What Costs More Per Year than the Iraq War?

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts: This should be the major issue in this year's Presidential election, not the Iraq war.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States'. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!! And remember, the Democrat/Socialists are doing NOTHING to reduce these costs to us taxpayers.

Obama's Pickpocket Platform

Like his brethren at the Democratic Socialists of America, Obama's entire campaign is built upon the platform of pickpocket politics, (aka socialism via democratic process.) And like Karl Marx, who recognized that democracy is the new road to socialism, Obama promises to take from each according to his ability; and give to each according to his need.

It's not an original idea of course, or even a truly progressive notion. Socialism is a temporary stop on the road to communism, and both of these failed economic/political systems are actually regressive and oppressive in nature. But hey, who cares about the facts anymore?

Obama and his ilk have repeatedly stated that the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

This is the sea change Obama has in mind. Sounds neat, huh?

I took this quote from the introduction to What is Democratic Socialism? posted on the Democratic Socialists of America web site. If you take the time to read the entire pdf document issued by this organization, then compare it to the Obama campaign platform, you will find it impossible to continue denying Obama's real idea of change. Socialism.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism. In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff. Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa. As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine. (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.) In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551

What Change?

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America 's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress. I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, so when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

And now I'm back to the beginning of my story. Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ? Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr. From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008

Whistling Past the Graveyard

Last week, columnist Paul Weyrich reported that there is credible evidence that Osama bin Laden has acquired twenty suitcase-sized nuclear bombs from Chechen rebels in the former Soviet Union and smuggled them into the United States by way of the Mexican border. If that is true, the al Qaeda kingpin has laid the groundwork for an “American Hiroshima” plan that he intends to carry out in the very near future. Once bin Laden gives the signal, his henchmen will proceed to detonate their explosives in a number of separate U.S. cities, leaving them in irreparable ruins and killing tens of millions of people in the process.

In other words, while the Left, ever since 9/11, has argued passionately against sealing the southern U.S. border on grounds that such an initiative would constitute “racism,” “xenophobia,” a violation of “human rights,” a repudiation of “American values,” and a “threat to the environment,” bin Laden has quietly and happily exploited our national insanity and set the stage, from his cave somewhere in the remote mountains of Pakistan, for the cataclysmic end of the most powerful nation in world history.

If bin Laden indeed has been able to set in motion this nightmare scenario, he succeeded for one very simple reason: America’s military might has been offset by a weakness of spirit that has become a hallmark of the modern Western world. It is a frailty that derives entirely from the leftist worldview that has infected America over the past half-century. This view identifies Western (especially American) culture as a uniquely evil, exploitative player in the story of mankind, and depicts all acts of barbarism against the U.S. as wholly understandable reactions to American transgressions. It is a mindset that has gradually, incrementally, and inexorably made its “long march through the institutions,” -- the schools, the seminaries and churches, the media, the entertainment industry, the courts, and the political sphere -- just as the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci prescribed in the 1920s.

Gramsci understood that by poisoning the culture from within, and by so degrading and undermining the culture’s faith in itself, the American people could be compelled to believe, to their very marrow, that their heritage was in fact unworthy of defending against those who would destroy it under the banner of so-called “multiculturalism.” Gramsci and his successors were patient enough to allow this time-consuming process to unfold, knowing that the American way of life could be bled to death ever-so-slowly, almost imperceptibly, without the firing of a single shot until the time was just right. The fact that the person who ultimately may fire that shot is a seventh-century-style savage whose fanatical “religious” worldview bears no resemblance whatsoever to the ideals of Gramsci and his fellow Marxists, is not as strange as one might think. As bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa issued on Al-Jazeera Television just before American and British troops entered Iraq in March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”

source: FrontPageMagazine.com 7/25/08

One World? Obama's on a Different Planet

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

source: John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Inexperience

If I only had 143 days of experience:

- Would you hire me to fix your car?
- Would you hire me to run your company?

If I only had 143 days experience would you hire me to run the country?

Something America NEEDS to think about. Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.

143 days -This isn't taking into account the days he has missed.

In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

Think about IT! Bias aside, only a fool would vote for anybody with so little experience for the most important job in the free world. But then it appears that the Democrat Party is overflowing with fools.

An Analogy about the Democrats

An appropriate analogy to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other Democrat/Socialists:

Homer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens) called "pullets," and 10 roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells. Homer's favorite rooster, old "Butch", was a very fine specimen, but one morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover. To Homer's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. Homer was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges. The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No-Bell Piece Prize, but they also awarded him the Pullet Surprise Prize as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?

Vote carefully this year...the bells "tied" to the Democrats are normally "in their beaks"-- not audible, while they're just waiting to screw you with higher taxes ,more give-away programs and greater government control over your life.

The Oncoming Obama Storm

While the mainstream media continues to portray Obama as the new black John F. Kennedy, and call him a political phenomenon of rare magnitude, the fact is that most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except Platitudes of "Change" or that he says he will be a "Uniter". Like so many politicians, the details (no matter how impossible) on this will come after the election. And for many young Americans, such empty rhetoric makes them feel just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the real effect is what happens when it hits shore. The storm warnings are flying. Here are some things that Obama stands for:

(1) He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
(2) He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
(3) He supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
(4) In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
(5) He says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
(6) He admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
(7) His religious convictions are very murky.
(8) He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
(9) He has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
(10) He opposed the Patriot Act.
(11) The first bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
(12) He voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
(13) He supports universal health-care.
(14) He voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
(15) He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
(16) He supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
(17) He voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
(18) He voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
(19) He wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
(20) He voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
(21) He Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
(22) He opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
(23) He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
(24) He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax
(25) He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
(26) He has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
(27) He is ranked as the most liberal senator in the Senate today.

If you are like many Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great country.

The Jihad Candidate

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical Wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.

Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies.

Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work?

Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries?

Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history.

Why has the American main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from main stream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth?

Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe?

Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-Ameri can activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter.

WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide.

Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.

Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.

Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House?

Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States?

Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability?

Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?  Change for America?  What change?  To become another 'nation of Islam'?


source: Rich Carroll

Obama the Narcisist

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?


Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

source: columnist Charles Krauthammer

Conservatism Defined

A good philosophical definition of an American political Conservative:

“I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone. Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort. Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth... One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.” —Lyn Nofziger

Immigrant Assimilation Then

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907, now lost in the dustbin of political correctness:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

The Law of Political Attraction

Fundamental understanding for the law of political attraction: Simply put, the nature of a politician will attract people/groups/causes to him/her based upon the nature of the politician's composition, or political philosophy. Thus a politician will attract those persons/groups that line-up with the real (not surface) properties of that politician.

If this is true, then does it NOT make sense that Obama (the magnet) draws the following groups to himself?

the Nation of Islam & Louis Farrakhan (common thread: ISLAM)
Before Farrakhan left Iran for Syria in 1996, a Tehran newspaper quoted him saying: "God will destroy America by the hands of the Muslims. … God will not give Japan or Europe the honor of bringing down the United States; this is an honor God will bestow upon Muslims." Speaking to thousands of members of the Nation of Islam at their annual convention Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing the nation's racial divisions. (source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-farrakhan25feb25,0,6391391.story )

Hamas & Ahmed Yousef (common thread: ISLAM)
The media is buzzing over the recent endorsement for Sen. Barack Obama by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef. Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hamas said Hamas supports Obama last Sunday May 11. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel.

IRAN (common thread: ISLAM)
Earlier in March 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Spanish El Pais newspaper that the real circles of power in America would not allow Senator Barack Obama to enter the White House, adding that he would have no problems if the junior senator from Illinois were to be elected. (source: http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020712.php )

La Raza (the Race) (thread is Marxism)
Bill Richardson, backed by separatist latino La Raza (which means The Race), endorsed Barack Obama for president today, so now, Obama (whom Richardson calls the great unifier) is supported by racist marxist latino separatists, La Raza, who want the U.S. southwest as a separate nation, Aztlan (source: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/la-raza-bill-richardson-endorses-supports-barack-obama-supposed-racial-unity-afrocentric-liberation-theology-pro-islam-social-gospel-jeremiah-wright-louis-farrakhan-raila-odinga-muslim-backed-obamas/ )

Black Panthers (aka NBPP) (common thread: Marxism)
Obama will stir the 'Melting Pot' into a better 'Molten America,'" states an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, which is a registered team member and blogger on Obama's "MyObama" campaign website. The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism. (source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987939/posts )

FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) (thread is Marxism)
Established in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, the FARC is Colombia’s oldest, largest, most capable, and best-equipped Marxist insurgency. The laptops of captured FARC terrorists reveal how they are hoping and expecting Barack Hussein Obama to be the next President of the United States. (source: http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/farc-terrorists-endorse-obama/ )

Gitmo Terrorist Lawyers Endorse Obama (common thread: ISLAM)
More than 80 attorneys who have been offering free-of-charge legal services to Guantánamo detainees issued a statement Monday supporting Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential bid. ”We are at a critical point in the presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantánamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama,” the lawyers said in an open letter dated Monday.
(source: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/01/29/gitmo-terrorist-lawyers-endorse-obama/ )

Shaaban Abdel Rahim (common thread: ISLAM)
The hugely popular Egyptian pop singer Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his controversial political songs and outrageous style, will soon release a new track celebrating the end of Bush's presidency—and endorsing Obama. In an interview last week with Dar Al-Hayat, Rahim said that Obama is (roughly translated) “a good man, kindhearted, and better than Bush.”

This list is not exclusive, I'm sure there are many more. The point is however, there is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists (common thread: ISLAM) with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. Of course, the Democrat/Socialists refuse to see the fact of what enemies of America the MAGNET Obama is attracting, BUT IT'S THERE.

4 Judges to Hang

“It is not hyperbole to describe [the Supreme Court’s] decision in [District of Columbia v.] Heller as the most significant opinion of this century, and likely, of the last two generations. Two particular thoughts immediately come to mind. First, the extent to which [the] decision effectively opens the door for future litigation regarding the Second Amendment to further clarify the extent of the now confirmed, but long understood, individual right to keep and bear arms. Second, this is an election year. This decision, closely divided as it is, will likely provide a rallying cry for the millions of the Americans who recognize that their Second Amendment rights came down to a single vote. In reading Justice Scalia’s opinion, there is an overwhelming theme that to interpret the Second Amendment as not protecting an individual right would gut the amendment of meaning and defy logic. It is, after all, the Second Amendment, not the two hundredth. This is not an obscure line buried among thousands of pages of text. It is inconceivable that the framers would have given it the priority they did, placing it ahead of so many other critical rights, if they only meant it to apply to militias as the dissenting justices suggest.” —David Schenck

“The four Supreme Court Justices who chose not to support the individual right to bear arms should be impeached immediately. If they cannot decipher the obvious original intent of the few words of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they are incompetent and do not deserve a place on the bench.”

source: Patriot Post US 6/30/08

Today's Democrats: The Children of Marx

This says it all about today's Democrat Party. Challenge any Democrat you know to deny that this defines exactly what their Party is and stands for.

"Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP. They have molded the Party into a force working stridently and unashamedly against a Commander in Chief during wartime. They have made it a den of treachery devoted to American defeat in Iraq. They preside over an institution advised and influenced by moneyed, non-governmental groups and individuals with unquestionably anti-U.S. agendas who help make the Party a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans. Those ideas are shaped into agendas which are then forced on the public by an activist leftwing judiciary and by a major media and arts consortium shot through with utter disrespect, indeed contempt, for traditional American values, religions and institutions. The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually [angry]. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition...[Barack] Obama is in step with that radical element and with that leadership." source: Rocco DiPippo (The Patriot)

Useful Idiots

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

This article title does not sufficiently describe the liberal/socialist/Democrats--who would more correctly be titled "Useless Idiots"--but the end result for America is sadly, the same. Whether useful or useless, idiots are still idiots. And these idiots are taking America on a journey to full-blown socialism with the likes of Obama, Pelosi and their gang of Democrats.

Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.

Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.

FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.

English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."

More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Why? Perhaps it's because they inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office.

Recall how Kerry's handlers tried to cast their candidate as a man of the people? He is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim.

The character of these "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance -- is all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare.

Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift. Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals still dominate the Democrat Party and control their Leftmedia propaganda machine. They continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund).

V.I. Lenin knew precisely what he was talking about when he famously dubbed Western Leftists "useful idiots."

Has America learned its lessons, or is our great nation still under the spell of its useful idiots? Perhaps one day an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.

source: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275

New Preamble to the Constitution

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attemptto help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths tobe self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of 'NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, bigscreen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them , but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of ussure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WETRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH! GET OVER IT.

(attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.)

"On the Road" with the Democrats

A popular movie series of comedy and goofy antics filmed in the 1940’s and early 1950’s were the six “Road” movies* starting Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and the beautiful Dorothy Lamour. While posing as free-loading playboys on journeys of worldwide adventure, Hope and Crosby typically turn out to be con-artists with serial patty-pan punching techniques, cheating people with various schemes while both fall for Dorothy’s influence and charm. The slapstick gags and far-feached story plot featured in each film utilized the trio's comedy skills that allowed for a continuing movie series in which the progressing films became zanier and goofier.

Fast forward to 2008. We now have our own new trio of political artists staring in a new “Road” film under production that will be titled the “Road to Retreat”. The stars of this film are none other than Jack Murtha, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, this Congressional "comedy" team actually thinks that most Americans buy their attempts to “act” as serious politico-thespians who are concerned about America’s best interests in today's hostile world. But Murtha and Reid’s character as “con-artists” is showing beyond any doubt, along with their serial patty-pan punching techniques, and their kowtowing to the influence of Pelosi’s political "charm".

Look for this same trio to star in the forthcoming Road series (which certainly will become a series of zanier antics in forth coming episodes) if Obama is elected President: “Road to Appeasement”, “Road to Sell-out”, "Road to Nowhere" and “Road to Destruction”. These ‘films’ are all under the bad direction and high production costs of the Democrat Congress. Unfortunately, nobody who watches them will be laughing when they leave the theatre. And no matter how hard the Democrats try, there won't be a Road to Utopia.

(*Road to Singapore, Road to Zanzabar, Road to Morocco, Road to Utopia, Road to Rio, and Road to Bali)

Three Things to Think About

1. COWS: Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington and they can track her calves to their stalls? But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.

2. The CONSTITUTION: They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

3. The TEN COMMANDMENTS: The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is because you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians -- it creates a hostile work environment. Just ask the Democrats.

Islam supports the Democrats

Ironically, while Islam stands for everything counter to the active factions in the Democrat Party (e.g. feminism, abortion, homosexuality, anti-Iraq war and environmentalism), Islam in America favors the Democrats. Islamic front-groups like CAIR support the Democrat Party and Obama. Such hypocrisy is appalling.

In fact, the first Muslim elected to Congress is Democrat Keith Ellison. Ellison, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student in his native Detroit, won with the help of Muslims among a coalition of liberal, anti-war voters. He advocates an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq along with strongly liberal views. While Ellison did not often speak of his faith during the campaign, awareness of his candidacy drew interest from Muslims well beyond his district centered in Minneapolis. Ellison, speaking at the annual convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, said that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection. Of course, any serious student of Islam knows that this is an outright lie. American justice and equal protection came through its Judeo-Christian teachings and Islam has NOTHING to offer.

Suggesting a divine Islamic calling, Ellison asked, "Muslims, you're up to bat right now, how do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better?" And of course, being better means being a Muslim Democrat--at least on the surface and for now. Islam, when in the minority in a country like the USA, always calls for "equal justice" and "tolerance". But when it becomes a majority, equal justice and tolerance are some of the first things it eliminates. History shows that Islam's justice is always the sword for non-Muslims. America's liberals had better wake-up with a reality douse and see this danger before it's too late.

Governmentium

AP - New Element added to Periodic Chart

Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neuron, 25 assistant neurons, 88 deputy neurons, and 198 assistant deputy neurons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neurons and deputy neurons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neurons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. A soil analysis made by experts indicates that the highest level of this new element Governmentium exists in and around Washington DC. A blood analysis of Congress shows that Governmentium is dangerously high in members of Congress who are Democrats.

Democrat Oxymorons

Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect. Thus we have the following Democrat oxymorons:

- Democrat sponsored tax reduction legislation
- Democrat sponsored individual gun rights legislation
- Democrat sponsored family values legislation
- Democrat sponsored pro-life legislation
- Democrat sponsored support our troops legislation
- Democrat sponsored stop illegal immigration legislation
- Democrat sponsored school voucher legislation
- Democrat sponsored drill for oil in the US legislation
- Democrat sponsored develop nuclear energy legislation
- Democrat sponsored marriage defined as between a man and a woman legislation
- Democrat sponsored death penalty enforcement legislation
- Democrat candidates that are pro-Constitution

I'm sure there are others as well. But this list should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Democrat Party and it's candidates are not friends of our economy or our Constitutional values. And you better believe that it will only get worse if Obama is elected.

A Case of LMDD

There seems to be no question among thinking people that Liberalism is bad for one's health. In fact, the most common health problem a liberal faces is what's been diagnosed as Liberal Myopic Degenerative Disorder or LMDD. This was recently demonstrated here in Gilroy when I got into dialog via Letters to the Editor in our local paper on the issue of Muslims being permitted to build a mosque in the unincorporated city of San Martin, some 5 miles north of Gilroy. It seems that their liberal supporters cannot understand that Islam is not a religion of peace, and these mosques are no more than sites for terrorist cells to plan and flourish. The following is my reply to the letters of some local Muslims in favor of building a mosque:

Editor,
While Ms. Anderson-Hamed and Mr. Alavi can beat the pro-Islamic drums all they want to thanks to America's "freedom of religion" provision in the Constitution, regardless of their propaganda the fact remains that orthodox Islam born in Saudi Arabia is not a religion of "peace" and this is demonstrated in reality when Islam is in control of a nation, province, or geographic area. Look at Islamic Saudi Arabia, and consider how open that country is to tolerating Jews and Christians. How many churches and synagogues are there? None. And conversion to either of those religions will get the convert death. Islam always paints itself as peaceful when its adherents are in the minority, but just wait and see how this cute peaceful 'Gremlin' changes when the water of majority power touches it. Such a transition is happening in Great Britain right now. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave their country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 mostly Muslim immigrants came to Britain. Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the British nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. I suggest that any open-minded person check out what Islam really stands for by considering the evidence from Islam's own scriptures: see this website: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ that quotes from most every surah in the Qur'an - putting each verse in the context of Muhammad's life by quoting vociferously from Islam's most trusted sources. I would encourage Ms. Anderson-Hamed to look through her burka, and see orthodox Islamic reality from what Muhammad said it is. And Mr. Alavi, I'd challenge you to go ask the Saudi government why it does not "celebrate our differences and similarities" by letting Jews and Christians live peacefully in Saudi Arabia without the threat and sentence of death.

A Study in Liberal Media Hypocrisy

Talk about a study of opposites between two recent major flooding crisis in America, and a classic case becomes the vast difference between how people in New Orleans responded to their crisis verses how the people in Iowa responded to their crisis. The liberal press has conveniently moved-on to news items that support their radical socialist agenda and criticisms of conservatives. New Orleans fit their agenda well as a population of helpless victims. Iowa did not fit their agenda. In Iowa's circumstance, there was virtually no looting, no people wandering the streets looking to cause trouble, no grocery carts being pushed through the water carrying stolen property, no people sitting on house tops waiting for the government to come and rescue them, no lawbreakers taking shots at rescue vehicles, no police officers abandoning their responsibilities, no low-life's complaining how the government and Bush were failing them. People evacuated when they were told to leave. They didn't whine, gripe or blame the government for the broken levees. They did what responsible people do in a crisis: they worked together as a team to get things accomplished in spite of their circumstances. In New Orleans, the Democrat reaction called it a "racist" plan to wipe out the blacks. In Iowa, it was a work ethic that motivated people to solve the problem as best they could by their own efforts. And that's why the liberal press quickly dropped the Iowa flooding stories. Liberals always claim victimization. And any national tragedy where the liberal press cannot report victimization is not news worthy.

Two Websters on America

Why is America in the mess it's in today: politically and socially? Noah Webster of dictionary fame and US Senator Daniel Webster had the correct answers well over 160 years ago, but of course, Americans (especially liberal/socialists) are too smart, refined and sophistocated to heed and apply what these two great Americans had to say. Besides, the liberals consistently argue their strawman that such application would violate the separation of "church and state". But in spite of them, consider these quotes:

"The principles of genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that Book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer."-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary and the "Father of American Scholarship and Education"

“No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary

“The Bible is the Chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book that can serve as an infallible guide.”
-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed.”
-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary

“It is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.”
-- Noah Webster, author of Webster's Dictionary

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
-- Daniel Webster, US Senator

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger."
-- Daniel Webster, US Senator