Most of them, from liberal commentators to moderate Republicans opine that the two adversarial groups should meet somewhere in the middle. I for one do not agree.
Let me point out that the words “liberal commentators” means insanely fringe leftwing pundits, or just plain Marxists, and “moderate Republican” means Liberal. There is no such thing as a moderate. Moderates may actually be worse than either because they lack a fundamental moral foundation. They wait to see which way the wind is blowing before choosing sides, thus ensuring their own survival over our nation’s. These were the Joe Sestak’s, Blanche Lincoln’s, and Arlen Spector’s of the political landscape and we should be thanking our stars that they have been removed from it.

The Conservatives must press their advantage and make the most of this historic opportunity. Today’s Conservative Politician has many advantages over his predecessor of the Gingrich era, namely that mainstream news can no longer deceive so many. The once formidable print media, slanted almost exclusively to the far left, has been outflanked by conservative web sites and blogs. The ABC–CBS-NBC-CNN union of misinformation has been virtually destroyed by coverage at Fox News. I would include MSNBC, but their lineup of insane pundits like Olberrman, Maddow, Schultz and company has eliminated any and all credibility and made it the laughing stock de jure of networks. Liberals no longer have a monopoly on information. They do not get to decide on which stories to report and which to discard with the sole intention of misinforming the public to elicit a specific result or opinion. What’s more, web sites like You Tube have exposed the disingenuousness of the Liberal politician and have shown the American people that there are many who stand in solidarity against the corrupt-o-crats intent on transforming our country into yet another Marxist regime.

Liberalism is not something with which we may compromise. When we do so we allow Liberals to advance their agenda in incremental baby steps; we need to reverse course, not slow it down temporarily. A case in point would be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This policy allowed gays to serve in the military. It was a step toward allowing them to serve openly and not, as is commonly reported these days, a step designed to prevent them from serving. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) was very clear on barring gays long before DADT. Another example would include “Hilary Care,” the attempt by the Democrats to foist socialized medicine upon the country in the 1990’s. Now we have Obamacare which is sure to put the private health insurance industry out of business in just a few more short years unless repealed.

Uncompromising conservatives are what Liberals fear the most. They know we can win if we but try. So the question is, what exactly should Republicans do? There should be no compromise. Compromise to us is a loss. If we want to win we must do everything in our power to stamp liberalism from our policies and liberals from government. Here are some recommendations:

1) Repeal Obamacare. There is no wiggle room here. It’s a bad piece of legislation that needs to be thrown to the ash heap.
2) Properly redistrict the voting precincts around the nation. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts that the Democrat party loves so much so that we can remove their ability to create safe and unfair districts for their party.
3) Cut spending. Across the board spending cuts need to be made. All entitlement programs should be eliminated, or phased out over time. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and too many welfare programs to mention. The role of the government is to secure our nation within and without, not to take care of people. That is the role of the people.
4) Lower taxes and reduce government bureaucracy. People are entitled to what they earn – nothing more and nothing less. Legal theft of a person’s money and goods, for any purpose whatsoever, is immoral and un-American.
5) Require voter identification for all Federal elections. We know that the Democrat Party does not like the idea specifically because it will remove or severely restrict the ability for people vote fraudulently. If it weren’t for rampant voter fraud by liberals, the 2000 election would not have come under scrutiny, Al Franken would not be a Minnesota Senator, and as of November 3, 2010, Minnesota would not be trying to figure out how it magically received 174,000 more votes than registered voters. Hennepin County, which includes the city of Minneapolis, originally reported 880,000 votes, even though only 706,000 are registered to vote there.
6) Require Union reforms and defund unions and all organizations hostile to conservative values. There is no reason to give them tax dollars, especially when they have hundreds of millions of dollars to donate to Democrat candidates. Universities that bar on-campus military recruiting should be defunded immediately.
7) Tackle immigration reform, i.e. combine agency databases to speed up the background check process. Deport all illegals, build the fence, and make the penalties for illegal immigration severe enough to discourage illegal immigrants and those who would hire them.
8) Tort reform!
9) Reform the public schools. Money is not the answer – discipline is. If students aren’t going to take advantage of their free education then they need to be expelled and left to succeed on their own. Eventually necessity will force them to come around.Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

10) Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

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.

Immigration Facts

As I’ve noted before, when liberals say one thing, most often the opposite is true. For example, when the ’94 Republican-led Congress sought to balance the budget by lowering the amount of increases for certain welfare programs from previous years (a 7% increase instead of a 10% increase), the Democrats called these “cuts.” (For you liberals, who don’t quite understand math, a cut would have meant a reduction by some percentage, not an increase – that is, a 7% increase is still an increase, and not a cut).
When the Republicans thrice warned the Democrat-led oversight committees between 2004 and 2007 that government initiated and irresponsible lending programs would lead to a major financial crisis, the Democrats (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in particular) called these warnings “typical Republican fear-mongering.”
The recently passed Healthcare “Reform,” is proving to be anything but a fix. In similar fashion the current administration is preparing to foist immigration “reform” upon us all. Of course, one can only guess what they mean by “reform.” Let’s take a look at some basic facts. I know liberals don’t like facts, but conservatives try to form opinions based upon them instead of pure feelings and political opportunism. Below is a chart depicting 2009 immigration numbers from the top 10 countries of origin (sources: Department of Human Services and the Office of Immigration Statistics).



Remember, these are the top 10 – if you add up the percentages they won’t equal 100%. I stuck with the top 10 to make this post as brief as possible. It’s interesting to note also that as a percentage of a source country’s population, the Hispanic nations on the list blow all other countries away.
Here is a pie chart representing the table above:



Mexico, despite its much smaller population is, by far, the largest exporter of humans to this country. And yet more pressure is being applied to the U.S., and its citizens to increase the percentages through an amnesty type “reform.”
If you look closer you will see that out of the top 10, over 51% of those immigrants come from countries with Hispanic populations. Maybe this pie chart will help:



This information should make it quite clear that current U.S. Immigration laws are in no way biased against Hispanics!!
So why does it take so long for people from other countries to become citizens of the U.S.? There are many good reasons, namely criminal background checks. And after 9/11, we would be criminally stupid if we weakened our security to accommodate anyone. Names of potential citizens are checked against multiple databases at the CIA, FBI, NSA and other agencies to make certain we aren’t giving terrorists, rapists, murderers, thieves, drug dealers and other undesirables unfettered access to the lives and property of our existing citizens who have every right to expect and demand such scrutiny in the first place.
The Obama Administration isn’t thinking about that. To them, the (cough and wink) 20 million illegals currently residing here represent a major block of voters that may help liberals turn the tide in future elections. This group is becoming more integral to the success of the Democrat party especially since ACORN has collapsed amid its voter-fraud, tax fraud, and prostitution-promoting scandals, not to mention the decline of the SEIU, the worsening employment outlook, the overwhelming national debt, and the passage of the increasingly unpopular healthcare “reform.”
Make no mistake about it; This is the reason the Obama administration failed to secure the border and opposed Arizona's immigration enforcement law. He and his cronies will politicize everything to retain power and control. Remember that come November!

Obama and the Religion Question

Poll after poll, the left-leaning media are quick to point out that the nearly 20% of the population who believe Obama is a secret Muslim are nothing but kooks from the fringe-right. In March of 2009 the number was 11%, so either the kooks are breeding more kooks, or there must be something compelling about all of the evidence. Such as:

He was born to a Muslim father who later became an atheist, his step-father was Muslim, his pastor for 20 years in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, is a former Muslim, he practiced Islam as a young boy and attended a Muslim school, etc., etc.

Although I believe in my heart of hearts that Obama is partial to Islam, probably for nostalgic reasons, I don’t believe he is a Muslim. And I think the question of whether he is or isn’t a Muslim is not the right question to be asking. The real question is: Is Barack Obama a Christian as he claims?

It’s a difficult question, because there are over 12,000 “Christian” denominations in the United States alone, none of which seem to be able to agree on any particular body of doctrine and yet; most of them share a belief in certain core doctrines.

Fundamental to all Christian sects is a respect for innocent life, of which Obama has shown through word and deed he has none. His voting record has always sided with the pro-abortion crowd, even to the point that he voted against ending partial birth abortions. During the 2008 campaign when asked when human life begins, he stated that the answer was above his “pay-grade,” despite the fact that science has proven that life begins at conception, and that Christian doctrine says exactly the same thing.

On social issues Obama fails to even consider the Christian concept of ownership through work and earning. Instead, he prefers a more socialist (and anti-Christian) system of forced wealth redistribution. In all fairness to Mr. Obama, most Christian sects have fallen into this error over the last 50 years. But, by his own admission, it was this “social justice” that led him to convert to… Jeremiah Wright’s “church” in the first place, and not any of the fundamental Christian beliefs. It should come as no surprise that, as of this writing, Obama still has not found a church to regularly attend. Since going to Washington it appears he has attended more golf outings and vacations then any sort of Christian service.

I do not believe that he is a Christian, but I am convinced that he will begin attending services and paying lip service to the tenants of a faith, any faith, if doing so is the politically expedient thing for him to do.

Words have... consequences?

Bill Clinton has entered the rhetorical fray by attempting, on April 16th 2010, to link the TEA Party, and anti-big government, fiscal conservatives, especially those in the Talk Radio business, to violence. Never mind the fact that thus far there has been no violence stemming from conservatives, just from kooks on the left. What struck me was this statement, speaking of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, from the former President:

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing. But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

Does this mean that Clinton is prepared to accept his role in the devaluing of moral virtue? Do his words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” bring to his mind any of the consequences of his actions?
The complete arrogance of the liberal-minded is put on display every single time one of them attempts to lecture any conservative on values related issues, such as responsibility. Hypocrisy such as this is precisely why, among many other reasons, the Democrat party is going to lose big come November, despite any liberal’s denial of the impending political defeat. I guess if you’re a liberal it “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

“These Tea Partiers aren’t well informed”

So says the new Democrat talking point. Really? Maybe the counterpoint should be “Boy those liberals are either too stupid or too evil to govern!”
Where does one begin to discuss this takeover over 1/6 of the United States economy? It’s such a complete mess that it would take volumes of information to weed through the swamp that is Liberal legislation. How ‘bout we start with every other big government spending program? Do any of them stand the tests of time to remain solvent? Social Security? Nope. Medicare? Nope. Medicaid? Nope. HUD and government housing oversight? Nope. United Stated Post Office? Not really. And while we’re at it, why is it that every other social spending program requires annual funding increases well beyond cost-of-living increases?
Depriving any individual of his hard-earned wage simply to redistribute it to anyone else who hasn’t earned it is immoral, evil, and un-American. I’m not talking about helping the indigent, but if we cut spending to only cover them we’d have huge budget surpluses every year. As predicted many decades ago, the development of the welfare state would soon lead to the creation of a dependent class of citizen, and isn’t that precisely who tax payers are forced to fork over their monies to?
This country existed – no, it prospered - for roughly 160 years before the advent of our first welfare programs, which were foisted upon the American people to help them through the Great Depression. But did they go away once said Depression was over? Nope – we’ve allowed the Marxists to expand programs and to develop even more sinister methods of depriving the worker under the guise of assisting the needy. From FDR to Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama: they were all cut from the same Marxist red cloth.
Touting the recent scoring of the Senate version of the Healthcare “reform” Act, the Democrats remained emboldened, at their own peril, and passed this sorry legislation. Nevermind the fact that the 2,400 page bill was kept from the American people until shortly before a weekend vote. The CBO was rushed to score it, and the Dems utilized a bit of sleight of hand to make the bill look as though it would cost less than it actually will. For example, there are three provisions that are vital to the scoring of the bill – provisions which are based entirely upon unrealistic assumptions:
(1) an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that would begin in 2013; (2) a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare and other rate cuts for Medicare providers; (3) the implementation of an advisory board that would implement cost-saving measures to reduce Medicare spending, unless rejected by subsequent legislation.
These assumptions are particularly important. First, consider the effects of the excise tax as a potential revenue source. The tax is not implemented until 2013. This suggests that, in the near-term, firms that offer top-of-the-line insurance have an incentive to reduce the coverage extended to their employees to avoid the tax. This shift could potentially reduce health care spending as these individuals would then have to spend more in out-of-pocket costs – effectively raising the price and reducing the quantity demanded. Such a shift, however, would also imply lower tax revenue as these plans are eliminated.
Of course, even the analysis of the excise tax above makes important assumptions. For example, it was assumed that the tax was actually implemented and not repealed by subsequent legislation. In addition, the most vehement detractors of this provision have been labor unions as they tend to offer their members better benefits that could potentially be subject to the new tax. As a result, there has been discussion about creating an exemption to the excise tax for members of labor unions. Such an exemption, however, would result in lower tax revenue and a lesser reduction in health care spending.
The second assumption baked into the analysis is a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare. This reduction was actually passed during the 1990s, but each year has been postponed by subsequent legislation. There is no reason to believe that, after the passage of the health care legislation, this reduction will not be postponed once again. Such a postponement would be enough to cause the health care bill to result in a $59 billion addition to the budget deficit over ten years. And of course one must consider why the government wants to lower Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors – becasue the government doesn’t have the money! As a result, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare in the first place, because by accepting Medicare they are losing money. This is resulting in poorer medical care, not better. Many people seem to think that doctors shouldn’t make a profit – but when medical professionals are expected to work for declining profits, there soon won’t be any medical professionals. If doctors and nurses can be expected to work for the convenience of the state instead of for profit, why can’t everyone in every industry?
The final major funding source comes from the creation of an advisory panel that would recommend cost-savings measures for Medicare that would be enacted unless revoked by subsequent legislation. The bill assumes that this panel would be able to identify significant areas for cost reduction. This cost reduction could be in the form of greater efficiency or by reducing the quantity or quality of service. One is left to ponder how this will benefit the citizens, especially those who age and begin to require more healthcare services.
Overall, the bill assumes that reductions in payment rates to Medicare providers and those identified by the advisory panel would ensure that Medicare spending per beneficiary would grow at a rate of 2 percent per year (adjusted for inflation). As a method of comparison, this growth rate has been roughly 4 percent per year over the last 20 years.
The cuts to Medicare are an extremely important source of “revenue” for the health care bill. In fact, in the latest CBO projections (March 11, 2010), cuts to Medicare make up $430 billion of the funding over the next decade. This figure represents roughly 50 percent of the estimated total cost of $875 billion.
The facts are that the health care bill makes a great deal of assumptions about revenue sources that potentially obfuscate the true costs of the bill. When factored beyond the CBO timeline of 10 years (10 years taxation and only six years of benefit payments – another Democrat accounting trick) this healthcare bill is projected to create deficits of nearly 2.5 trillion dollars!

But wait, there’s more! To acquire Bart Stupak’s support the President had to promise that he would issue an Executive Order preventing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions. Understand that Stupak is a Democrat first, and a pro-lifer second – or maybe last. An Executive Order is not law. It is only binding until the President, current or future, repeals it. Upon becoming President in 2009, Obama’s first act was to issue an Executive Order repealing George W. Bush’s order banning embryonic stem cell research. Let’s wait and see how long it takes Obama to rescind his own order concerning abortion. All it will take is some half true story of a teenage girl getting pregnant who can’t afford to pay for her abortion out of pocket, and then the order will disappear faster than John Edwards’ political aspirations.
And let’s not forget Obama’s (and the Democrat Party’s) actual goal of Socialized Medicine. Don’t take my word for it either – take his own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
This “Healthcare Reform Bill” is nothing of the kind. It is a major step toward Obama’s Socialist vision for America. That’s how the liberals work! One step at a time, but they will never give up.
We can’t either! Remember these shenanigans in November! Vote the bums out! And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that nothing of the kind can ever happen again in this country.
Now, who is it that's really uninformed?