Pro-abortion organizations (under the guise of "women's groups"), such as NOW (National Organization of Women), the Feminist Majority, and other individuals are apoplectic over CBS's plans to air a certain commercial during the upcoming Super Bowl game.

The 30 second spot is sponsored by a conservative Christian group called "Focus on the Family."  (Of course, being conservative AND Christian - a double whammy - already serves to inflame the liberal-leaning pro-abortion crowd.)  Funding for the ad, at an estimated $2.5 to $2.8 million dollars, is being paid for by donations from people who are enthusiastic and supportive about the commercial.

The ad itself, produced under the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life" features one of the most gifted and accomplished college football stars of our time, Tim Tebow, as well as his mother.  Amazingly, Tim won the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore for Florida in 2007.  He is a great role model, and his teammates viewed him as a strong, positive leader.  Tebow is also an advocate for abstinence before marriage.  (as a side note, look what just came out in the news (even the L.A. Times had this story): - "Study finds new Abstinence-only program works"  reported that abstinence programs are seeing success.  Maybe the folks intent on passing out free condoms to MPS students might want to review such a study???)  Before Tebow was born in 1987, his mother Pam was in the Philippines.  She was pregnant and was quite ill.  A doctor advised her to have an abortion. She refused.  Tim, her fifth child, was born.  The rest is history.  And the story has become a pro-family ad.

So this commercial, celebrating the family, life, and the love between a mother and a son, is going to be shown during the Super Bowl.  

What's the problem?

Well, the outcry from the pro-abortion side was huge.  New York "Womens Media Center" (wonder what type of political-leaning group they are....) spokesperson, Jemhu Greene had this to say: 

 "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year.  An event designed to bring Americans together (hey, wasn't that "event" supposed to be the election of Barack Obama????).  By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice (liberal-speak for "pro-life"), homophobic (liberal-speak for "pro-family") organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage it's reputation (didn't Dan Rather already do that?), alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its' shows and advertisers (highly doubtful, as CBS and FOX dominate the top 20 shows every week in the ratings....)."

CBS issued its own rebuttal, saying it had approved the script and the ad itself was deemed "appropriate for the air."

Tim Tebow himself stated:  "I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe."

Focus on the Family spokesperson Gary Schneeberger said that his organization was "surprised" at the uproar over the ad.  He elaborated further, saying "there's nothing political and controversial about it.  When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game, those who oppose it (the ad) will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."

So let me get this straight.  An ad promoting family, family values, and life is somehow BAD - and shouldn't be allowed on television? 

How about this - in an effort to be "fair" (libs love that word), why not allow Planned Parenthood or NARAL equal air time.  They could run a pro-abortion ad, putting a positive spin on abortion and a "woman's right to choose."  Although, it may be rather difficult to use graphics or pictures - that might be a no-no as it may upset too many viewers.  Hmmm....maybe on second thought that's not such a great idea...

Suffice it to say, contrary to the angry view of the supposed "women's groups,"  the Tebows are to be applauded.  In this day and age, when people speak up in favor of the family and life, it is hard to understand why we, as Americans and human beings, shouldn't embrace such a message.  The pro-abortion groups trying to prevent CBS from airing this ad should be ashamed of themselves.  Terry O'Neill, the president of NOW, went as far as to condemn the spot, calling it "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

So promoting family and life is "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning?" 

Guess such outrage coming from NOW, The Feminist Majority and others at an ad promoting the family and life just goes to show how low some of our fellow human beings have sunk.  From the website Pravda.Ru comes the following excerpt to ponder:

Procured abortion...is the deliberate and direct killing , by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.  On a superficial level, we may be convinced that legalized abortion has not changed much in our private lives and in our society.  It all takes place in the silence of an operating room, which ensures the woman's safety.  It is as if the fetus has never existed.  But there are no small murders.  While the slogan that abortion is a woman's right to control her own body may sound reasonable to many, it is a medical fact that the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body.  It is a separate, distinct and unique human person, with its own heart beat, brain waves and DNA.  Ultimately, those who support abortion cannot coherently answer the question why the right of the fetus not to be killed must yield to the right of individual freedom.  When the law accepts that the rights of the weakest may be violated, it also accepts that the law of the jungle prevails over the rule of law.  When we begin to call even an embryonic human being a "thing,"  a "clump of cells,"  progress becomes blind and destructive.

Let's end here with a quote from President Ronald Reagan: 

                                      "Everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

Looks like Obama & Co. have promised Wisconsin $823 million taxpayer dollars via the Stimulus Bill to start up a light rail project between Milwaukee, Madison and Chicago, with a train station to be built in Watertown.  Whoopee!

All the newspapers and media have been reporting this story with the slant that everyone is happy - everyone wants this.  Very little mention is given to the opposition.  The media just assumes that we taxpayers are all delighted!    

What I'd like to know is why the taxpayers of Wisconsin aren't being given the opportunity to even vote on whether or not we WANT such an expensive project in our state?  It has been proven over and over - in states with cities much larger  - that light rail has been a total disaster.  Light rail in Seattle, for example, isn't a roaring success.  Seattle is experiencing low ridership, to the tune of costing $179 million dollars per mile when calculating number of passengers vs. cost!   And Seattle is a much bigger city than Milwaukee, with a population actually capable of supporting  light rail!    Even in Denver, where people voted for light rail in 2004, the city is now running out of money for the project.  Recently, Denver voters were presented with a proposed sale tax increase in order to continue to fund the stalled light rail project.   Guess people don't want to ride the trains in large numbers like many assume they will.  And once the trains are up and running, they start losing even more money.    Yet, Seattle and Denver are much larger cities then Madison or Milwaukee.  And even they are finding out light rail is more expensive than expected.  More costly to taxpayers as time goes by.  After the novelty has worn off, so do the ridership levels.   Milwaukee and Madison have even smaller populations than Denver or Seattle. Those two cities, as well as others throughout the country,  are already experiencing  few riders, high costs, and taxpayers just keep on payin' and payin' and payin'...... Is that what we can expect?  Yes.

So, what are we missing here?  Do we need to be whacked over the head with a hammer to realize that light rail will be an economic disaster for our state?  A guaranteed money-loser?  Face it -hardly anyone will ride the darn thing!  Currently it takes about 45 minutes to get from Milwaukee to Madison in a car.  Light rail won't cut down on travel time.  The fastest speed supposedly will be 110 miles per hour (wonder why this project is even being called "high speed" light rail?).   There will be stops along the way, adding to travel time,  between Milwaukee and Madison.   Given that people will first need to get to the train (by car, perhaps?), then once upon arrival  have to find transportation to get to their final destination (by taxi or bus, perhaps?)- how much time and cost is saved?   The honest answer has to be - NONE?!?

What we have here is a government - and state -  intent on throwing away money - the taxpayers money.  We taxpayers are being forced to pay for something that most of us do not want!  Recent studies suggest that we taxpayers may end up paying passenger costs around  $43 each way for this boondoggle!  Imagine if this project wasn't going to be subsidized by taxpayers - how much an individual ticket would cost?  Maybe then all the pro-light railers would have second thoughts - having to pay for their light rail experience all on their own.  Just so they can sit and read a book rather than drive somewhere....    And haven't we said "no" to this before???   

Even some in the People's Republic of Madison have chimed in that the prospect of building a light rail system is ridiculous.  No one will use it.  Busses in Madison aren't even being used now. Madison Metro is in the red year after year, just like the bus system in Milwaukee.  Ridership in Milwaukee is so low that fares recently had to be raised - still not enough to even cover the expense of the bus system itself!  And look at that glowing example of Amtrak - a train system entirely propped up year after year by the government to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars, since it is such a money-loser.

So, with unemployment at a record high, job losses in the millions during 2009, and no end in sight, our government bestows upon us $823 million dollars for:   A CHOO-CHOO? Why not give the funds to BadgerCare?   or even better - don't spend the money!  The Stimulus dollars don't even really exist anyhow - the money hasn't  been printed yet!  Our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren haven't started paying for the Stimulus Bill!    Let's REALLY start saving and REALLY cut that deficit!  Hasn't President Obama said that cutting the deficit and spending should be top priorities?  Remember about the "no earmarks" promise?  Well, a light rail train IS an earmark.  It is not a necessity, but rather a "want" of certain individuals.  During these poor economic times, can we really afford the luxury of "wants?"

Let's put this to a vote in November.  Contact your state and local representatives to express your wishes.  Put an end to the damage that Governor Doyle and his liberal cohorts continue to try to reek upon this state.   We can stop this train wreck before it leaves the station. 

We "derailed" Obama's plans for socialized medicine  - we can do the same with his plans for socialized transportation!

Well, he finally did it!  After 411 speeches and over 100 "exclusive" interviews (when does an interview become non-exclusive? when you''ve done 200?) since becoming president, Barack Obama managed to have his very own hour and a half special on television this past Wednesday evening.  Over 90 minutes of various routines, including comedy, drama, and acting.  Lots of acting.

As is the norm, President Obama was just stellar reading off of his beloved teleprompter.  No one can do it quite like him. With his nose arrogantly in the air, finger pointing and lecturing, it appeared that the evening was going to be a bit dry.  But then Mr. Obama got warmed up.  He started telling jokes - very funny jokes at that!  Here's just a sample:

1)  "For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough.  Some are frustrated, some are angry.  They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't, or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve our problems.  They're tired of the partisanship."  Oh my gosh.  I am doubled over with laughter.  The President sure has a great sense of humor!  Pointing fingers and blame for such a dismal first year as president.  No accomplishments of which to speak of.  Just the blame game. And it is so ironic that Obama talks about  "partisanship," when he and the Democrats have shut out any opposition to their socialist plans for the country!  They don't want to listen to the majority of Americans, nor Republican representatives.  They know what is best for us all!  Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been operating behind closed doors, unwilling to even listen to any Republican solutions that have been introduced.  Then the Three Stooges have the nerve to tell the American people that the Republicans are just the "party of "no"" and have never offered any ideas to solve anything!  A bald-faced lie, of course.   Hilarious!   

1)  "So I supported the last administrations efforts to create a financial rescue program.  And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable.  And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.  Most, but not all.  To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks..."   Oh, too funny, Mr. President!  However, I was wondering why you failed to tell the American people that you are proposing a fee on those banks that actually PAID BACK their TARP funds, while allowing such Democratic pet icons like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG to opt out of paying back any taxpayer dollars?  Punishing those who have done right and ignoring those who have done wrong......And just how does imposing a fee on banks encourage them to begin lending more money out?  to get the economy going?

2)  "Now, let me repeat:  We cut taxes.  We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses.  We cut taxes for first-time home buyers.  We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children.  We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.  As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.  And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person, not a single dime."  Funny how Mr. Obama fails to mention that he attempted to raise taxes - but wasn't successful.   Obama and his Administration proposed:  taxing the oil industry, tax increases to support the boondoggle health care reform bill,  a planned tax to raise $200 billion by taxing multinational companies (which was shelved after a huge outcry), and remember the pledge to only raise taxes on those evil wealthy Americans making over $250,000 a year? How often have we heard that dollar amount lowered?  So, Barry, it looks as though you wanted to raise taxes, but you weren't able to...  However, there are still three years left and increased taxes are just around the bend...all in good time.  We all know that Democrats just love tax increases.... 

3)  Economists on the left and the right say this bill (The Stimulus Bill) has helped save jobs and avert disaster, but you don't have to take their word for it."  Wow - is that a hoot!  Good one, Mr. Obama!  And you are correct, we won't "take their word for it."  No one knows where you found these one or two economists who say the Stimulus Bill worked, but most of us have heard from many more economists (on the left and right) as well as the media!  (yes, the media couldn't lie about what a flop the Stimulus Bill has been)  that the Stimulus Bill didn't create ANY jobs.  The Stimulus Bill didn't work.    That some Stimulus money went to many states simply to falsely help prop up their mismanaged budgets (like Wisconsin).  That the Stimulus money went to line the pockets of key projects for people who helped get Obama into office.  That the Stimulus Bill was so full of pork, it has been termed the "Porkulus Bill."  Or the "Generational Theft Act" since our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on will be paying for it for generations.  Need I continue?  Oh yeah - wasn't this the Bill that had to be passed - and quickly - so that nationwide unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%? 

4)  "That is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight."  Double-speak for another useless Stimulus Bill.  If you want to do something right, cut taxes - for real, don't punish banks by imposing fees on them, get more money back into the economy.  The jobs will come once more Americans are able to hold on to more of their own hard-earned money.  And they will in turn, spend it.  And stop passing bills full of pork and wasteful spending - using dollars that don't even exist.

5)  "Now, because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed."   Does Mr. Obama really expect anyone not to laugh at this?  What a jokester he is!  Nationwide unemployment now stands at 10%.  4.2 million jobs were lost during 2009.  The economic advisors to the White House, who came up with the 2 million "saved" jobs figures tended to include jobs that lasted a few days, a few weeks, or a few months in their totals.  They also based some of their figures on economic models, not reality.   Vice-President Joe Biden couldn't even explain how the White House comes up with it's numbers to support it's "claimed or saved" jobs numbers. 

6)  "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it (the various health care bills) more clearly to the American people."  After 411 speeches and over one hundred television interviews, Barack Obama, the great orator, just couldn't explain the health care boondoggle to the American people? That claim has just gotta make one smile and/or laugh!    How many more speeches, town halls, or appearances are needed?   Just a thought - maybe the majority of Americans realized what the Democrats and Obama were trying to do by pushing this massive government power-grab through.  There was no further explanation needed!  We read it -even if our elected officials and president did not.  We didn't like what we read, nor what we heard.  Period.  Trash it and start over.

7)  "We will continue to go through the budget line-by-line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work."    No comment needed!  This one is just hilarious all on it's own!

I saved the two best jokes for last:

8)  "Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.  I'm speaking of both parties now.  The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators."  Was this comment uttered with a straight face?  Neither party??!!??  Which party is in complete control in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, yet cannot get anything done?  Which party focused on a mess of a health care bill while the economy continued to sink and jobs were being lost?  For a full year, jobs and the economy were not an important part of the Obama Administration's agenda.  And some of the horrid bills coming out of Washington D.C. need to be obstructed or delayed because they ARE bad bills!  Health care is a prime example.  And which party filibustered  President Bush's plans and nominees for certain positions (and anyone remember Reagan judicial nominee Robert Bork?  or George W. Bush's pick for the D.C. Circuit court - Miguel Estrada?  Perfectly qualified candidates that the opposing party just didn't like....)?

9)  "Now, throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security.  Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated.  And we can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past."  So which party has been insisting on giving more and more rights to terrorists?  Closing the prison where some of the most dangerous threats to our national security reside?  Bringing the masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to New York City for civilian trials?  Many Americans vigorously nodded their heads in agreement with newly-elected Rep. Scott Brown's statement that instead of our tax dollars paying for lawyers for terrorists, we should be using tax dollars to defend ourselves against them.  Who is responsible for minimizing the terrorist threat, Mr. Obama?  Not taking it seriously?  Re-naming the war on terror with the more politically-correct, softer term of "overseas contingency operation" (try saying that three times really fast...)?  Moving ever-so slowly to send additional troops to Afghanistan months after initially requested by your own general?  After two recent terrorist attacks on American soil, what is being done, Mr. President?  A renewed effort to get health care passed?  Cap and tax passed?  More focus on the farce known as global warming?  Say what?  Are you really serious, or is that a joke, too?  Are you even listening to the American people anymore? 

After much of the silliness of the evening, Obama took a much angrier tone when he chose to chastise the United States Supreme Court for upholding the U.S. Constitution.  He was actually mad that the majority of Supreme Court justices did what they were supposed to do!  Recently the highest court in the land ruled that campaign finance restrictions designed to limit corporation and union donations were unconstitutional. Which they were. Such campaign finance restrictions were clearly unconstitutional restraints on free speech.   In regards to this, the President of the United States, Barack Obama stated:  "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections.  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  They should be decided by the American people.  And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."  This was shocking.  A President of the United States, criticizing the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution!  Whether one agrees with the ruling or not, the job of the Supreme Court - the highest judicial body in the United States -  is not to interpret what we - or Obama - may believe to be "right" or "wrong.'  They are supposed to "uphold, protect, and preserve the U.S. Constitution."  And in this case they did their job.  It is evident from Mr. Obama's words that he doesn't understand the role of the Supreme Court and/or doesn't approve of the United States Constitution.

Now, any Obama variety show or infomercial wouldn't be complete without a few slaps at the Bush Administration.  Obama didn't disappoint.   Obama took no less than seven swipes at President Bush.  Here's a small sampling:  "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."  And you have only made it worse, Mr. Obama, with your over-the-top spending and lack of honest solutions...   Obama states later:  "We can't afford another so-called "economic expansion" like the one from the last decade, what some call the "lost decade."  Some?  Maybe you and your democratic pals? Then we hear:  "By....by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.  Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."  So Obama went on a spending spree - setting a spending record for the first year of a President - racking up $3.5 trillion his first year in office to solve this problem?  Does that make any sense?  Later on, here comes "We'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office..."  Well, no kidding, Mr. Obama.  Especially since you and your fellow Dems continue to spend, spend, spend....And isn't the constant finger-pointing at Bush getting a bit stale?  Some new material may be in order.

After The Dear Leader managed to use the words "I" and "me" a total of 115 times during the show, the first "Barack Obama Variety Special" came to an end.  Thankfully.  For those of you who may have missed it, rest assured that you will get to see a rerun come January of  2011....  

During the past year, the United States has seen a President intent on apologizing for what he perceives to be the mistakes and misdeeds of our country.  A President who admires countries like Cuba and Venezuela.  A President who tends to dismiss those countries that are our allies in favor of those who are our enemies.  A President who is very hesitant to say anything good about America or tout it's greatness. 

Recently, as everyone knows,  a devastating earthquake shook one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere - Haiti.  Measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale, the earthquake toppled buildings, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people.   Haiti has been impoverished for centuries.  The government is corrupt. Haiti's infrastructure is akin to a third world country, with little signs of improvement over the years.  Destitute.  Most of it's people have no marketable skills and only a small minority finish school.  Most Haitians exist on pennies a day.  Hard to imagine it could get any worse, but it has. 

So, which country was first in line to come to the aid of the Haitians? Even prior to this horrific act of nature, which country sends many groups and individuals on humanitarian missions to the region - intent on helping the impoverished with dental care, health care, education, engineering, etc.?   When devastation strikes, what country is the first to come to the rescue?  What country provides physical help as well as monetary aide? 

Another horrific event comes to mind, similar to what has befallen Haiti.  In December of 2004, Southern Asia was devastated by a massive tsunami, leaving almost 179,000 people killed and close to 50,000 missing and/or presumed dead.  The United States immediately sent $400,000.00 to embassies in the region, and gave $4,000,000.00 to the International Red Cross.  The U.S. Pacific command sent three surveillance planes to the area in an effort to help survey the damage.  President Bush went further with an aid package of $950 million - which included the following (from the White House/George W. Bush -  US Support and aid for earthquake and tsunami victims website): 

                  - $339 million for reconstruction of infrastructure, such as the construction of roads, schools, and water distribution systems;

                 - $168 million to help victims transition back to their communities, including food aid, shelter, housing reconstruction, education, and programs that help victims recover and get back to work;

                  -  A total of $35 million for early warning and disaster mitigation efforts -- $23 million to improve the international and U.S. tsunami early warning system, and $12 million to enhance tsunami early warning and disaster mitigation in the affected countries;

                  -  $62 million for good governance and technical assistance for planning reconstruction activities and the costs of U.S. government agency operations in the region; and

                   -  $346 million to replenish costs incurred by the United States Agencies for International Development (USAID) and the Defense Department for provision of immediate relief. 

                  To date, the United States has committed $350 million in emergency relief assistance – which will be replenished in the supplemental to enable the United States to respond to future emergencies. This is in addition to operational costs incurred by the Department of Defense. Relief resources have been focused on emergency food assistance, provision of relief supplies, shelter, water and sanitation, health, education, cash for work, livelihoods recovery, psychological and social support, protecting women and children from human-trafficking, logistics and coordination, and debris clean-up. 

                  When the earthquake hit, USAID immediately worked to mobilize staff to respond to the humanitarian needs in the affected countries. At the height of the relief effort, more than 150 USAID personnel, including Disaster Assistance experts, were on the ground in Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Maldives, and the Seychelles conducting assessments of affected areas, managing U.S. civilian response, participating in the overall coordination of relief and reconstruction activities, apprising funding requests, and recommending appropriate U.S. Government relief efforts.

                          -  The United States, through USAID, has funded debris clean-up and other community rehabilitation projects in the relief phase benefiting more than 344,000 people through cash-for-work projects and temporary shelter for more than 165,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India.

                         -  USAID has also funded water and sanitation activities in the emergency phase benefiting more than 885,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and the Maldives.

                          - USAID provided 21,220 metric tons for the first four months of World Food Program (WFP) operations, contributing to WFP's beneficiary total of 1.4 million tsunami victims.

·                  The Defense Department brought into action military assets to support relief operations in Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The Defense Department has been providing vital supplies and logistics to the humanitarian effort since December 30.

                         -  At the height of the DOD humanitarian support activities, there were nearly 16,000 U.S. military personnel in the region focused on this effort.

                            -  There were 26 ships, 58 helicopters, and 43 fixed wing aircraft.

                           -  DOD delivered over 10 million pounds of food and supplies and provided well over 400,000 gallons of fresh water.

                           -  To date, DOD has treated almost 2,500 patients.

                  Other agencies have also contributed to the effort including the State Department with diplomatic coordination, the Department of Health and Human Services by deploying technical health experts, the Department of Agriculture with food aid, and the Treasury Department through the efforts of the international financial institutions.

                  Former Presidents Bush and Clinton will visit tsunami-affected countries of South and Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Maldives in February 2005.

  Estimates place the generous private-sector donations towards the tsunami relief efforts at more than $700 million.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The people of Haiti will be helped by the greatest nation on the face of the earth:  The United States of America.  We are the most generous country in the world.  Other countries look to us for help and guidance when tragedy strikes - and we always come through.  Whether it be our government sending military, monetary, or general aide, or the people of our nation reaching into their own pockets to send as much as they can spare to help out - the United States can always be relied upon.  No matter that many in our own country are unemployed and our own economy is in dire straits.  Americans will help one another - and others much less fortunate.  This has been proven time and time again.  

Oh, of course we will hear the usual laments regarding  "Hurricane Katrina" and what a terrible job President Bush supposedly did in helping the New Orleans area.  Yet, if people honestly examine what happened in that area, one would find the federal government reacted exactly the same way it does for any major catastrophe in our own country.   The response was quick and the federal government did what it could, given the circumstances and logistics.   The failures of New Orleans fall directly on it's local and state government officials - for their own corruption and ineptitude.  The culture of poverty prevalent in New Orleans,  and people who lived their lives dependent on the government to solve all their problems, didn't help.  Many people didn't know what to do - having been so dependent on others for so long, they were lost when left to their own devices for a period of time.   Of course, we don't hear too much about that, since one of the favorite mantra's of libs is "it's Bush's fault."   Does a day go by now without President Obama uttering those same words?

In getting back to my original question,:  When devastation strikes around the world, what country is the first to come to the rescue?  

And no, the answer is not Cuba, Venezuela, Europe, Saudi Arabia, China or Russia for that matter. 

The answer is the good ole' United States!!!   A fact that we should ALL be proud of! 

(If you would like to make a donation to the Haitian relief efforts, click on:  Haiti Earthquake Aftermath;  How to Help  for more information.  And Rush Limbaugh was right in stating that Americans wishing to help should NOT send their money to Obama and the federal government.  They already take enough of our money to use as they see fit through taxes.   Limbaugh instead encouraged people to send their money to reputable charities of their own choosing!  I agree.)

You can always tell when the U.S. Supreme Court has done something right.   Liberals start squawking - loudly.   Recently the highest court in the land ruled that campaign finance restrictions designed to limit corporation and union donations were unconstitutional. Which they were. Such campaign finance restrictions were clearly unconstitutional restraints on free speech.

Contrary to what many liberal politicians and talking heads are claiming - that such a ruling is "judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench," just the opposite is true. "Judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" occurs when the courts refuse to uphold the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Courts purpose is to uphold the United States Constitution.  More specifically:  

"The Supreme Court of the United States of America has but one primary obligation to the American people, and that obligation is to use the power afforded it under Article III – Section I of the Constitution, to uphold, protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, the Charters of Freedom, and provide equal justice for all, without regard to personal political leanings or ambitions."

 It's that simple. And in this case, five of the Justices did their jobs.   The five justices that deserve the thanks of the American people include:  Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito,  and Antonin Scalia.

Not surprisingly, the four U.S. Supreme Court justices that voted against upholding the Constitution were the liberals on the bench. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Steven Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. These four did not do their jobs.  They were, in fact, trying to "legislate from the bench."

The First Amendment, which was the focal point of the case presented to the Justices,  states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The spin coming out of liberal land is that corporations, for decades, have not been considered "human beings." The U.S. Supreme Court struck down this age-old premise. Corporations are indeed human beings. Corporations are individuals, organized into a group, for the purpose of making business decisions.  Who runs corporations?  People.  Who owns corporations?  People.  Who works for corporations?  People.  

So what is really going on here?  I think that the real outrage coming from the left is that they wanted to corner the market on being able to influence elections and political campaigns. They have been allowed to do so for years. Just look at how, during the Obama campaign, the mainstream media became the Barack Obama Fan Club. They helped Obama get elected, with positive stories, upbeat articles, and support.  This type of reporting is still very common today, although the media is finding it more difficult to spin anything Obama and the Democrats are doing in a positive manner.  On the flip side, the constant criticisms and slanderous reporting when it came to Republicans like John McCain -  and especially Sarah Palin, were all too common. (The venom coming from the media regarding Palin was unprecedented - and for some strange reason has continued ever since the campaign ended!)  

Anyhow, a simple question to ask journalists who are aghast at this ruling is: Who do you work for? 

The media wants freedom of speech all to themselves - but not for other businesses or unions. Well, guess what?  The media - all types across the board - are usually owned by.........corporations!  Close to home, the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel is owned by Journal Communications.  A corporation whose stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange.  And let's not forget those biggies like the American Broadcast Company (ABC).  Or The National Broadcast Network (NBC).    Or Turner Broadcasting.  Or Hearst Corporation, etc. The list of media corporations is huge.

What the U.S. Supreme Court did on January 21st, 2010, was vote to uphold the United States Constitution.  Rather than listening to President Obama, Democratic politicians, and liberal talking heads rip this correct decision to shreds, realize that the agenda of the left is to rip the United States Constitution to shreds.  

Coming on the heels of Republican Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts, this decision is yet another step in the right direction!  What a great week for America this has been!

Check out Keith Olbermann's take on Scott Brown:

Whew!  Don't sugarcoat it, Keith!  Just NASTY!  You put Nancy Pelosi to shame!  No wonder so few people tune in to MSNBC... 

At least Obama's mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, held back a bit,  stating that Obama was "surprised and frustrated" by the recent situation in Massachusetts. 

Well, Mr. Gibbs, maybe President Obama should realize that many of the people who voted for him in 2008 are "surprised and frustrated' a year after Obama ascended into office.  One year was all it took to see that Obama is a phony.  Saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Examples and legislation abound to prove such.  Failures too numerous to mention.  Successes too few to even point out.  A bust. A president who is not putting the best interests of America first.  Can Obama salvage his presidency?   

In order to do so, Obama and the Dems must pay heed to what happened in Massachusetts.  This special election was a political upheaval rarely seen - and if Republicans can win in Massachusetts, they can win anywhere.  Obama and the Dems should review Brown's acceptance speech - they might learn something. Senator Brown stated what many Americans believe right now.  A few highlights: 

-  "Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party - and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people's seat."

-  "One thing is clear, voters don't want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.  This bill is not being debated openly and fairly.  It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt.  It is not in the interest of our state or country."

-  "When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way.  No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out-of-touch party leadership.  No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay."

-  "I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of the people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs, and as President John Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy.  It's that simple!"

-  "...I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

-  "Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for this country."

In summary, Scott Brown's message rings loud and clear:  "WE CAN DO BETTER!"

We sure can, Senator Brown!  After your stunning victory, Obama and the Democrats are on notice.  They are scrambling and lost.    If they fail to understand that the majority of Americans do not like what they are trying to do to America, they will continue to fall victim to their own arrogance and ignorance.  Fine.  The tide is turning - and America WILL return to it's moderate, conservative roots.  Whether the Democrats and President Obama decide to become part of the solution, or continue to be the problem, is yet to be seen. 

Congratulations to newly-elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)!  An incredible victory for Brown, Massachusetts, and the American people!  Isn't it ironic that in Massachusetts, where the Revolutionary War began, another revolution is in the works?  Against early odds, in a state where Republicans are outnumbered 3-to-1 by Democrats, Brown pulled out an amazing victory.  A victory that spoke volumes against the Obama agenda for our country - and Obamacare. 

What will the White House do?  Obamacare may - and should -  go down in flames.   (Hopefully the  Democrats - if they have a sense of decency -  will allow Brown to be certified in a timely manner and have the opportunity to vote.)  We all know that Obama, Pelosi, and the Dems are in a panic.  They need to pass health care and NOW.  No matter what a mess it is.  No matter that the majority of the people do NOT WANT IT.  They are scrambling behind closed doors (of course - no "transparency" with this administration!)  to come up with a quick fix to ram this boondoggle through.  And with Brown's election,  the rest of Obama's planned steps towards bigger government, higher taxes, less freedoms, and weaker national security will come to a screeching halt.  It is a good day for Republicans, conservatives, independents, and maybe even some Democrats who are finally admitting that Obama is a bust as a president.

Yet, even though this victory in Massachusetts is a reason to celebrate, conservatives and Republicans must not get complacent.  For too long in the past, many Republican politicians have transformed into "Republicrats."  Meaning they lost their conservative roots and ideals along the way.  They blended in too much with Democrats - especially when it came to issues of spending and taxes.  And, due to becoming a bit too full of themselves and power, they lost seats in recent elections.  They lost the presidency.  The races in 2006 and 2008 were not so much people hoping for Democrats to win the elections, as it was to kick Republicans OUT of office.  People were mad and angry that our Republican leaders had done little to really distinguish themselves from their Democratic counterparts.  And they gave them the boot to let them know they hadn't done their jobs - they hadn't represented the values they were elected to uphold.   President Bush was guilty of this in many instances.  Even Scott Brown himself is not a true conservative.  He is very liberal on some issues - specifically abortion and environmental causes.  However, he does stand with conservatives on Obamacare, cap and tax, no amnesty for illegal aliens, and is in favor of the Death Penalty.    Hopefully  Brown will not morph into another Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.  We don't want any more RINO'S.  We need to pay attention to how Brown tends to vote in the future.  Maybe he will only be a one-term Senator if he cannot adhere to the conservative principles he was elected to uphold.  And that is clearly what many American people want. 

Obama, Pelosi, and the Dems need to realize that America is a more moderate, conservative nation than they seem to think.  We are more "heartland" than West or East coast.  We are not a majority of ultra-liberal elites.  And we Republicans and conservatives need our representatives to stand for less government, lower taxes, and strong national security!  This Brown victory is the first step - as it could kill socialized medicine and other anti-American plans for our country. We have only just begun.  We still have a long way to go.  We have to get conservative politicians to campaign - to get elected at the federal, state, and local levels of government.  We need to take our nation back in the direction our founding fathers intended.   We are the United States!  We are not Cuba or Venezuela, nor - are you listening, Mr. Obama? - do we want to be.

But let's not forget  to give a shout-out to Barry!  Thanks to President Obama, the conservative movement and the Republican party has been jump-started.  We have gotten a real wake-up call.  Due to Obama's policies, which continue to frighten and anger many of us - many people with little to no interest in politics suddenly have been paying attention.  They are starting to care about who our elected officials are - and the consequences of their votes.  Obama and the Democrats are now on the receiving end of a huge backlash - and that backlash is growing.  The Tea Party movement is a clear example of this.  The Town Halls of the past few months also demonstrated how people are uniting to fight against the socialist policies of the Obama Administration.  Events and gatherings such as these are picking up steam - and must continue to! 

So, congrats to newly-elected Senator Scott Brown!  But remember, this is one small step.  Things are just getting started. If Republicans and conservative politicians return to their values - and run on such platforms - they stand excellent chances of being elected.   Once in office, they must stay true to the values they were elected to uphold.  And they must always remember that  WE are THEIR bosses - not the other way around!  (A simple fact that many in Washington D.C., including the President, seem to have forgotten.) 

 If this special election in Massachusetts is a sign of things to come, it's looking great for November and beyond!

This Tuesday, January 19th, there will be a special election in the state of Massachusetts.  The senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy IS UP FOR GRABS.  This is unprecedented.  Massachusetts is a Democratic stronghold and has been for decades.  Kennedy was the Senator from Massachusetts for forty-plus years.  It was a given that  the person who would replace him would be a Democrat!  No question about it. Business as usual.  But wait....something has happened.  Seems a growing majority of Americans aren't too happy with Democrats and President Obama.  Most polls reflect as much.  Many Democrats up for re-election later on are seeing dismal poll numbers, with Republican challengers fairing rather well.  Sometimes with double-digit leads over their Democratic counterparts. 

And in Massachusetts, this is simply amazing.  Democrat candidate Martha Coakley is only 2 percentage points ahead of Republican challenger - Scott Brown - 49% to 47%, with 2% undecided.   Just a few days ago, Coakley had a 9% lead.  What happened?   Considering that Massachusetts is a state where only 11% of registered voters are Republican, Brown's chances of winning are incredible!  Where did this guy come from?  What is going on? 

Could it be because Brown is running on a small-government platform?  Because he is against Obamacare?  Brown could kill socialized medicine in an instant with his vote.  Brown also scored big during a recent debate against Ms. Coakley, where Coakley looked lost.  One of the high points of the debate came when the moderator asked Brown how he would feel as the 41st vote denying the Democrats their filibuster majority on health care from Kennedy's seat.   Brown stated:

"It's not the Kennedy's seat; it's not the Democrat's seat; it's the people's seat."

What a brilliant statement!  Bringing back politics to the people!  Actually considering "the people" - the constituents who elect the politicians that are supposed to represent us! 

The Democrats right now are NOT representing the American people.  They are doing what they want - and the most perfect example is health care.  The majority of Americans do not want what the government is planning.  And the government - the so-called "transparent" government of Obama - is busy behind closed doors crafting yet another version of a monstrous, messy health care bill which in reality is little more than a government power-grab.  A health care bill that Americans are being kept in the dark about.  Just let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi work their magic....they know what is best for us!  We are just mere peons to the elitists running the country.  We peasants need to get out of their way and let them do their work!!!  If we don't, we are unpatriotic!

This type of attitude is what is playing into the Massachusetts race.  Martha Coakley and the Dems are desperate.    The Democratic National Committee Chair, Tim Kaine said:  "it's frightening how much traction" Coakley's opponent has been able to get in just the last week.  And if Brown wins, Dems are threatening to stall in certifying him, so he may not be able to vote on the health care bill!  

As a side note, a Weekly Standard journalist was roughed up by a Coakley operative after Coakley appeared at a fundraiser at a Capital Hill restaurant on January 12th.  During the fundraiser, Coakley refused to answer a question as to whether or not she stood by her statement declaring that there were "no terrorists in Afghanistan."  The Weekly Standard reporter asked Coakley why health care lobbyists were supporting her at the fundraiser - and she refused to answer that, too. 

Given the thug tactics used by Democrats at Town Halls and Tea parties during the past few months, the physical attack seen in this video should come as no surprise.  Much is at stake now.  The Democrats realize that they may lose power - and soon.  They are scared.   If the Senate seat in Massachusetts goes to a Republican, just think what might happen in 2010 and 2012!  Could this special election represent a sign of things to come?  Is this the tipping point?  Why, even if Brown loses, the fact that he managed to pull almost even with the Democratic challenger IN MASSACHUSETTS is a victory in itself. 

Now, hopefully voter fraud won't play a major role in this special election on Tuesday, but you never know.  ACORN might resurrect itself to slip in a few fake votes.  Moveon.org might register a few dead people or NFL football teams....   Remember what happened in Minnesota to help Al Franken win?  Voting ballots disappeared.  Voting ballots re-appeared, all for Franken.   Ballots were rumored to have been  found in the trunk of a car and were allowed to be counted.  Even political experts said that usually when lost or absentee votes are "discovered," they tend to skew 50-50.  Not in Minnesota.  They went to Al Franken.  And  Franken won.  The Democrats have cornered the market on the fine art of cheating at elections.  Maybe in Massachusetts, if it's looking bad for Coakley,  voter ballots may be discovered in the trunk of a '69 Oldsmobile submerged in a tidal channel in the Chappaquiddick Islands... resulting in a Coakley victory!

At the recommendation of local conservative radio talk show host Mark Belling, I read an article Belling had discovered,  entitled "Laughing at the Left."   Being a firm believer that many liberals, especially liberal politicians, are devoid of "common sense" and instead tend to approach life and it's challenges based on "feelings,"  I just had to check out "Laughing at the Left."  Wow!

"Laughing at the Left" was written by  Quin Hillyer. Mr. Hillyer is a senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and a senior editor of The American Spectator.  Hillyer's well-written column was chock-full of  observations and facts clearly demonstrating how illogical liberalism really is.  I found so many examples that were true and undeniable, that I just had to share them with my readers.  Hillyer's column is powerful stuff.  Rather than just provide a link to "Laughing at the Left,"  I contacted the author directly for permission to re-print the column in it's entirety.  Mr. Hillyer graciously agreed to allow me to do so.  (In addition to re-printing the entire column, Mr. Hillyer requested that I provide a link to his article at American Spectator.  Please click on the title below to access the column and learn more about Mr. Hillyer.) 

Laughing at the Left:  by Quin Hillyer

If the consequences for this great nation of ours weren't so serious and the policies preferred by the left weren't so dangerous, one would really laugh, almost uncontrollably, at the beliefs and (il)logic of American liberals. Based on things they have actually said or done, here are some of the things they really, truly seem to believe.

They believe we can spend our way out of debt. They believe taking money from one part of the economy to give to another part somehow makes the economy bigger. They believe people who have never run a business can run a business better than people who have spent their whole lives running businesses. They believe that what appears to be a 20-year spike in global temperatures (a spike itself that hundreds of scientists dispute) can mean doom for a planet whose temperatures have swung much more widely for 6 billion years -- but that an eight- or ten-year flattening or even drop in temperatures can be ignored because it doesn't comport with the "models" based largely on the previous 20 years. They believe that punishing "developed" nations for carbon consumption is a good idea even if it means that developing countries without the same environmental controls will take over the production/manufacturing forced away from the developed countries. So, somehow, in the name of saving the environment from carbon emissions, they would create even more carbon emissions (and other, real pollution) elsewhere -- and call it progress.

They believe that teenage girls who aren't allowed to get even minor cosmetic surgery without a parent's permission should nevertheless be able to procure an abortion without a parent's permission. They believe that would-be parents should have the "choice" to kill their babies, but not the choice of where to send their children to school. They believe that when it comes to advising about abortions, nobody should interfere with the doctor (abortionist)-patient relationship -- but when it comes to caring for the elderly, anonymous bureaucrats should dictate to doctors what sorts of treatment are cost-effective enough to be "approved."

They believe it is unconstitutional for a legislature to mention Jesus but perfectly okay to mention Allah. They think it is offensive for mass-market movies to exhibit Christian sensibilities, but that it is perfectly okay for primetime TV shows on the public airwaves to have eighth graders decide which is the sexiest from among of contestants on MILF (Mothers I'd Like to ****) Island. They believe it disqualifies an appellate judicial nominee to joke one time about praying "please God, no more Souters" on the Supreme Court, but that it doesn't disqualify a Supreme Court nominee to repeat in multiple prepared speeches that "inherent physiological or cultural differences… may and will make a difference in our judging." They believe it is disqualifying for a judicial nominee to have quoted Thomas Aquinas about a Catholic duty to be good and active citizens while speaking to a Catholic high school. They believe explicit words in the Constitution protecting contracts, and gun ownership rights, and property rights against government seizure, are to be ignored; but that wholly invented "rights" that cannot be found in any words of the Constitution, but that merely "extend" from "emanations" from "penumbras" of other judicially created "rights," are somehow sacrosanct and essential parts of the Constitution.

They believe that when a white skinhead threatens a black man, it is a sign of a vast racist conspiracy; but that when paramilitary-garbed New Black Panthers with a weapon, spouting racial epithets, stand right in front of a polling place, it is no violation of civil rights at all -- even after a judge has already moved to issue a default judgment against the Panthers. They believe that blacks are suffering racial discrimination when black voters themselves choose to hold non-partisan elections. They believe white firefighters can be denied promotions specifically because they are white, and that Asian students can be denied admission to college because they aren't black, but that black students who want to attend racially integrated private schools should be sent back to de facto segregated public schools in the name of "fairness."

The Left thinks it is good diplomacy to insult our allies while kowtowing to our enemies and bowing to problematic rivals. They tried everything in their power to stop Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies and yet now claim to have been part of a decades-long, bipartisan consensus on Cold War efforts. They think Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" until they are in charge of it, after which it becomes a war that must be stopped, one that was inherited from bad Republicans. They oppose missile defense because they say it will never work, and then when it works they oppose it anyway. They think that American imperialists are worse than foreign Communists. They think American servicemen should be prosecuted for (allegedly) punching a jihadist-terrorist in the stomach while capturing him -- and in a military court, without civilian due process rights -- but that foreign terrorist suspects are too good for military justice and instead deserve Miranda rights and other domestic American civil rights.

They support jail sentences for mere paperwork violations of environmental laws, even of foreign environmental laws or regulations, but they think even violent criminals should be let free if police make unintentional mistakes in paperwork or procedure.

They also think it is dangerous to the point of being an existential threat for ordinary citizens to challenge office-holders at town hall meetings, but perfectly okay for those same powerful office-holders to call their critics "un-American." They believe in the secret ballot for Mexicans, but not for American workers who are considering unionization. They say, against all evidence, that far more ballots are kept from being cast due to utterly unspecified "intimidation" than are cast fraudulently in the names of people who actually go nowhere near the polls, of dead people, and even of pet dogs …and of dead pet fish!!!

And, finally for now (this could go on for page after page), get this: They actually think most Americans agree with them. Now that isn't just laugh-inducing; it's worthy of a roll-on-the-floor, guffaw-til-you're-blue-in-the-face, uncontrollable laughing fit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT ON, Mr. Hillyer!  And the proof will be in the upcoming elections in 2010, 2012 and beyond.  Why, even right now, in Massachusetts of all places - a Democratic stronghold for years - a Republican candidate has an excellent chance of winning that seat in a special election on January 19th!  Whodathunkit?  After 40-plus years of being dominated by Democratic Senator Teddy Kennedy (who should have spent a few of those years in prison, if there was any justice), Republican Scott Brown is neck-and-neck with Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley.   Dems in Washington D.C. are even scared that Brown will win.  They are threatening to stall certifying Brown, if Coakley loses,  in order to still have the votes to pass the health care bill!  Unbelievable.  

And don't forget that Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) recently announced he wouldn't run again for re-election (hmmm...could the fact that he was 22 points behind Republican Governor John Hoeven in the polls have played into his decision?), as well as Senator Chris Dodd (whose own poll numbers are dismal.)  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looks like he won't have a job after November of this year, either....  

The writing is on the wall.  Let Obama and the Democrats continue to "lead" as they are doing.  Let them pass that boondoggle mess called "health care reform."  Go ahead and pass another spend-crazy  "stimulus bill" that will go over like a lead balloon,  as did the first $787 billion dollar stimulus bill that just HAD to be passed quickly - so unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%!!!    Let Harry Reid continue to "lead" the Senate - even after making racist remarks about Obama.   (The same remarks, if uttered by a Republican, would have spelled the end of their political career.)  Let Nancy Pelosi and other Dems call Americans who are against socialism and the government take-over of health care "Astroturfers,"  "Nazi's, " and un-patriotic.  Let Obama and the Dems continue to aim America on a path towards bigger government and out-of-control spending.  We Americans know better.  And many who were initially fooled by Obama have wised up.  The majority of Americans don't like what is going on.  Not one bit.  We are angry.  We are motivated.  We are afraid for America.  Obama and the Democrats have awakened a sleeping giant - conservatives and others throughout the country who will not tolerate what our government is trying to do.  People who have never been interested in politics are paying attention.  People who have never attended a political rally or protest are turning up at such events in droves.    And we will speak loud and clear at the voting polls!  (Heck, even voter fraud won't be able to help salvage many Democratic politicians careers at this point... )

Remember when George H.W.  Bush first uttered these words in 1988:

"Read my lips, no new taxes" was a promise Bush made during the Republican National Convention when he was selected as the Republican Presidential candidate in 1988. Bush went on to defeat Democrat Michael Dukakis and served for four years.  When he came up for re-election in 1992, Bush lost.  This was due to the fact that Bush had told a lie -  a big whopper - saying he would not raise taxes.  The American people remembered.  And the American voters held Bush accountable when he ran again for re-election.  People don't like being lied to. They voted Bill Clinton into office instead. 

Now along comes Barack Obama:

Think the American people will forget 7 lies - and counting!   Just recently Obama announced he may forget about his promise to the labor unions to not tax their cadillac health plans should health care reform become a reality.  Labor unions aren't taking that news too well.

Here's several other  whoppers on "transparency" alone.   Showing Obama promising over and over how health care bill negotiations will be shown on C-Span.  So the public can see and hear what is going on!  Is that happening?  NO. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their partners in crime are working behind closed doors to conjure up the health care bill monstrosity that the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT.   Maybe in the mixed-up world of Obama, "transparency" is a code word for "opaqueness."

How anyone can continue to defend this truth-challenged president is beyond me.  (A rare moment of honesty in Washington D.C. was when Congressman Joe Wilson  called Obama a "liar" during Obama's infomercial on health care...)  Yet, there are still many Obamazombies out there who apparently will follow their Dear Leader over a cliff if he asks them to.  Most of us know better.  If the American people chose to not re-elect President George H.W. Bush because he told ONE lie, it will be simply amazing if Obama can get re-elected in 2012 over lies too numerous to even keep track of...

"The National Democratic Future Voter Outreach Drive,"  otherwise known as the "Census Portrait of America Road Tour," is gearing up to visit 800 locales nationwide  to  "promote the benefits of responding to the 10-question 2010 census."   All courtesy of the White House.

The cost?  Why, a drop in the bucket for the Obama Administration - $340 million dollars.  $340,000,000.00.  Yes, that is correct.  With 10% unemployment, jobs being lost on a daily basis, the economy in a recession, and our government sinking our country deeper in to debt, somehow Obama & Co. managed to come up with $340 million dollars to spend on this boondoggle.  And boondoggle is the only word for it.

To begin with, why does our country NEED a 46 foot trailer, along with 12 smaller cargo trailers, traveling 150,000 miles nationwide PROMOTING the benefits of responding to census questions?!?  Anyone have a good answer?  (And just imagine that carbon footprint!)  Why is the census 10 questions?  All people need to answer, if they wish, is how many people live in their household. 

A few months ago, when Obama first came into office, one of the initial power grabs the public saw from this Administration was the taking over of the U.S. Census duties.  This was unheard of.  House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, stated:  "This action appears to be motivated by politics, rather than the interests of our country.  The United States Census should remain independent of politics;  it should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."   Never has the census been politicized like Obama has done.  I wrote a blog on February 13th, 2009, called:  Media doesn't want to report on 2010 U.S. Census - Why?  In that post, I mentioned how, after a census, re-districting and voting patterns can be re-drawn, based on population counts.  By taking over the U.S. Census, districts can be manipulated to achieve maximum votes and seats in the House or Senate.  Hmmmm.....think Obama and his cronies might have known this when they took control of the Census duties?????

What a sham - at the expense of the taxpayer.  And if that isn't enough to make anyone angry, check out this poster being promoted by NALEO - The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.  NALEO is just one of 136,000 community volunteer organizations (doesn't that make one shudder!)   to partner and help out with U.S. Census duties.  (Funny how Christ cannot be mentioned in schools or Christmas.....yet, for the census it's A-O-K!!!)

(Wonder if the Obama Administration will put up another website where friends, relatives, neighbors, and others can "rat" out those who are questioning the U.S. Census methods?  Similar to the flag@whitehouse.gov website used several months ago to report on people who didn't believe the lies and misinformation they were being force fed by the Democrats on health care reform....)

From my 2/13/09 blog:    It has become clear that Obama and the Democrats want to remain in power for a long time to come.  They will do anything, apparently, to achieve this goal.

No kidding.

Aw, c'mon Barack!  Just a solid B+?  As for narcissism, you take the cake.  What kind of president would even answer such a question - wouldn't a more dignified, classy response have been  "I leave that judgment to the American people?"  No, Barack Obama just couldn't help it when it comes to his favorite topic - himself. Some even say that the hardest part of Obama's day is when he has to turn away from the mirror....

As for my own personal grade for The One:  right off the bat I'd have to say an "A."  First of all, this neophyte man-child, with no experience, fooled many people into voting for him.  Granted, the mainstream media became an extension of his personal fan club and helped get him elected, yet many people were bamboozled and hoodwinked into electing a man with no qualifications to be president.  A man who throughout his life has been surrounded by Marxists and socialists - who grew up with a huge chip on his shoulder in regards to America.  A man who doesn't appear to like our country very much.  A man who apologizes and criticizes America as often as his buddies like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro.   And now he is the President of the United States.  Think of the millions of people he had to fool to achieve such a goal!  Mission Accomplished!

So I will give Obama an "A" for his unheralded ability to dupe the American public into electing him president.  For his unbelievably smooth performance of pretending to be a moderate while campaigning and then turning into the socialist he has always been once sworn in.    I will give Obama an "A" for working hard to rebuild America as he sees fit.  As a socialist nation.   That is what Obama and his Administration want - and they are doing a great job.  Government now owns a few automobile companies.  A few banks.  They got their hands on health care.  Next to go will be the private insurers - so they can be replaced with government-run bureaucrats and programs.  Bigger government - bigger than we ever imagined - or ever wanted.  Less freedoms.  More of our money taken from the earners to give to the non-producers.  The redistribution of the wealth as the government sees fit.    The people Obama has surrounded himself with - all the czars and Chicago cronies -  are accomplishing a lot in a very short period of time.  Seems they had to "hit and run" in order to cram everything through before the American people realized what was happening.  Many are finally waking up out of their Obamazombie stupors to realize that Obama was NO moderate - not in the least.  He only pretended to be to get elected.  They are finally understanding that Obama was NOT bi-partisan - and has no intention of becoming so.  He only pretended to be bi-partisan to get elected.  And finally -  Obama does NOT want "transparency" in government, but wants total opaqueness.  Passing bills behind closed doors.  Shutting the Republicans and the voices of opposition out of everything.  Not even telling the American people what garbage is in the health care monstrosity that passed the Senate during the wee hours on Christmas Eve...

When giving himself a "B+" on Oprah, Obama states that he "inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt."  Not true.  Obama inherited a mild recession.  He has since made it much worse.  He and his Democratic followers have passed massive spending bills, loaded with pork.   Such bills only serve to wreak havoc with our economy and are helping to destroy capitalism - a desired goal of socialists.   Obama has increased our national debt by trillions.  The Chinese basically own our country.  And during the Oprah love fest, Obama had the nerve to claim that the "economy is growing?"  Where?  All Obama has done is add more Chinese money to float around and make it appear as though certain segments in society are productive.  Remember "Cash for Clunkers?"  Money that the government didn't have was used to falsely bolster a sagging car sales industry.  A mere blip in car sales was seen, which disappeared after the government funds ran out.  The only "growing" we Americans are witnessing right now is the growth in government.  Bloated, inefficient, spend-happy, bureaucratic power-grabbers.  That is exactly what Obama wants.  Right now in  the United States, the number of  government jobs continue to grow while private sector jobs decline.   Is that where we are headed?  Phasing out hard-working Americans who formed the backbone of our great country through their work, productivity, ingenuity, drive, and ambition?  To be replaced by government-created jobs that do nothing but serve to grow government?  If Obama really wanted to stimulate our economy, he and his pals in Washington D.C. should be encouraging the exact opposite.  But for some strange reason, this is not the case....

Wow!  So, Barack Obama is doing just fine!  He sure deserves an "A"... if  you like socialism and hate America!

However, if one loves this country  and the principles upon which it was founded, that grade must change dramatically.  If Americans want to succeed and prosper, and NOT rely on the government for their every need, Obama is doing a mighty poor job as president.  Worse than Jimmy Carter.    Most of us - according to virtually every poll as of late - are very unhappy with Mr. Obama and his socialist pals in the Senate and House.  So if we are honest and admit that Barack Obama is dangerous - since he is intentionally and systematically destroying America - we have to give him an "F."  A strong, solid "F."   And "hope" for "change" in 2010 and 2012 to save America. 

It's a new year.  After one year of President Obama' moderate mask being removed,  and the socialist truth coming out,   we have seen destructive legislation and massive unprecedented spending from the Democrats in the House and Senate.  Trillions of dollars in spending bills full of pork.  Dithering on an important battle in Afghanistan while American troops were left hanging.  The refusal of an Administration to admit we have a deadly terrorist problem.  Instead, we get Obamacare - which will serve to ruin the health care system by providing lesser quality of care, longer waits to see doctors, and higher costs (i.e. taxes)  to pay for this boondoggle.  (By the way, did anyone read a little blurb in the Journal/Sentinel a few days ago stating that many families may end up paying 10% of their income for Obamacare?   10%!!!!)   Bigger government.  Less freedom.  Unemployment reached a record high of 10% and there appears to be no quick fix on the horizon.  Of course, higher taxes are a given.  Taxes and Democrats are two things that go hand-in-hand.

So 2009 for many Americans was a depressing, dismal year.  The great country of America has sufferered a damaging assault from within - very quickly.  Our own government seems intent on tearing down the very fabric of what created our wonderful nation and rebuilding it to mimic France.  Or worse yet, Cuba.  But 2010 bodes well - help is on the way.  Brighter days may indeed be ahead.  I am optimistic.  With that in mind, here are my top ten political hopes (not in any order of importance), both locally and nationwide,  for 2010:

 1)  Scott Walker is elected governor of Wisconsin.   Walker is the best candidate to save our state and address all the wrongs (too numerous to mention)  foisted upon us by the Doyle Administration.    

  2)  True conservatives take over control of the U.S. Congress and the Senate in the November elections.  And true conservatives emerge to lead the majority of us fed up with liberal policies and socialism.  Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, just to mention a few,  all need to stand together and lead by example.  What true conservatives are.  Promoting lower taxes, smaller and  less government intrusion in our lives, and a strong national security.  It's that simple.  And the time is right.  (And don't let the Democrats and the media choose another RINO as our "Republican nominee for president" come 2012  like Mike Huckabee. The press was very successful in doing that with John McCain in 2008.  Huckabee is a Democrat, posing as a Republican.  One only need look at his past record as Governor of Arkansas to reach such a conclusion.  Watch the media start to gear up to promote this guy...)

  3)  Obama becomes a lame duck after Democrats are kicked out of the U.S. Congress and Senate, putting the breaks on socialism. Hurrah!

  4)  Pending lawsuits (13 so far) against the special payout Democrat Ben Nelson received  (also known as the "Cornhusker Kickback") in return for his "yes" vote to Obamacare eliminate this unprecedented caveat.  Nelson gets left out in the cold, looking like a buffoon for scrapping his principles in favor of a huge payoff.

  5)  MPS fails to find any "private" funding to support it's massive condom give-away to students.  MPS is instead forced to focus on teaching reading, 'righting, and 'rithmatic, rather than "rubbers" to improve students performance. And maybe throw in some parental responsibility?

  6)  Global Warming continues to be exposed for the farce it is.  Man-made global fraud was perpetuated by leftie scientists with an agenda, being paid millions in grants to reach desired conclusions to promote this lie.  Climategate exposed this joke for what it was.  Data tinkered with to reach a specific outcome.  Falsified reports.  Manipulated results.  Al Gore might just have to find another fake catastrophe to promote.

 7)  The Constitutionality of Obamacare will be brought into question and Democrats will not be allowed to slough it off as just some silly nonsense.  It isn't.  No American can be forced by the government, under fear of penalty or jail, to buy a service.  This is actually in the Constitution if anyone is willing to research it!  The media should be all over this - if it would do it's job.  The Constitution CANNOT mandate that any American buy a good or service.  Isn't "health care" a service"?

  8)  The mainstream media may start canceling it's Obama Fan Club memberships.  (Alright, I can "hope" for "change,"  can't I?)  They may actually get back to reporting.  Real journalism.  Like the "who, what, where, when, and why."  Unbiased.  Not the Tiger Beat  or National Enquirer level of reporting we have become accustomed to when it comes to Barack and Michelle Obama.  (I'm surprised we haven't gotten fold-out posters of the first couple in our newspapers!)

 9)  Obama stops with the "pretty please" lip service aimed at our enemies that gets us nowhere.  Effeminate, spineless leadership that our enemies laugh at.  Witness North Korea and Iran thumbing their noses at Obama.  Time after time.  Doing what they want.  Missile launch after missile launch.  Working on developing uranium sources.  Going nuclear.   And what does Obama do?  Head to that teleprompter and speak out, sounding really mean!  With a mad look on his face.  Whoa!  That oughta do it!  No.  Obama needs to lead.  Become a president.  Look out for the United States and not try to appease our enemies and make everyone like us.  And stop blaming others (especially Bush) for his own mistakes, missteps, and idiocy.  That is something six year olds do in first grade.

 10)  The Obama Administration takes terrorism seriously.  If the United States begins to experience more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, it will be due to the  total incompetence and lackadaisical attitude of Obama towards this very real threat.   We won't need to worry about higher taxes, bigger government, or health care.  We may be too busy getting blown to bits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's a fun little quiz for New Year's Day:

 Who said the following:  "Let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us!" 

For those of you who said Obama - wrong!  It was actually Hugo Chavez.  Isn't it sad that it is hard to tell the difference? 

I have "hope"  that many "changes" in 2010 will mean a very good year for conservatives.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

So when will the neophyte man-child posing as a president ever take ownership of the office he is supposed to represent?

A terrorist tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit on Christmas Day.  The attempt was thwarted -not by any law enforcement, federal agency or screening process, but only because the bomb that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was wearing did not detonate properly.  If it had, 300 innocent airline passengers and crew would have been blown to bits.  

This was the second terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Obama has come into office.  The first act of terrorism was, of course, the killings at Fort Hood in November.   For some strange reason, most Americans realize this was a blatant act of terror, except for President Obama and his White House.  The Fort Hood killings were carried out by a radical Muslim extremist who preached openly against the United States and encouraged Muslims to kill Americans on the battlefield.  Major Nidal Malik Hasan actually had been in contact with the same Imam that Abdulmutallab had been conversing with.  Imam Anwar al Awlaki, who is in Yemen, was once considered a propagandist for terrorist beliefs.  Recently, the Imam has been said to have become "operational" - actually aiding and planning terrorist plots.  Yemen is slowly becoming the new hotbed of terrorism.  One that Obama may not be able to ignore much longer...

The Detroit incident took place on Christmas Day.  At that time, rather than address the nation himself, Obama sent out Robert Gibbs (how DID this guy ever get to be a spokesman?  He can hardly utter a complete sentence without an "uh" or "ahh") and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  Why Obama chose to send out these two goofballs, rather than face the music himself was questionable.  Maybe he just had to finish that last round of golf in Hawaii?

Anyhow, Napolitano made the brilliant observation that "the system worked" - meaning the terrorist attack on the December 25th flight over Detroit was stopped.  Napolitano seemed unaware that the only reason the attack failed was that the bomb didn't function properly...  Anyhow, a day later, Napolitano made another brilliant observation, saying "our system did not work in this instance."  Does anyone at the Obama White House know what they are doing?  (Or are they trying to imitate John Kerry on flip-flops?)   And remember, this is the same Janet Napolitano that has dismissed terrorism and instead refers to such incidents as "man-made disasters."

Robert Gibbs went on to explain how the past policies and procedures that have been in place for the last several years need to be reviewed.  Hmmm.    Sounds very similar to what Obama said later:  "The system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have."  What nice back-handed slaps at President Bush.  How surprising.

Anyhow, this incident reflects the whole lack of seriousness which with the Obama Administration chooses to address the terrorist threats to our country.  In other words, they don't.  They don't want to address them and they don't know how.  In their minds, President Bush is a greater threat to America, as are Americans who are speaking out against the policies and socialist programs being created by Obama and his cronies.  Terrorism just isn't important to these folks.  For the president of the United States to refuse to address Fort Hood (remember, he waited a few days on that one, too, then had to do a few "shout outs" to the crowd before he even mentioned what occurred at Fort Hood) immediately, then ignore the Detroit airplane bombing attempt for four days is just bizarre.  What IS important to this guy? 

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has bent over backwards to "soften" terrorism.  Remember how we no longer call the fight against terror "the war on terror?'  It is now the "overseas contingency operation."  And we must shut down Club Gitmo to give all those terrorists who want to kill us another chance!  Even though we've made their lives pretty cushy, with three hots and a cot, Korans, fresh air, and even civil trials in New York City!  And every effort has been made to mirandize terrorists on the battlefield.  Our soldiers have to abide by "rules of engagement,"  giving the enemy an upper-hand in a war situation.  And the enemy knows how to use this to their advantage .  Why, President Obama even went so far as to set a date to alert the terrorists when the United States will be withdrawing from Afghanistan!  Wow! 

No, Barack Obama doesn't want to really address terrorism.  He's president and it isn't one of his top priorities, so why bother?  He is more concerned with impressing his leftie friends with his "blame America first" attitude.  He is more concerned with growing the government and making the American people more dependent upon it.  He wants to socialize America.  That's why he wanted to become president.  This "terrorism" thing is just an annoyance.  And in the meantime, our soldiers suffer.  Look at how our troops had to wait months for a decision on sending more help to Afghanistan, while the neophyte man-child dithered away time, not knowing or wanting to decide what to do.  Sure, he could still make all the rounds of the television shows he likes to appear on - "60 Minutes" seems to be a favorite,  yet Obama couldn't agree with his own self-appointed general to do what was best for our war effort in Afghanistan. 

At least the Republicans are speaking out on Obama's lackadaisical and dangerous attitude towards terrorism.  Representative Peter King (R-NY), the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, stated that  Obama administration hasn’t done enough in raising awareness of the risks of Islamic terrorism.  No kidding.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan) also said:  “It’s important for the president or the secretary to be more out there and reminding people just how real this threat was and how deadly it is.  For the first three months of this administration, they refused to use the word terrorism.  This (the Detroit incident) is a teaching moment. I believe he (Obama)  or the secretary or the vice president or the attorney general should be out there reminding the American people that this shows how deadly this enemy is, this shows how real this threat is, and how we have to do whatever we can to protect the American people.”

Sorry, guys.  Instead, we get the usual "it's Bush's fault."  From Napolitano to Gibbs to Obama.  "It's Bush's fault."  Enough already!  Americans are sick of the excuses used by this Administration for their own bumblings, shortcomings,  and idiocy.  Remember - after 9/11, with President Bush going after the terrorists, creating the Patriot Act, and other policies designed to protect America - we had ZERO attacks on U.S. soil.  For seven long years.  After Obama has been in office for less than a year, softened the attitudes and policies towards terrorism, we have had TWO attacks on U.S. soil.  Yet, somehow the Obama White House concludes that these two attacks (oops - they only count the Detroit one) were Bush's fault.  Yet, we continue to see Obama and his Administration fail to realize that terrorism is real.  By Obama's own admission, we on our way to being loved by everyone.  After all,  he is the great uniter - he is bringing all the countries together.  By all accounts, there is NO war on terror!  Obama claims to have repaired all the damage that Bush did in the world.  He has created lasting and new relationships with Muslims throughout the globe.  Hey, maybe we could even call terrorists "infidel-challenged" to go along with the softer  "overseas contingency operation!"

In all seriousness,  Obama needs to start to take ownership for the presidency to which he was elected.  These last two terrorist incidents, as well as the war in Afghanistan and the growing threat of Yemen need to be addressed.  One of the main jobs of the President is to keep our country safe. It is not to try to make everyone like us, let our enemies kick us around, and apologize to everyone for all of America's supposed faults.    Right now, we are on course for another 9/11.  And while terrorists are plotting more attacks, Obama and his followers seem to think that the greatest threat to America are fellow Americans who are showing  political resistance to a planned socialist take-over of our nation.  No, Barack.  Those people are called "patriots."  Something you do not understand.  The people who want to kill all of us -  America as a whole - are called "terrorists."  Terrorists!  We can only hope you understand that simple fact before it is too late.

I highlighted this same YouTube clip last year at this time.   Even though it is only a cartoon, it speaks to the true meaning of Christmas:

A Merry and Blessed Christmas to all.

From Apathy back into Bondage

Why American Freedom is in its Eleventh Hour

A well-known self-destructive cycle of democratic behavior has been attributed to an eighteenth century historian by the name of Alexander Tytler. Whether Tytler is the original author or not, the concept of democratic self-destruction has been proven accurate, right here in America.
 
“From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
 
The cycle identifies eight stages of a process which demonstrates exactly how history tends to repeat itself. America finds itself in the seventh stage as it heads into the 2008 election, where it will decide whether or not to leap headlong into stage eight. Here’s how it happened and what the 2008 election is really all about.
 

From bondage to spiritual faith, to great courage, to liberty

America’s founding fathers were all men of great spiritual faith who had escaped political and religious bondage in Europe. It was that faith that drove them and gave them the courage to seek a new land of freedom and individual liberty, where they could design and build a nation where all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, chief among them the right to Life itself, individual Liberty and the right to individually define and pursue (earn) Happiness.
 
The Founders designed and established a limited government which was to be of, by and for the people, the governed, and they established that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
 

From liberty to abundance and abundance to complacency

It was individual freedom and liberty that gave every American the right and the motivation to create the most productive, prosperous and abundant nation ever known to man. And it is the earned abundance that would lead the wealthiest nation on earth into a state of complacency.
 
America is not only the most productive and abundant nation on earth. It is also the most generous nation on earth. For more than two centuries, Americans have not only been willing to share their wealth with many less fortunate societies around the globe, but also our technologies, the very philosophies that made us abundant, and even our blood, so that other peoples all over the world could share in freedom, independence and prosperity.
 
Extended periods of peace and prosperity have resulted in American complacency and today, generations who no longer understand the foundations of our abundance, what it took to achieve it and what it takes to conserve or preserve it for future generations, are on the verge of losing it all.
 

From abundance to complacency and complacency to apathy

Apathy, “an absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement; - lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.”
 
American abundance and complacency led to apathy years ago, when half of all American voters stopped taking the time to engage in self-governance at all, not even finding so much as an hour of their time once every four years to go to a voting booth and play a part in deciding the direction of their free nation.
 
The other half of America who does still engage and vote, are caught up in an insane debate over Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, Black vs. White and Poor vs. Rich. The real issue goes largely unnoticed.
 
While the political discussion is misdirected and limited to a laundry list of special interest issues, the real debate over Individual Rights vs. Communal Rights is silenced as “hate speech” or “greed” in the name of “political correctness.”
 
And as half of the nation is complacent in their mindless debate, the other half completely apathetic to the entire process, America votes itself into Democratic Socialism and from apathy into dependence.
 

From apathy to dependence

A short one hundred years ago, when our nation was building the infrastructure of the greatest nation on earth, our federal government and its budget was but a mere insignificant fraction of our gross productivity and nobody was dependent upon the federal government for their personal well-being. Every man, woman and child, was free to define and pursue (earn) their own destiny and no American looked to the federal government as their personal nanny.
 
One hundred years later, a complacent people turned apathetic towards self-governance has forgotten to remain forever vigilant in its conservation and preservation of the fundamental belief structure that made it all possible.
 
Today, an increasing number of Americans are now dependent upon the federal government and the federal trough for their happiness. Every national election is about what our federal government can do for us personally, not what we are able to do for ourselves as a result of individual freedom and liberty in the land of equal promise.
 
Increasingly ill-suited to navigate the individual choices inherent with freedom, a growing number of Americans have come to rely (depend) upon politicians and their government to solve personal challenges they no longer feel capable of solving themselves.
 
Socialized medicine is being sold as “universal health care.” Government control of the people’s private natural resources is being sold as “environmentalism.” The government confiscation of private earned assets, land, money and individual rights, tyranny for benefit of a greater common good, are being sold as a forced form of “communal generosity” and “community obligation.” The constant attack on “Capitalism” is sold as reigning in “evil corporations.”
 
This is what Hillary Clinton means when she says, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Or “We are going to take some things away from you, for the greater good.” It is what all modern liberals mean in their quest to replace individual freedom and liberty with government controlled equality.
 
Of course, it’s also what Karl Marx meant when he said “From each according to his ability; To each according to his need.”
 

From dependence back into bondage

The final stage of the cycle is the fall back into bandage. Thomas Jefferson provided the perfect warning with this statement, “A government big enough to give you anything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
 
According to the IRS as of 2005, 70 percent of all taxes and thereby 70 percent of the American budget, is paid for by only 10 percent of Americans, those evil bastards we call “the rich.” Likewise, the bottom 50 percent of income earners now pay little or no taxes at all. Many of them get tax refunds on taxes they never paid to begin with. “From each according to his ability; To each according to his need.” Remember?
 
We accept this as a “graduated tax scale” whereby the “haves” are responsible for paying the tax burden of the “have-nots.” It is nothing more than an acceptable level and method of socialism, social engineering and forceful taking of earned assets from one, for benefit of another deemed more deserving. A re-distribution of wealth; - a taking from one according to his ability; given to another on the basis of his need.
 

Americans are Voting for Bondage via Democratic Socialism

A small segment of the American populace is knowingly pursuing an American democratic form of socialism. But a much larger segment of American voters are unwittingly voting for democratic socialism, to forever increase the size, scope and reach of the federal government in the name of some greater common good, without realizing that what Jefferson and many other Founders warned was true. “A government big enough to give you anything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
 

From Freedom back into Bondage

The 2008 election is all about this decision. Today’s Democrat Party calls itself “the party of the working man” (aka the working class, the proletariat). But it makes policy promises as the Party of the non-working man, forever promising equal economic status for those who refuse or fail to pursue (earn) happiness on their own. This is the promise that all of their electoral support is based upon. Every Democrat voter seeks to vote themselves (or their neighbor) favors from the federal trough.
 
Every modern democrat voter seeks to take the rightful earnings of others by force, to serve their idea of a greater common good.
 
And by this method, they are voting not only those whom they seek to rob of their earnings back into bondage, but themselves as well.
 
The politicians they ask to define and provide equal happiness to all do not make these campaign promises on behalf of the greater common good of their voters. They make these promises for the greater good of their own political power. This has been true of all who have ever made these promises throughout history.
 

Our Founders knew this reality. But too many Americans do not.

You know them as "The Party Crashers":  Tareq and Michaele Salahi.  A couple who seem to have a strong desire for attention and their own 15 minutes or more of fame.

They are the husband and wife team who exposed the Obama White House as being ineffective and loose with the rules and regulations.  Another fun house, similar to the Clintons of yesteryear. Remember that period of time?   Late night pizza and beer parties.  Staffers clad in jeans and just being laid back - cuz they were in power!   Selling out the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder so Hollywood lefties could bounce on it and have pillow fights...  Total disrespect when it came to the highest political office in America.  A lack of paying attention to proper protocol.  Wow!  Isn't that strikingly similar to what we see now in Washington, D.C.?   Although one has to admit that  the Obama's and staffers are better dressed and serve more expensive foods and beverages at their bashes.  It appears as though the Obama's are following in the footsteps of the Clinton's by rewarding their biggest donors with White House access and perks, too.   They are cool!  They are arrogant!  They are elitist!   They are incompetent!  And -  they love to party!

Seems that Tareq and Michaele Salahi love parties, too.  Especially those they have not been invited to!  The couple have been on the receiving end of the wrath of the Obama White House since they managed to get into a state dinner, without the necessary credentials, several weeks ago.  The Secret Service took the blame, even though Social Secretary Desiree Rogers was the one at fault.  At an event like a state dinner, social staffers are supposed to be at each entrance way, aiding the Secret Service by screening party goers. It appears that NO social staffer was at the door where the Salahi's entered.  Yet, the Obama's didn't want Rogers to take the fall, since she is one of the beloved  "Chicago" group -  Obama's inner circle.    The Salahi's even managed a photo op with Obama and, for some reason,  Joe Biden. 

From a different perspective with a humorous twist, the Democrats stance on illegal immigrants (oops, I mean "undocumented workers"), could be used to analyze the party-crashing that occured at the White House.  Compare the two situations.   Couldn't the Salahi's simply be called "undocumented visitors?"  And if so, why the feigned outrage at the Salahi's?   Editorial letter writer Brian K. Shoemaker, makes the comparison:

Oh, the irony of it all...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added to this post at 10:30 a.m., 12/22/09:

I received the following via an e-mail from a liberal reader.  He wanted to prove that some liberals DO have a sense of humor.  This is quite funny.  Thanks, JK!

Here'a another couple that snuck into the White House without credentials:

Number of Associated Press reporters assigned to investigate:

Any one of Obama's books:  0 reporters

Obamacare bills:  2 reporters  (over 4,064 pages total.  Socialist health care legislation that could impact every American for generations .)

The Climategate Scandal:   5 reporters (thousands of e-mails and technical documents are discovered that were written by  pro-global warming scientists detailing how they have  been manipulating raw data to advance a certain political agenda favoring their theory.  In an attempt at spin once this information was exposed, the scientists in question and other global warming alarmists (like Al Gore) now claim that even though some of their data may be "fake," it is accurate?!?!?  Click on:  "Scientists Behaving Badly" for more information.)

Sarah Palin's best-selling book:  "Going Rouge - An American Life" :  11 reporters

Yes, you read that correctly!   Eleven (11)  Associated Press reporters were assigned to review the memoir of a former Republican governor and vice-presidential candidate.  A woman who currently holds no political office and is on a book tour.  A woman that the left continues to insist is "amusing,"  "fun to watch,"  "stupid,"   and "not a threat."  Bill Maher called her a "category five moron."  Liberals vehemently insist they aren't afraid of her...... 

Oh really?  Then why 11 reporters assigned to fact check Mrs. Palin's book?   Can anyone explain?   What DOES the media consider important enough to research with such manpower?   Health care legislation?  No.   A scandal showing that many scientists have been granted millions of dollars to come up with proof of man-made global warming by manipulating the data for the desired results? No.   Or a conservative woman, a mother of five,  from Alaska -  who once was John McCain's running mate?  You got it!

A clear-cut example of bias by the mainstream media:  Priceless.

One of our family traditions at this time of year is to sit and watch some of the wonderful Christmas televsion shows from years past.  We make some popcorn, curl up on the couch,  turn on the Christmas lights, and settle back to view some of the old Christmas classics.   Movies like "A Christmas Carol" (the 1951 version with Alastair Sim, of course) or "Going My Way,"  and other favorites such as  "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "It's a Wonderful Life,"  just to name a few.    We recently spent an evening enjoying "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" (with the unique voice of Burl Ives - but without those great Norelco ads of days gone by....).  Immediately following Rudolph was a special called "The Flight Before Christmas"  made in 2008, starring the voices of  of Emma Roberts and Norm MacDonald.  We had never seen this film before.  I am sure it was on last year, but we missed it.  We should have skipped it this year, too.

Niko - the star of "The Flight Before Christmas"

 Forgive me if I sound like a prude, but the premise of this story was that a young reindeer named "Niko" sets out to find Santa's town and warn him that wolves are on their way to eat his reindeer.  (This story was a bit bizarre to begin with.)  However, another key point of the tale was that this same young reindeer wants to find his daddy -whom he has never met and does not know.  Seems his father may be one of Santa's flying reindeer.  He is not sure if it is Comet, Blitzen, Cupid, Vixen, Donner,  etc...., but we learn that the reindeer in question spent a Christmas Eve with the young hero's mother some time ago.  None of Santa's "flying forces" will admit to being Niko's daddy when initially questioned by the young hero.  The "daddy" eventually  fesses up near the end of the story... 

So this is what passes for a family Christmas movie these days?  "A Flight Before Christmas" is an excellent example of how low our society has sunk - all in an effort to be non-judgemental.  Nothing is shameful, wrong, or taboo anymore.  Personal responsibility doesn't come into play.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised when trash like this is described as a "family entertainment."   

Just for grins, I went on amazon.com to see some of the reviews for the DVD or video of this movie.  Seems that many people felt the same way!  (All reviews were anonymous, so I did not post monikers.)

A small sampling:

"The story line is terrible for children!  Santa's reindeer having one night stands???  How is this appropriate?  Then when the son makes it to meet his father, none of the reindeer recognize the mom's name.  Once the boy (reindeer) proves he can fly then the dad comes forward.  So, Santa's reindeers are a bunch of "dawgs" who only bother to acknowledge their own kids as long as they have extraordinary abilities.  The mother didn't bother to get the reindeers name before she made a baby with him - what is she - a groupie?"

"The artistry was well done, but the script was not.  I am a screaming liberal but this was a lousy role model for children.  Perhaps that is why it debuted so late last night.  A female reindeer goes out and bumps into Santa's reindeer.  OK.  Then one special deer takes her for a ride, but then leaves to do his work for Santa, never to be seen again. Years later she is explaining to her son who his daddy is.  He goes in search and he finds reindeer who want proof that one is the father of this little reindeer.  Once scene looks like they are sitting around a bar shooting the breeze.  Eventually one deer fesses up as pappa.  He lets his small son fly with him.  The son misses mom and realizes that the little flying squirrel was more of a dad to him than his real dad and he returns to the life he knows.  OK.  These are real life situations but do we need to reduce Santa's reindeer to absent fathers?  Lousy idea for a Christmas film."

"I just watched this with my 3 and 7 year old boys.  Entertaining, yes.  Beautiful scenery and animation - yes.  But I can't believe this is rated G and described as a "festive addition to the holiday library that the entire family can enjoy."  Folks, this movie is centered on a young reindeer whose hotshot flyboy father knocked up his mother during a one night stand, then left never to be seen again.  It is a dark story about wolves (quite scary for a three year old by the way) who conspire to eat Santa and all the reindeer so the head wolf can travel to all the homes of the "delicious boys and girls" on Christmas night.  The positive message of the reindeer who learns to fly because he believes in himself (Niko) is far outshadowed by the dark, almost disturbing storyline and the awful family values it portrays. I know that it is a sad reality of many families these days, but does that make it OK for a children's movie?  To be frank, I can't believe some reviewers here see no problem with the movie and let their 3 year old watch it daily.  Maybe for older kids - but this is NOT a children's movie."

"Like has otherwise been said by other reviewers; the primary plot line in this production is a young reindeer tracking down his deadbeat dad who knocked up his mother.  The father when found tries to remain incognito about his fatherhood, then begrudgingly admits it but takes a pass at the idea of getting back together with the mother and being a father to his biological son."

Like one reviewer stated, some people actually were quite happy with the film and wrote good reviews.  In all fairness, here are a couple:

"I'm 33 years old and saw this for the first time on tv.  I couldn't move from my seat -  a new Christmas classic - maybe it should have been PG, but it wasn't even close to being as "bad" as some of the reviews made it out to be."

"While this movie isn't your ordinary Christmas classic, it is a good movie.  I have a three year old who loves it and watched it every day since we got it.  Some parts are scary like the wolves chasing Niko and the wolves getting into Santa's area.  It all turns out fine and there is a happy ending. I do not recommend this if your child is one that gets easily frightened..."

In all honesty, I agree thoroughly with the people who felt this film was entirely inappropriate as a Christmas movie - a movie aimed at young children.  How low as a society can we go?     

Thankfully, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" (which had unfortunately been pre-empted by yet another Obama Infomercial a few weeks ago) will be on this Tuesday evening!   Perhaps Snoopy, Linus, Lucy, and the rest of the Peanuts gang can remind us what Christmas is all about and serve as a real example of what  "family viewing" once was...

The following jokes were discovered on:  www.about.golf.com , specifically Brent Kelly's blog site. 

• The police asked Tiger's wife how many times she hit him. "I can't remember," Elin said, "just put me down for a 5."
• Ping has a new set of irons called Elins. They're clubs you can beat Tiger with.
• Tiger crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. He couldn't decide between a wood and an iron.
• What's the difference between a car and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a golf ball 400 yards.
• Tiger Woods is so rich that he owns lots of expensive cars. Now he has a hole-in-one.
• Tiger has a new movie coming out. It's called Crouching Tiger, Hidden Hydrant.

(Thanks, Moe, for e-mailing Tiger's Christmas card to me!)