The State Media

I Dare
Posted with BloghuB for Windows Phone 7

POTUS: "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done." I call that political rape, Mr. President.

End Liberalism Now

You can say what you want about Delaware Republican candidate for Senate Christine O'Donnell. But what the anonymous mental midget did on the Gawker website was disgusting. First off, I don't believe in anonymity. If you are too chicken to be held accountable for your own words and actions you shouldn't be allowed to express. The First Amendment doesn't protect a right to being anonymous. It only protects your right to speak. So, I'd be quite happy to get rid off anonymity.

Now, having said that, let me say this: I hate liberalism. It is godless. It is gutless. It is a liar, disguising itself as altruism. Every liberal I've ever met either turned out NOT to be truly a liberal--they were simply ignorant about what makes a liberal or conservative--or were ultimately looking after Number One. Oh, to be sure, you'll not often get them to admit it or even realize it, but if you ask the right questions you can almost guarantee you'll find the selfish part that makes them support liberal causes.

The reason I say it's godless is that the more liberal the person is the further from anything scriptural they get. Prove me wrong! In contrast, the more conservative a person is you'll find that they rely more heavily on scriptural teachings. I'm not saying they are saints, I'm not even saying they are believers or born again. But you'll almost always find, in the political arena, the largest difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative will more likely espouse a more Biblical worldview and make every attempt to hide any behaviors that betray that perspective......the liberal will most likely abandon all pretense of a Biblical worldview and even actively demean those who hold such a view. I'll direct your attention to almost every race in the current election to prove my point.

Liberalism, lacking any significant moral compass (because their compass moves at the whim of movement of the herd or uses itself as magnetic north), allows and even promotes and glorifies the behaviors that the Bible makes quite clear are deplorable. Homosexuality, drunkenness, sex outside of marriage, lying, stealing, cheating, murdering. I can take you into any of the bastions of liberal elitism and show you these things are celebrated and how many of them are in the process of being made legal to one degree or another. And it won't be conservatives that will be behind it...not real conservatives, anyway.

Liberalism on the face claims to grant individual freedom, but the dirty secret is that any responsibility is spread across the citizenry. All behaviors are acceptable, all behaviors are to be mainstreamed, laughed about, celebrated....except those behaviors that stand for scripturally sound teachings.

To liberalism, marriage doesn't matter since God is dead and it doesn't matter that something is counter to nature, it's what you feel that matters. So, if there's nothing sacred about marriage between a man and a women, then there's no reason two men can't marry. If two men can marry, then there's no reason three men and two women can't. And if there's no reason three men and two women can marry, then there's no reason a different species can be involved.

To liberalism, sex doesn't matter because it's just an act for pleasure, for happiness. After all, "the pursuit of happiness" is what the Declaration of Independence was about. If there is nothing sacred about sex, then there's no reason we have to get married. If there's no reason to limit it to marriage, then there's no reason to limit it by age or gender. Anyone physically capable of the act should be allowed---no, encouraged to have sex as early and as often as possible, right?

To liberalism, life doesn't really matter, because it's all about convenience and that much-vaunted "pursuit of happiness". Since sex is just an act of pleasure there's no reason, according the President Obama's own words, that anyone should be "punished with a baby". Only the women should be allowed to determine if the child has worth, has value, and should be allowed to live. Likewise, the old and infirm can be such a burden on the young and healthy, so why should they shoulder that burden at all? We should spread that burden across the citizenry---no, better yet, devise a way to determine if the value of the old or the infirm have enough value that maintaining their health is worth the cost. Certainly, any sensible old person could understand when they've reached the point of diminishing returns and low point of self-fulfillment....euthanasia is surely an option, right?

To liberalism, we can't be free to do what we want if we are somehow prohibited from doing so purely because we have not the means. After all, it's not fair that just because someone has exercised the freedom NOT to learn in school, exercised the freedom NOT to actually hold a job, or exercised the freedom to accumulate excessive debt, or exercised the right to impregnate five women, they should be penalized, right? Naturally, their needs and desires should be shouldered by everyone else.

To liberalism, the fact that America is an actual nation doesn't matter, since borders are simply man-made devices to oppress. People should be allowed to come and go as they please, to take what the want from the collective and give it to family in other countries--who are much less open about their borders, I might add--or squander it altogether. Whatever makes them happy, that's the cornerstone.

To liberalism, the socialist utopia is the mechanism to achieve these secular humanist goals. Otherwise, how would "social justice" come to pass? How would the "even playing field" be created? And the only way to start the socialist mechanism is through an election process whereby anyone who dares to oppose something that makes so much sense is a fair target for every sort of dirty, filthy smear, every bit of condescension. Because it hurts those people for whom accusations of infidelity, looseness, drunkenness actually means something. As I can prove throughout the media, those same accusations hold no court with liberals because those very behaviors are cause for celebration.

Yes, I hate liberalism. I didn't say I hate liberals. I may not like them very much, but I can't hate them. I believe if faced with truth they eventually could see how shallow and misguided that espousing liberalism really is.

And let me add a postscript here. The reason liberalism is so significant is because believers stopped doing what they were anointed to do, what they were commanded to do.

Daily reminder to my fellow warriors in the battle for the soul of America: get out there and VOTE and pray hard!

Latest Letter To The Editor

Below is the latest letter I submitted to the Del Rio News-Herald:

Del Rio, you have a choice to make. Several, in fact. Allow me to appeal to you on two fronts. First, fiscally. Now, I freely admit I had a number of serious issues with the Bush administration and the whole lot of Republicans in power. As far as I'm concerned, they were mostly big government Progressives and their spending proved that. In 2006 the Democrats took control of Congress and made it worse. Now we find ourselves becoming slaves to the state. More people on welfare, more people on Medicare/Medicaid, more people on food stamps, Social Security and,tragically, socialized health care is nearly upon us. Doubt that we are becoming slaves? Look at what's happening in Europe. They are rioting because government wants to raise the retirement age. Look at what happens when anyone dares say they will touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Near panic! Why? Complete dependency. This is what people like Ciro Rodriguez are striving for. And who pays? With virtually no opposition, people like Ciro Rodriguez, who never met a socialist program he didn't like, drummed up another $1.4 TRILLION deficit, which increased the overall DEBT to nearly $14 TRILLION. Ciro Rodriguez has consistently voted to enslave you to the federal government to pay off this debt. The more successful you are, the more you pay at a much higher rate. How is this moral? How is this fair? Ciro voted for TARP. What do we have to show for it? Nothing but debt and no change in unemployment. Ciro voted for the socialist health care law. What do we have to show for it? He didn't even read the bill. He lied to us the entire time about what it would mean to us. The result is increased debt, higher premiums, backdoor funding of abortion and now businesses are piling on to say they will need to drop their own health plans. Ciro refused to do anything to jettison Fannie and Freddie (the REAL reasons for the economic meltdown)--and now he's on board to take $300 Billion from you and give it to them! Is this how you run your household?

Now, let me appeal to you on the spiritual side. For many of you this will fall on deaf years, sad to say. But for those who have ears, let them hear. How do you reconcile supporting any elected official who openly and vigorously supports the killing of the unborn? Jeremiah 1:5 "I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb, before you were born I set you apart;" Psalm 139:13-16 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I
praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know
that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Ciro has consistently voted against any effort to curb abortions and voted to defund providers who refuse to do abortions. He has voted in favor of getting rid of the death penalty for crimes, but heartlessly votes in favor of cloning humans, destroying embryos to for experimentation. He has voted consistently to prevent the public display of the 10 Commandments--even though they serve as the basis for most of our laws. They were good enough for our nation to be built upon, but something to be ashamed of where Ciro is concerned?

Citizens, all the wasted spending, all the eroding of our freedoms, the gradually enslaving of this country to the federal government has gotten us nowhere. We cannot let this continue. You should absolutely fear when a politician wants to give you something. It is NEVER free. It always comes with a price....and with this current administration, the price is one we cannot afford. I say to Ciro and the rest: keep your 30 pieces of silver.

I may come across as nagging, but if you haven't voted please in out and do it! Don't put it off and don't waste your right!

A new study found that one third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive & well.

Are we really this stupid? Obama said,"It time to free the slaves." Yes, but all you're doing is MAKING US SLAVES TO GOV'T.

Cracking The Obama Agenda

I believe I've figured out a key to President Obama's philosophy and, subsequently, his agenda. And I'm convinced it's ultimately the agenda of people like Reid and Pelosi...and our sorry excuse for a Representative, Ciro Rodriguez.

Barrack Obama's father wrote an article in which he said that you could conceivably tax the people for 100% of their income as long as you provided commensurate services via the government collecting the tax. I believe this is precisely the perception of Obama and the Progressives. I will call this the Allowance Doctrine.

What do I mean by Allowance Doctrine? Think about it, using the words of Obama and others like him. He and they have actually said that you can have too much wealth, that you can make "plenty" of money. Now, this assumes that someone decides what enough is. Once you reach that mysterious amount, anything more than that would, it follows, more than enough. Now, if there is enough and if there is too much, then it's logical to assume that Obama and his kind believe there is a threshold for not enough. It has clearly been Obama's agenda, as well as that of the rest of the Progressives, increase the confiscatory taxation of those who are past enough so that the elitists can "spread the wealth" (Obama's own words) to those who are in the not enough category.

I contend that getting and keeping everyone in between the not enough and the more than enough thresholds. This, my friends, would be your Allowance. You are allowed to keep x amount. In fact, in the Progressive's utopia, all of us would work for the government and not actually keep money, but rather simply receive goods, services or credits for the things we need. You would work in factories or other jobs producing the goods and services that the government elites decide are needed and, naturally, good for us. You can already see this happening. We had a pretty thriving incandescent bulb industry going until suddenly the Progressives decided that poisoning the earth with the hazardous waste from florescent bulbs was somehow better than the energy we used with incandescent ones and, with a swipe of a pen, essentially killed an entire industry. There are more examples, of course. But this is simply an example of gradually setting the stage for the move toward the Allowance Doctrine.

Look at the minimum wage. What you have constantly heard from the Progressives is that the minimum wage must be increased because it's not a "living wage". It was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant to create a fair starting point for paying simple labor so that they weren't, for all intents and purposes, slaves. But what the Progressives have decided is that it should represent what you can raise a family on. This, to anyone with any sense at all, is ridiculous. You weren't meant to raise a family flipping burgers. That's not a career, it's not a profession. But the minimum wage is simply one more mechanism to give you an indication where the not enough threshold fits in the Allowance Doctrine.

Now, I could spend pages going on to explain how health care, abortion and a number of other hot button issues also fit into this doctrine...and perhaps in a later post I will. But for now chew on what I've said and see if you don't recognize some other signs of the doctrine.

Because liberals can rarely win debating issues, they always resort to personal attacks.

Good grief. Every time I see a clip of the President he's pompously looking down his nose as he speaks.

Stopping the passage of NDAA, that had the repeal of DADT, is a hollow victory. Sen Collins, a RINO, still favors repeal. She must go.

The Fall Of Karl Rove

I've never really cared for Karl Rove, let me say that up front. I never considered his "accomplishment" getting George Bush elected & re-elected as all that stunning. If you read items from his past, you can see that he's really a big-government Republican. Not really a true Conservative. He has said, repeatedly, in response to criticism of his spouting off against Christine O'Donnell (R), Delaware, that he's for the Republican, whatever the case. He has said repeatedly that he is working for a majority.

Therein lies the problem I have with him. I used to be a card-carrying Republican. GW and that batch of Republicans changed that. I'm not for the majority. The (R) beside your name doesn't mean squat to me if you actually believe and vote Progressive. People like Mike Castle (R...yeah, right), Delaware, are exactly that. They are Democrats wearing an (R). I don't want a moderate. I don't want a blind extremist, either. I want someone who espouses the truly Conservative, Constitutional Constructionist, God-fearing traditional values that our founders created this nation under. I'm not a Libertarian. That's too much like anarchy, and it really is just Liberal but without the mandates to be Liberal.

Now, I've watched the old YouTube videos, seen the various quotes from Christine O'Donnell. Maybe she has been shallow most of her life, looking only after her 15 minutes of fame. I think almost all politicians share that...just some are more blatant about it. Here's the thing that I also pick up on. Over the years (the videos of her apparently go back to the college days) she has been consistent in speaking in favor of a very Conservative viewpoint and a worldview that respects God. Have her choices in life always been true to that worldview? There would appear to be evidence to the contrary. You could most certainly make the same claim about me. But I would, without a doubt, confidently go up against any Liberal, any Progressive, taking a position the favors a Biblical worldview and Conservative values. And if someone called me out on some past flaw in judgement I'd be the first to admit it and show that I've learned from it---that MY mistakes do NOT invalidate THE MESSAGE. Always, the TRUTH does not depend upon me--or O'Donnell--being perfect.

But what people like Tom Ross, Delaware GOP chair, and Karl Rove are is almost as insidious, almost as dangerous and misguided as the Democrats. I'm convinced they are actually Progressives, but that the power they seek through compromising principles and playing for the "big tent" is for the people with an (R) even if it doesn't actually result in any change of direction for this government and this country. They could care less about the fate of this nation, as long as they have more (R)s than there are (D)s. This should sicken you. It does me. I'd vote for a Democrat if I was convinced he voted more conservatively than progressively.

As for Christine O'Donnell, we should have a pretty good idea over the next couple of weeks if she can get herself schooled enough to go toe-to-toe with her Democratic rival. She'll need to be able to answer the tough questions. I don't doubt she'll help move us away from the Progressive filth we find ourselves in.

And here's a hint to Karl and others....CALL HER! Swallow your flippin' pride and jump in there with as much enthusiasm as you tired codgers can muster and try to help her campaign! School her yourselves instead of saying, "Well, she needs to this, she needs to that." You're not constructive. In fact, you're DEstructive.

LOL, have seen the Dems new website & logo to 're-brand' themselves?. Lipstick on a pig....

So, more people are coming out of the woodwork to challenge Rove's cred as a conservative.

Karl Rove Is Missing The Point

AFTER A SOUND WHOOPIN' when Christine O'Donnell won big in the Delaware Republican primary, Karl Rove, aka "The Architect", just couldn't admit he's wrong. First off, I found the nickname annoying since I wouldn't characterize his successes with George Bush as something I'd really want to brag about. Second, for an "architect" his "designs" have gotten pretty tired. He tried to list all these various character flaws, etc., as reason to not put any money or faith in O'Donnell and, by some of his other comments, on the other "newbie", TEA party-backed winners. He's forgetting, of course, that a growing percentage of people apparently don't care about those things. But, more importantly, he seems to have issue with how inexperienced and "accidental" O'Donnell is, that they need to be schooled on how to work the mine field.

How about this, Mr. Rove and all you Republican Party Ignoratzi: JUMP IN AND HELP THE NEW KIDS!!! Instead of getting your face time on TV, whining about how these people couldn't possibly work the media and the tough challenges, try shutting your yappers and contact these people--who have been elected by US--and offer to get them up to speed. Here's why, Mr. Rove and others.... You're more about the power than the principle. To you people, an (R) beside the word "majority" is all you care about, not whether we have people representing us who stand on the principles we hold dear. I don't believe in the Buckley Rule. I believe we need to elect people with the same mindset, same set of values as our founders.

Delaware IS winnable, Mr. Rove. Get off your lazy rear end and help Christine get ready. Prove you really ARE "the architect".

Republican Establishment Got A Slap In The Face

The fallout from the Delaware Republican primary win for Christine O’Donnell is stunning. If you look at almost all the nay-sayers you’ll find that, if they are Republican, they are “senior GOP” personalities or otherwise identifiable as Establishment, Ruling Class. The vitriol from those stale, faux-conservatives just drips, post Super Tuesday. Here are some quotes from Politico.com, followed by my comments:

“GOP NIGHTMARE: ….If Castle had won the nomination, the GOP almost certainly would have taken the seat. Now, Republicans are UNlikely to take the seat and therefore UNlikely to take the majority on Nov. 2” This has been the pervasive criticism from the Republican Establishment all along. It’s about who has (R) by their name rather than actually working to get this nation back to its roots. It’s also why the TEA party movement has grown.

“STATE GOP CHAIRMAN TOM ROSS (who will probably resign today) has called O’Donnell ‘delusional,’ and told AP’s Philip Elliot in a phone interview on Sept. 2: “She’s not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware.” I sent a number of emails to this fool warning him it was unwise to come out so publicly against O’Donnell and that if he couldn’t sit down, shut up and wait until the people had spoken he should just quit. He is, again, a perfect example of the Republican Establishment that has, for decades, compromised principles all for the sake of the Party, rather than for what’s right.

“KARL ROVE, to Sean Hannity: “It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, l…while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for….But I gotta tell ya: We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate [of the 10 needed for the majority]. We’re now looking at seven to eight, in my opinion. This is not a race we’re gonna be able to win” I’ve not been a huge fan of Rove. He may be “the architect”, but his “designs” have been stale for some time, now. And getting George Bush elected was not necessarily something I’d be bragging about. There’s so much that annoys me about his statement. First off, “it does conservatives little good to support candidates who…” Who WHAT? Are CONSERVATIVE? Castle wasn’t a moderate. He was a Progressive wearing an (R). Period. Then Karl goes on to mumble about “rectitude and sincerity and character”. Are we talking about Castle here? He has none of those. So, if you think O’Donnell lacks those as well, then which is better? If all other things are equal, the liberal who pretends to be Republican, whom you can’t count on to move us back to traditional values, or the one who really is conservative? And, again, I come back to this crazy, stupid thought these people have that having more (R)s in the Senate is the same thing as having the majority. IT ISN’T, get that through your thick heads.

“GENE ROBINSON, on WP’s “PostPartisan” blog, “Christine O’Donnell’s win is the GOP’s loss. She is pro-life, she’s hostile to gun control, and she was able to position herself as the anti-establishment candidate…. The problem is that Republicans can’t win in November on Tea Party anger alone. They also have to appeal to the disaffected independents – and in a state like Delaware, those independents are likely to be turned off.” The key point I’d like to raise is the VERY thing the Republican Party MUST do. They must appeal to the disaffected….but not just the independents. The problem is that when you say “big tent” you’re really saying “water down your principles and make your group more appealing to people by giving them carrots”. On the contrary, what they SHOULD be doing is convincing the disaffected why the principles of conservativism make the most sense, why it’s the better way of those available. I can use the Church as an analogy. What many churches have done is watered down the Gospel, ignoring the parts on the basis that those parts wouldn’t draw some people or turn them off. Which explains what’s wrong with the Church. The Gospel of Christ is actually very inclusive, given that He died for ALL, but you have to understand what’s messed up in your life and realize why it is better for you to come to Him. The Republican Party needs to take the same approach instead of playing “big tent” at one end or preaching “liberal hell-fire and brimstone” on the other.

“Jonathan Martin: The Delaware results gave Democrats fresh ammunition to make the case that the Republican Party had been taken over by extremists. In effect, Democrats now can counter the GOP’s attempt to nationalize the election around the unpopular policies of the administration and Congress by pointing to such figures as O’Donnell, Nevada’s Sharron Angle and Kentucky’s Rand Paul and asking voters if that’s the Republican Party they want to return to power….If nothing else, the primary election defeats suffered by NRSC-favored candidates this year indicates the lack of a unified command structure within the GOP now. It has, in effect, become an uncontrolled and ungoverned party in which the powers that be in Washington are mere bystanders.” Oh, you mean we’re NOT a bunch of ignorant, unintelligent, mind-numbed lemmings? Oh, my gosh, what is this world coming to? We should be proud of that particular fact, if it turns out to be true. The problem has been a party that exists only if everyone is lock-step with the Establishment. But, guess what! What you’re seeing is that the rank and file IS independent, and it CAN self-organize without the tired Progressive Republican Establishment telling us what to do and how to do it. Uncontrolled? The beauty of this movement is that it IS, in fact, controlled---by the people. This is precisely how our independence from England happened, folks. Read your history. What Mr. Martin mischaracterizes (which is the only way Progressives win an argument) is this being a kind of Republican Party that might “return to power”. The fact is that it’s precisely the old Republican Party that we DON’T want to return to power. We need a better Republican Party, one that actually remains true to the founding fathers’ intent.

So, here we are, a “party torn”. The people have spoken, which is as it should be. Now the Republican Party Establishment has a decision to make. Do you embrace the fact that people want a return to the principles and values this nation was founded upon, do you knuckle down and examine the very tough, probably less-than-palatable medicine that MUST be sold to the American people if this nation is to survive and people remain free and unify behind a message that can resonate in the heart of hearts of people who, deep down, know we have to fix this mess? Or do you get your feelings hurt and wash your hands of the candidates the PEOPLE have chosen and guarantee that you won’t have a majority of (R) members in Congress? The ball is in your court. For those of us who are independent Conservatives, we aren’t about to let our work and our fervor stop with the primaries. We are taking it to Nov 2. To borrow from my Hispanic friends, si se puede.

Republican Establishment keeps saying a vote for O'Donnell is a vote for a Democrat. The FACT is a vote for Castle is TOO!

Once again, I an being proven right. More evidence surfacing that mosques are typically built at locations of "victory".

Lie of the decade: Harry Reid - "I had nothing to do with the massive foreclosures".

The Pres said "they talk about me like a dog". Not true: I like my dogs.

hey'd say no". He is a liar.

This man is just absurd. The President said this weekend, about Republicans, "if I said the sky was blue they'd say no. If I said fish live in the sea t

In case you didn't know, George Soros is just plain evil.

Seriously, "Why not a RINO"? Really?

I've been watching the Delaware Republican Primary race with great interest because what you're seeing there is another battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I use to be a card-carrying, dues-paying member. The batch of Republicans who came into the Congress, as well as George Bush and John McCain changed that for me. I'm independent, and I'll only vote -- and send money to -- individual candidates. I'm convinced that the party establishment is nothing but a bunch of good ol' boys just trying to hold onto power. Michael Steele and the rest of the old guard are completely clueless. They'd like to ride the coattails of the TEA party movement, but they don't understand it. Sadly, time and time again we've seen them stupidly put their muscle -- and $$ -- behind the establishment candidate and behave like Democrats in attacking the one WE THE PEOPLE are supporting.

The battle in Delaware is between establishment darling, Republican In Name Only (RINO), Mike Castle, is slightly ahead of TEA Party favorite Christine O'Donnell. Mike Castle, like other RINOs such as Snowe, are the sweethearts of the Democratic Party because they can usually be counted on to vote with the liberals. Tim Ross, chair of the Delaware Republican Party, has pushed the establishment to fully get behind Castle. He and others of his ilk consistently fall back on the argument that O'Donnell can't win, that we'd be electing a Democrat if we get O'Donnell as the candidate.

If you are ignorant or shallow, you'll buy that argument. The TRUTH is that whether the Democratic nominee gets elected or a RINO gets elected, the end result is A LIBERAL GETS ELECTED. Mr. Ross, Mr. Steele and others just don't get it. Having a majority in name is NOT the same thing as having a majority. If a large portion of your party typically votes with the other side, then exactly what use is it? None. Instead of looking for a fake candidate, what Ross and other party leadership MUST do is find the true conservative candidate and work as HARD AS THEY CAN to get them elected over the liberal candidate. I don't give a rip about the party. I give my money, my effort and my vote to someone who will work the hardest to get this nation back to its roots.

So, my message to the party establishment and all conservatives: Stop being lazy, get up and work for the conservative candidates and forget about the party. Just because they wear the right t-shirt doesn't mean they actually believe it the principles!

Thanks to Congressman Rodriguez and the Dems credit card rates have risen to highest point in 9 yrs

A new microbe has been discovered consuming the oil spill - without significantly reducing O2. God really has thought of everything.

Yay! Federal judge temporarily blocks Obama embryonic stem cell policy!

I just read the citations against Sea World on the death of that trainer. Bogus. Dept of Labor again has their heads in the up and locked position.

Math Counts is banning home school teams from competing! Of course, stats show these kids too often beat the competition....

I have called Ciro Rodriguez' office to insist he vote against this state bailout, aka union payoff.

Montana, daughter of Laurence Fishburn, calls her porn movie a POSITIVE?

Chicago Sun-Times hack Lynn Sweet's failed attempt to justify lavish Obama Spain trip http://bit.ly/cRu0fY

I fully support efforts to amend the Constitution to end allowance of "anchor babies".

I am prove of my Missouri friends & family who voted in favor of the highly symbolic Prop C: No To ObamaCare.

Just had to put the smackdown on Tarryl Clark, Dem candidate attempting to unseat Michele Bachmann. Don't like liars.

services to them.

It is time to pass legislation to levy HUGE fines and jail time to ANYONE who hires illegal immigrants and on any agency that provides any non-emergency

ng wrong here.

Btw, Rep. Charles Rangel has been formally charged with ethics violations. Amazing how slow Dems were to act. Of course, the Dems don't really see anythi

Mr. President, you can only insult and demonize business so much before they simply take their toys & in home. Result? No jobs, no growth.

Great news! House Republicans to oust RINO Spencer Bachus as senior Republican on financial services committee.

Obama signs more socialism into law with the financial takeover legislation! Fire any lawmaker who voted for this!

How do you deal with a Social Security system broken and nearly bankrupt? Apparently raise retirement age to 70. See any issues with this?

s a fool.

Harry Reid is a liar. The socialist financial "reform" can't stop the "greed in Wall Street" and it doesn't address the cause of the problem at all! He i

Wow, a war of words brewing between NAACP and one of the larger Tea Party groups.

I KNEW that Olympia Snowe would the fake Republican to vote in favor of this socialist financial reform bill. If there was a litmus test for party affiliation she would fail.

Apparently Scott Brown has a price: he is voting for the socialist financial "reform" bill.

Try this again...here is the kind of garbage in the financial reform bill: race & gender quotas.

The kind of garbag

Yes! Admin loses drilling moratorium appeal! Drill, baby, drill!

Here is one of the most foolish things people say, and what got this horrible admin elected: "We can't just do nothing, we have to do SOMEthing"

This is who Obama set in recess appt to run Medicare/Medicaid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Kevz_9lsw .

Wow, if you can stomach it, read some of the hate mail on Michelle Malkin's site. It's exactly what I expect from the more ignorant on the left.

Tells you something about Obama Admin: Just. Dept. Lawyer who defended American Taliban is prosecuting case against AZ law.

Btw, Mr. Steele, you are cordially invited to step down as RNC chair.

What in blazes does NASA have to do with helping Muslims? Is there any doubt how far off the rails the POTUS is?

Ciro, What Have You Done To Me Lately?

Choices have consequences. And it's time Ciro Rodriguez reaped the consequences of his choices. Because he has consistently ignored the calls of his constituents, because he has voted, almost without fail, lockstep with the President's agenda, here's what he has done for you since he's been in office. You can expect the following in approximately six months:
A huge INCREASE in your tax rate - Those in the 10% bracket will go up to 15%, 25% goes to 28%, 28% to 31%, 33% to 36% and 35% bracket goes to 39.6%;
The MARRIAGE PENALTY returns (you will pay a much higher tax as a married couple working than two single people working);
The CHILD TAX CREDIT gets cut from $1000 down to $500 per child;
The STANDARD DEDUCTION for married couple will no longer be double that of singles;
Dependent care and adoption credits will be cut;
The DEATH TAX returns;
The CAPITAL GAINS tax goes up from 15% to 20%;
The DIVIDENDS tax goes up from 15% to 39.6% and again to 43.4% a year later;
Here's what the socialist health care Ciro shoved down your throat will do:
You won't be able to use a Health Savings Account (HSA)or Health Reimbursement pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription medicine;
A cap on Flexible Spending Account (FSA), which particularly hurts those who use those accounts for Special Needs Kids;
HSA withdrawal tax doubles from 10% to 20%;
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will now grab 4 million more households in LOWER tax brackets;
Small businesses will no longer be able to expense equipment purchases up to $250,000. Anything above $25,000 will have to be depreciated (which demolishes ability of small businesses to get off the ground in the initial years);
No more deduction for tuition and fees, and education tax credits will be limited;
Teachers will not be able to deduct classroom expenses;
Retired people will no longer be able to give up to $100,000 from their IRA toward charity and any charitable contribution will now count as part of the "minimum required distribution";
Scores of the other taxes will be increased or be added that also affect small businesses.
THIS is what Ciro Rodriguez has done to you. He doesn't really care about your livelihood, your future, your family, your education. We cannot stand by and allow the continued bloating of government, socialist agenda, and the further destruction of the American Dream.

Mr President (or anyone who agrees with him), exactly WHAT is the problem with our immigration program?

Sad: since Dems can't win on the battlefield of ideas they resort to soliciting "YouTtc

More lies about transparency: White House officials meet lobbyists at coffee houses so they don't have report them in the visitor log.

Looks like Elena Kagan has lied and made up science just to support partial birth abortions. Evil.

People like Cali Rep. Pete Stark are an insult to any intelligent American. We MUST fire all these people in Nov.

Elena Kaga, Revealed

Let me pick apart Elena Kagan’s opening remarks at her confirmation hearing. She said “what the of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our Constitution calls "the blessings of liberty" - those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality, that have defined this nation since its founding. And what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint.” First off, nowhere does she acknowledge WHERE the writers of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence knew these “blessings of liberty” came from: God. She also chose to use the word “restraint”, although by some of her own statements and writings, her idea of restraint is anything BUT. Restraint SHOULD be exercised on the part of government, particularly the Judicial branch which, over the past few decades from the SCOTUS on down, has actually been quite activist in creating new and unreasonable definitions for laws already on the books and the Constitution itself. What is also troubling is her turn of the phrase “promise of equality”. This over-generalized concept flies in the face of fact. We are CREATED equal by God, but we are NOT all actually equal. She has, and will, choose to interpret her mandate impose the progressive perspective of “equality” upon those who have the “misfortune” of not actually being equal, as if not rising to the same status as one’s neighbor is somehow unjust.

Kagan also referred to a promise of a “fair shake for every American”. What exactly IS a “fair shake”? The Progressive mindset is that it’s not “fair” if you make too much or come from a “minority” or other group perceived as having less status. The conservative mindset is that it is not “fair” if you have unequal obstructions to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

She then said that “no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom”. I find this most insulting. Truth is, by definition, truth. Wisdom is the revelation of truth and how to apply it. Wisdom can be measured by degrees, but truth is truth. To say no one has a “monopoly on truth” is to say that truth is not absolute…what’s true for you may not be true for me. Which is absolutely garbage. In that context, Kagan says that we “make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.” Progress toward WHAT? Truth? Wisdom? I suppose if you judge truth as a matter of popular will or majority rule, then she’d be correct. I contend that you make progress toward wisdom by seeking the absolute truth, REGARDLESS of your political or ideological bent. Truth is truth EVEN IF NOBODY AGREES WITH IT.

Finally, she said, “I’ve learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind.” That is simply incorrect. You come closest to coming to CONSENSUS when you do that. You do NOT come closest to “getting things right”. As a Supreme Court Justice your responsibility is to judge the merits of cases brought before the Supreme Court IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. That’s it. It is a travesty that we have allowed precedence to circumvent a lot of what our founding fathers, the authors of the Constitution, originally intended. You do NOT arrive at what the authors intended by looking at other countries’ laws or even at what laws we’ve mistakenly authored in more recent years. As a Supreme Court Justice I believe you can only place any degree of reliability upon writings of those who originally penned the Constitution. Anyone who claims the Constitution is a “living document” outside the flexibility of changing it as detailed within the document itself is dead wrong. The very idea that its meaning “flexes” with the morality of the society of the time is insulting.

Great news: 2nd Amendment rights restored by SCOTUS for Chicago residents! Btw, last week there were 54 shootings, 10 dead in the gun-ban city.

More On The Failure Of Obama...With Caveats

I was watching the Hannity show and he, predictably, ranted on and on about how Obama is nothing but incompetent regarding the oil disaster in the gulf. Okay, let me say up front that while I agree with Hannity's politics and most of his positions, one thing that annoys me is that he sounds like a broken record. I can usually predict which phrases he's going to gravitate toward when criticizing any given Democrat.

Now, Hannity and others keep complaining that the President was way too slow to act, that there were all these opportunities to step in and he didn't. To a large extent, that is certainly true. Obama has largely hidden behind technicalities in law that he, as President, can waive via Executive Order, and there are a number of other things he could have done up front. But what I disagree with Hannity about is exactly what Obama should have been responsible to do. I absolutely think that the Obama administration, which granted BP prior to this incident recognition for they way they were operating, and even previous administrations are guilty for not more closely examining the operations of all offshore drilling platforms. However, ultimately, this is BP's fault. But what Obama is doing is finding every way he can to punish BP -- and through various bits of proposed legislation -- every other oil company for this screw up. Obama pretends to be angry, insults us by using language unbecoming a President, and gets everyone hopped up to go after BP and other oil companies. Lies and deception, that's all he seems to be capable of. He hasn't behaved like the President since the day he took office. What he has done is spent all his time jet-setting, golfing and CAMPAIGNING for his causes. His response to this entire oil disaster has been dismal. Various companies and countries offered all sorts of assistance--like miles upon miles of containment booms. But he declined. People like Hannity believe Obama should have used any and all available/offered means to control this disaster. I don't entirely agree. Here's what should have happened:

The moment the Administration recognized that this oil spill was getting out of control Obama should have immediately met with the top guy at BP. He should have told him -- publicly -- This is your mess and it's getting out of control. We will waive any restrictions preventing you from obtaining whatever resources you need to contain and fix this and you will either engage them ASAP, at your cost, or WE will do it. If WE do it, you will pay dearly because the American people are not going to bear the burden of your mistake. GET TO WORK.

This means that the U.S. wouldn't have been out the cost of any of the cleanup/repair effort, but would have cleared the way--and provided incentive via negative reinforcement--for BP to try everything to keep the spill from escaping into the open gulf. There's no way I would have even hinted that the American people might have to foot the bill on this. But, you see, Obama will not let a good crisis go to waste. I'm convinced he's been calculating his response to this in order to push forward more of his agenda. Toward that end, he's obviously very adept. But when it comes to being Presidential and understanding how to execute policy and influence industry without actually taking it over, the man IS inept.

This is yet another example of how I could have done a much better job than Barrack Obama....as could a great many other conservatives.