Friday, July 31, 2009

How About A National Conversation on Race Hoaxes? by Ann Coulter 07/29/2009

You could not ask for a more perfect illustration of the thesis of my latest book, Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America, than the black president of the United States attacking a powerless white cop for arresting a black Harvard professor -- in a city with a black mayor and a state with a black governor -- as the professor vacations in Martha's Vineyard.

In modern America, the alleged "victim" is always really the aggressor, and the alleged "aggressor" is always the true victim.

President Barack Obama planted the question during a health care press conference, hoping he could satisfy the Chicago Sun-Times, which has been accusing him of not being black enough. He somehow imagined that the rest of the country might not notice the president of the United States gratuitously attacking a cop in a case of alleged "racial profiling."


Suddenly, with the glare of the national spotlight being turned on a small local story, it became clear that there was no "racial profiling" involved -- other than by the black Harvard professor, who lorded his credentials and connections over a white working-class cop.

We wouldn't have known about this case at all if the professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., hadn't blast e-mailed the universe that he was harassed by racist cops. Gates thought it would be a feather in his cap, not realizing there are huge areas of the country where people don't think it's heroic to browbeat cops checking on you after you break into your own house, such as 99 percent of the country outside of Cambridge.

Contrary to liberals' ardent desire, Sgt. James Crowley was not on tape saying, "I know it's his house, but let's stick it to this uppity negro." (Curiously, the tape of Gates' call demanding to talk to the chief of police to "report" Crowley has been withheld. Some watchdog group has got to demand that tape.)

But what if Crowley hadn't been a model policeman who taught diversity classes and once famously gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a black athlete?

What if the 911 caller had identified the suspected burglars as black, which it turns out she did not?

What if Crowley hadn't been fully supported by other cops at the scene, one Hispanic and one black? (Liberals will say cops stick together, but I say liberals stick together.)

What if, at some point in his life, Crowley had been accused -- falsely or not -- of racism?

His life would be ruined.

Desperate to blame the cop, despite the facts, some liberals have begun making up their own facts. Radio talker Opio Sokoni claimed Crowley told Gates to "shut up" and "I'm going to win, you're going to jail." Even Gates doesn't claim the cop said that.

On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews said that Gates did not say, "I'll speak with your mama outside," as stated in the police report.

"He didn't say this," Matthews asserted as fact. This invented fact allowed Matthews to accuse the cop of engaging in "projection" and to conjure Crowley's psychological state, saying, this is "what a white guy thought a black guy would say."

Eugene Robinson endorsed Matthews' invented fact, saying: "I cannot imagine in this universe Skip Gates saying, 'I'll speak with your mama outside.'" As proof, Robinson explained that Gates "rolls with kings and queens and Nobel Prize winners." (I'm not "projecting" what I think a black man would say; he really said that.)

And then they both had a laugh about the cop applying racist stereotypes to such an esteemed figure as Professor Gates, who apparently would NEVER use the phrase "your mama."

First, unlike these aesthetes, I don't consider "your mama" such an implausible expression for someone to use.

Second, Sgt. Crowley wrote his police report, including the "your mama" line, long before he, or anyone else, could have imagined the arrest was going to become nationwide, front-page news.

Third, there's a video of Gates using the N-word all over the Internet, and in that short, three-minute video, Gates uses the phrase "your mama."

The only contrary evidence is that Gates recently denied that he told the cop he'd "speak with your mama outside." He also desperately wants to drop the subject.

The left's last-ditch attempt to defend a powerful black man's attack on a powerless white man is to say the arrest was improper. In Time magazine, Lawrence O'Donnell factually announced, "Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts."

You can argue the facts in court, but there's no question that the police report described the misdemeanor offense of "disorderly conduct" under Massachusetts law, which includes engaging in "tumultuous behavior" in "any neighborhood," thereby causing public "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."

As everyone who's read the police report knows, Gates is described as going on an extended tirade against the officer, calling him a racist, saying the officer didn't know who he was messing with, acting irrationally, following the officer outside to continue haranguing him, and engaging in "tumultuous behavior" in and outside his house, drawing a small crowd of alarmed onlookers and police.

Suppose a cop didn't arrest a guy who was ranting and raving -- in his own home -- and, an hour later, the hothead assaults someone. Policeman: I was as surprised as anyone that he shot his girlfriend! Every liberal in the country would demand the cop's head.

And by the way, try screaming at a judge that he's a racist and see what happens. Why should police officers deserve less protection than judges? They're in more danger.

The disorderly conduct charge was not dropped because it wasn't a good arrest. It was dropped, according to Gates' own lawyer, because of Gates' connections.

Before liberals declare that this a case of racial profiling and move on, how about liberals produce one provable example of racial profiling that isn't a hoax?

Beer Me!

The big beer summit, the one the media was all a tingle about, finally happened yesterday and shocker -- nothing came out of it. Well, almost nothing: Obama came off looking like the good guy, even though it was his idiotic comments that started the whole mess. The parties agreed to disagree -- which is amazing considering this officer clearly deserved an apology.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

-Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S.
was too strong.' - Ronald Reagan

"Most people live their entire lives wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem".- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program..'

- Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it.. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'
- Ronald Reagan

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'

- Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Obama czar pick: 'Raving animal rights nut' Nominee advocated hunting ban, giving creatures right to file lawsuits

By Chelsea Schilling

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut" who has a secret agenda, according to one consumer group.

David Martosko, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, told Fox News' Glenn Beck that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard Law professor nominated by the president to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is a "raving animal rights nut" and devout disciple of Peter Singer.

Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, is a leader in the animal rights movement. He has also argued that abortion should be permissible because unborn babies as old as 18 weeks cannot feel pain or satisfaction.

Singer once explained his belief that, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

In 1993, Singer said infants lack "rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness."

"Infants lack these characteristics," he said. "Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings."

Martosko told Beck, "When you embrace this whole utilitarian idea, guess what else comes in the back door? Some animals, according to Singer, are worth more than some humans. A smart border collie, he says, is worth more, inherently, than a retarded child. … Cass Sunstein has embraced the whole enchilada. … He believes that animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people – including the right to follow lawsuits."

Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

The center quotes Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating" and proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

He also said, "[Humans'] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings."

According to the group, Sunstein was editor of the 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that said "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

Martosko believes if Sunstein becomes "regulatory czar," he could "spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted."

"Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America's top regulator," Martosko said in a statement. "Americans don't realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe."

As WND reported, Sunstein has also been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet. Revelations about Cass Sunstein's views on the "Fairness Doctrine" come in a book by Brad O'Leary, " Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

Several senators have expressed concern about Sunstein's stances, and two "holds" have been placed on his nomination.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., blocked Sunstein's nomination last month.

"Chambliss worries that Sunstein's innovative legal views may someday lead to a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs," The Hill reported.

Chambliss told The Hill that he blocked Sunstein's nomination because the law professor "has said that animals ought to have the right to sue folks."

However, Chambliss later removed his hold because he said Sunstein had assured him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense."

But Sunstein is now facing another hold on his Senate confirmation process.

According to Fox News, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., believes Sunstein could use the position to push a radical animal rights agenda and impose restrictions on agriculture and hunting.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin, told the news organization.

The American Conservative Union is offering an opportunity for Americans to sound off on Sunstein's agenda. The organization has created a website called Stop Sunstein through which readers can submit petition signatures to members of the U.S. Senate. It also provides a 12-page list of Sunstein's most controversial quotes.

Minimum wage, maximum fun!

If you earn the minimum wage, today is a day you've been waiting for, for a very long time. You can leave all your worries behind because you just banked a 70 cent raise! Booyah baby! Pay no attention to the fact that because the economy stinks and your employer will likely can you -- making your new wage $0 -- you can now enjoy the good life!

-Glenn Beck

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Common Sense in Washington?

Of course not. With all the recent talk about universal healthcare and cap and trade legislation, it feels like America is rapidly moving towards socialism. And you're left asking yourself: is there anyone left in Washington with some common sense? You are not alone. If you haven't read Glenn Beck's latest book, Common Sense, pick up a copy today. And if you already have a copy, be sure to pass it on. This is a message that needs to be shared.

Climate Change same as Civil Rights movement?

Why is it that conservatives are often accused of legislating morality when they try to speak up in defense of their values? Yet Al Gore can compare global climate change legislation to the Civil Rights movement, calling it a moral issue. Where are we headed with this new politics of morality?
Your Science Czar is a Commie

How many nutty friends does Obama need to have come out of the woodwork in order to convince the American people that yes, his relationships ARE an issue. He's not just playing cards with these guys on a Saturday night -- no, he is making them Czars and appointing them to high level positions. One of the latest freaks is the Commie Science Czar.
Is massive Health Care plan reparations?

President Obama has long said he's not for reparations. Of course, the media leaves it at that because that's the mainstream view and they want him to look good. But, the real reason Obama is not for reparations is because he feels they don't go far enough. He actually 'fears' them because he thinks the public would assume the score is settled. He's for reparations all right. He's just going about getting them in a much scarier way
You heard President Obama say last night that he rescued the economy. Really, did he? Sure seems like there are still hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs each month, and things are not looking up.
Obama was asked if he'd like to live under the Healthcare plan that he is proposing. His answer was 'It's not about me' because he has a doctor following him at all times. Hey, it's great to be implementing massive socialist programs when you don't have to live by them! The sweet life of Barack Obama!

Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4

Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, and leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

July Newsletter

Just What Is Cap-And-Trade?

Essentially, Cap-and-Trade is being peddled as a system to encourage businesses to engage in “environmentally responsible activities.” But in actuality, it has little to do with the environment and instead is a means to deprive you, control your behavior and repress your liberties. Under Cap-and-Trade, the government would issue "pollution credits." Once allocated (as the government sees fit) those who use less than their government-imposed allocation can sell them to those who have exceeded their government allocation.

Peter Ferrara, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, writing for The American Spectator explains Cap-and-Trade this way:
"Under this policy, every business involving CO2 emissions will have to
buy permits from the government for the amount of such emissions, which will be sold in open auctions, where the permit price will be bid up. But the government will limit the number of
these permits, and consequently the maximum amount of CO2 emissions
allowed. Indeed, over time the government
will clamp down on the
amount of CO2 emissions allowed by the permits, with the emissions to be reduced by 80 percent by 2050." So what's the problem? Ferrara explains:

"These increased costs are effectively a new tax on the American people, even though Obama promised in his campaign that there would be no tax increase for the bottom 95 percent of income earners."

In plain English, that means the government, which is already taking de facto control of the banking and automotive industry, will have yet another

tool in its arsenal to effectively take control of every other company or sector of industry that produces CO2... and that's just about everybody
And when you complain that your standard of living has gone down, you can be certain that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and liberals in Congress will simply point the finger at “greedy industry” when they know full well that they were the ones that gave this monster life.
Cap-and-Trade has nothing to do with the environment, it is nothing more than a mechanism that the government can now use to force others to pick your pocket, and diminish your standard of living in this already shaky economy.


I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare. I am an American.. I am a Master Mason and believe in God.
I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles and believe in American products..
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.
I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!
I believe that if you are selling me a
Big Mac, do it in English..
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
“At a time when families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, the President and his Democrat friends want to take over 3,000 in new taxes from every American family in order to appease extreme political cronies. This is not a solution. It is a recipe for economic disaster.” President Obama claimed he would not raise taxes on 95% of hard-working Americans. Cap-and-Trade transforms that promise into a lie. In fact, some have said that Cap-and-Trade may represent the largest tax increase in the history of this nation. And it's not a tax that will be felt predominately by the rich but by average Americans like you.
Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation explains:
“By limiting the supply of fossil fuels... cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.” Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, speaking at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference put it another way: “[L]et me get this straight, we are not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000 per year, unless you use electricity. And we are not going to raise taxes on anyone under 250,000 per year, unless you buy
gasoline… [or] unless you buy heating
oil… [or] unless you use natural gas… And I thought to myself how dumb do they think we are that they can pretend that an energy tax is not an energy tax and…that every retired American who uses electricity is not going to pay it, and every person in New Hampshire who uses heating oil is not going to pay it, and every person who drives a car isn’t going to pay it. I just want to report to Attorney General Holder and President Obama that this is a nation of people courageous enough… to insist that we not be governed by people who won’t tell us the truth.” This so-called Cap-and-Trade legislation must be stopped. But it will only be stopped if our elected officials hear from you now.

Will Cap-and-Trade Cost You 3,000 Dollars Per Year Or More?

Boehner says yes. “Families and small businesses are struggling to get by, but the Democrats… would raise taxes on every American who drives a car, flips on a light switch, or buys a product manufactured in the United States. In fact it would cost every family as much as 3,100 a year in additional energy costs through their ‘cap-and-trade’ energy tax, and will drive millions of good-paying American jobs overseas.” And the Republican Study Committee echoes those sentiments: “At a time when families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, the President and his Democrat friends want to take over 3,000 in new taxes from every American family in order to appease extreme political cronies. This is not a solution. It is a recipe for economic disaster.” President Obama claimed he would not raise taxes on 95% of hard-working Americans. Cap-and-Trade transforms that promise into a lie.

In fact, some have said that Cap-and-Trade may represent the largest tax increase in the history of this nation. And it's not a tax that will be felt predominately by the rich but by average Americans like you. Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation explains: “By limiting the supply of fossil fuels... cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.” Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, speaking at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference put it another way: “[L]et me get this straight, we are not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000 per year, unless
you use electricity. And we are not going to raise taxes on anyone under 250,000 per year, unless you buy gasoline… [or] unless you buy heating oil… [or] unless you use natural gas… And I thought to myself how dumb do they think we are that they can pretend that an energy tax is not an energy tax and…that every retired American who uses electricity is not going to pay it, and every person in New Hampshire who uses heating oil is not going to pay it, and every person who drives a car isn’t going to pay it. I just want to report to Attorney General Holder and President Obama that this is a nation of people courageous enough… to insist that we not be governed by people who won’t tell us the truth.” This so-called Cap-and-Trade legislation must be stopped. But it will only be stopped if our elected officials hear from you now.

The Trojan Horse That's Killing Healthcare Reform by Newt Gingrich

President Obama said something at his White House healthcare event last week that offers a disturbing hint of our future under his vision of health reform.He suggested one way to save costs is not to spend on procedures that "evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care" for the sick and the dying. "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the President said.

Maybe. But the question is, who decides?

Who decides if those extra dollars will or will not be spent on your care or the care of someone you love? Under the plan advocated by President Obama and his allies, that someone will be a government bureaucrat. And even if that bureaucrat has the best of intentions, and even if he does his job well - especially if he does his job well - his main concern won't be you or your loved one.

His only concern, if he's doing his job right, will be for the government's bottom line.It's his choice, not yours. Surgery costs too much. Make do with the painkiller.
What's most tragic about the health reform options being debated today is that it doesn't have to be this way.
I have spent the past six years since founding the Center for Health Transformation [] studying our healthcare system, and finding out what

works and what doesn't work.I've spoken to literally thousands of doctors, patients, hospital administrators and other health professionals. There is widespread agreement over steps we could take now to deliver more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every American.But instead of focusing on creating a bipartisan consensus, President Obama and his allies have introduced the Trojan Horse of a "public option" in health reform.

545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes,

WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

**You and I don't propose a federal budget, the President does.

**You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations, the House of Representatives does.

**You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

**You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

**You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.One hundred Senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto20if they agree to.It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly back to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to: bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish;to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject;to regulators, to whom they give power to regulate and from whom they can take away this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they took an oath to do.Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses -- us!Provided voters have the gumption to manage their own employees, we should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!What you do with this article now that you have read it is entirely up to you, though you have several choices:

1. You can show this to everyone you know and hope "they" do something about it.

2. You can agree to "vote against" everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years and ask your representative to vote in TERM LIMITS.

3. You can decide to "run for office" yourself and agree to do the job properly.

4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing or re-elect the current bunch of selfish professional politicians.

This says it well:

It said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people. We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the. Funny? Not really. There is too much truth in it to be funny. That got me to thinking ... They all promise change. How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change.
A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable.

Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.
We used to have a strong dollar ... Politicians changed that.
Marriage used to be sacred ... Politicians are changing that.
We used to be respected around the world ... Politicians changed that.
We used to have a strong manufacturing economy... Politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures ... Politicians changed that.
We used to enjoy more freedoms ... Politicians changed that.
We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ... Politicians changed that.
We used to teach patriotism in schools ... Politicians changed that.
We used to educate children in schools .... Politicians changed that.
We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship ... Politicians changed that.
We used to have affordable food & gas prices ... Politicians changed that, too.
.... and one could go on and on with this list.

What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well, if you will elect them.

When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, enough is enough?
The trouble is, America 's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed, as it now.
When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late.

When will America realize .... Politicians are what is wrong with America ?

What is needed is for the constitution to be amended to limit all Senators and Representatives to TWO terms in office like the president. Oh, by the way, no big pension either, social security just like the rest of us. Being a politician shouldn't be a persons life work but rather a call to service then back to being an honest hard working citizen.
May 2009

Hold tight-the show has just begun! There is only so much one person can watch at this three-ring circus. And that my fellow Americans, is just what the ring master “Obama” is counting on. There is so much being forced on us under the pretense that he knows better than those who have toiled for this country. He knows better than those trained in the banking and automotive fields. Obama wants for those that have no “skin in the game.”
Let’s start with Arlen “I’ll do as I see fit” Specter, selfish and self-serving to the end. When was the last time he represented those that elected him-this latest temper tantrum was so typical of him. He has never been a conservative’s choice. Complacent we became as we went about our jobs and family obligations. Trusting those we elected to represent our best interest and when our choice differs from the elected-let the majorities voice be heard. Or so we thought.
Chrysler in bankruptcy-who saw that coming? How dare the bondholders stand up for those they represent? Well I say, YEAH! There is right and there is right. These investments were in the form of 401K’s and retirement funds. The strong-arm tactics of this administration is becoming the norm. Forget what is legal, forget the laws. If they are not able to convince you this is the only possible way, due to the emergency, then it will just be done.
Well the most outrageous catch to the Chrysler bankruptcy is that the UAW union will be majority owner. What did I miss? Did they buy in as investors? Or is there an employee buyout in the works? No, they will be given majority ownership by the Obama administration. The UAW made no concessions to save the company that has paid their salaries and benefits for years. There was no attempt by the union to “help for the good of all involved”. Why help when you can get the prize anyway! Too big to fail-Crank up the presses-more money, more money!
Now is the time to stand firm in what is right, moral and fiscally conservative. Now is the time to pray-Oh yeah, National Day of Prayer will no longer be a White House event, it will be observed in private-Who saw THAT coming?

You can't make up stuff better than this!
Ain't politics grand?


Jesse Jackson's Newest Staff Member-Mel Reynolds

Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer. This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate...then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.....!
His new job? …. Ready for this? …..

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Taxpayers to get rude surprise

Millions of couples, retirees may have to repay some of Obama tax credit

WASHINGTON (AP) 4/30/09-- Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring. The govt’ is going to want some of that money back.The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.The IRS acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers. For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year, IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said. The average refund was nearly $2,700 this year. But taxpayers who calculate their withholding so they get only small refunds could face an unwelcome tax bill next April. They are going to get a surprise!Obama has touted the tax credit as one of the big achievements of his first 100 days in office, boasting that 95 percent of working families will qualify in 2009 and 2010. The credit pays workers 6.2 percent of their earned income, up to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples who file jointly. Individuals making more $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 are ineligible. The tax credit was designed to help boost the economy by getting more money to consumers in their regular paychecks. Employers were required to start using the new withholding tables by April 1.The tables, however, don't take into account several common categories of taxpayers, experts said.For example: --A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time -- either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.-- A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost -- for a total of $1,200.-- A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return, she doesn't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when she files next year.Some retirees face even bigger headaches. The Social Security Administration is sending out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in May as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments will go to people who receive Social Security, SSI, railroad retirement benefits or veteran's disability benefits. The payments are meant to provide a boost for people who don't qualify for the tax credit. However, they will go to retirees even if they have earned income and receive the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit -- but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.Retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from pension benefits also are getting an income boost as a result of the new withholding tables. However, pension benefits are not earned income, so they don't qualify for the tax credit. That money will have to paid back next year when tax returns are filed.More than 20 million retirees and survivors receive payments from defined benefit pension plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. However, it is unclear how many have federal taxes withheld from their payments.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union raised concerns about the effect of the tax credit on pension payments in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in March. Geithner responded that Treasury and IRS understoodthe concerns and were "exploring ways to mitigate that effect."Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said Geithner has yet to respond to concerns raised by committee members. "So far we've got the, 'If we don't address this maybe it will go away' approach," Camp said.

We were startled to learn that Tim Geithner had made People magazine's 50 Most Beautiful People list. Not because Tim isn't a fine-looking fellow, but because he pretty much looks like any other guy who's done a lifetime of bureaucratic work. But maybe there's a simple explanation. Geithner's brother David Geithner, is a People executive, having been at Time Warner (TWX) since 1992. Now, of course we're not saying David put bro Tim on the list. But might David's underlings have added him, you know, as a joke or favor to the boss?

Hawaii lawmakers vote to celebrate 'Islam Day'

HONOLULU - Hawaii's state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill to celebrate "Islam Day," despite the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn't think the state should honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.
The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote Wednesday. The bill was previously passed by Hawaii's House of Representatives. The bill recognizes what it calls "the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions" that Islam and the Islamic world have made.
But the Senate's two Republicans argued that radical Islamists cheered the 2001 attacks. They also noted that other religions didn't have a special day honored. The lone Democrat voting in dissent opposed it on church-state separation grounds.

D-day for Obama by: Michael Savage

On June 6, 1944, the American invasion of Nazi-controlled Europe began on the beaches of Normandy. Thousands of American men were killed in a single day. But in April of 2009, Barack Hussein Obama dishonored the memory of those fallen men by refusing to visit Normandy on his European trip. Why did he do it, you ask? Because he didn’t want to offend Germany. You see, his European vacation has been very carefully calculated. He spends so much time in France, so much time in Germany, just enough in each case to stroke the egos of Europe’s neo-Marxist heads of state. And so because he had already spent time in Paris, the city of lights, the world capital of fashion, he didn’t want to come back on the way home. Germany might look poorly on it if he paid France an extra visit. I’ve already told you that Obama is trying to be president of the world. And this is just another example of him misplacing his priorities. For Americans, the beaches at Normandy in France are hallowed ground. Tens of thousands of our men shed their blood in this invasion in a fight against tyranny and despotism. In a fight which Americans of this generation couldn’t begin to make. President Reagan went there during his administration. Going there isn’t even really a foreign trip. It’s a trip to honor America’s fallen heroes. And though Obama is willing to whine and dine the French in Paris, though he’s a crowd pleaser in Prague, though he sounds terrific to the Turks, when it comes to Normandy, he’s nobody.

Over 40$ of American households do not pay income tax, yet they are getting a government check
which President Obama calls a “Tax Break”. No……..IT IS CALLED “INCOME REDISTRIBUTION!”


All you ever wanted to know about Arlen Specter’s character comes from his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press”.
· Speaking to a deal that allows the party-switching senior U.S. Senator of Pennsylvania to keep his seniority, Mr. Specter blurted, “That’s an entitlement!” See, Arlen really is a Dimmycrat.
· Far worse, however, was Specter’s vomit-and that’s the only word for it-that the actions of the Republican Party somehow killed Jack Kemp, the former congressman of New York who died of cancer recently.
Aside from the poor form, Mr. Specter apparently forgets, as The Wall Street Journal did not, that it was Republicans who more than doubled funding for federal biomedical research in the 12 years ending 2006. Additionally, far more private venture capital is invested in such research in the United States than in foreign countries. But rest assured, that all will change if the policies that Specter’s new party is proposing become law. Oh, by the way, it was the White House that said Specter told President Obama that he’d be “a loyal Democrat.” Specter denies he ever said it. Give him a month or so-he’ll deny he ever switched parties or concocted the single-bullet theory in the JFK assassination.

The crucial need for the 'War on Terror' By Ned Rice April 17, 2009

For the sake of civilization, we should hope that a report of its death is greatly exaggerated -- terrorists must be confronted and defeated.
The fact that the military aspect of our war initially focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and not every spot on Earth where any terror attack had ever occurred, does not contradict this. Our goal (under President Bush, at least) is to make clear to terrorists, from Belfast to Baghdad, from Spain to Sri Lanka, that they will no longer be tolerated, placated, negotiated with, psychoanalyzed, celebrated or -- as was increasingly the case elsewhere -- rewarded for their brutal acts. Instead, they will be annihilated, systematically and ruthlessly, until other would-be terrorists come to understand that the civilized world will no longer be intimidated by deranged misanthropes with exploding backpacks.Aslan goes on to describe how our efforts are perceived in the Muslim world, but he fails to point out that this also is a place where many people use the words "Jew" and "American" interchangeably; where clear majorities believe the 9/11 attacks were the work of the Bush administration; where many believe that every Jew working in the World Trade Center was warned ahead of time to stay home on Sept. 11; where many believe that deadly terrorist attacks on civilians are often morally acceptable. A place where videotape of a 17-year-old girl being flogged nearly to death raises few eyebrows because it was done in the name of Islam.America's war on terror is not a charm offensive, so winning the hearts of such people is probably a task best left to people like Dr. Aslan. Winning their minds, however, is within our grasp because even a terrorist understands strength.
In the final analysis, national security is about being respected by the rest of the world, not being liked, which is why we chose to declare war on terror in the first place. For the sake of civilization itself, let us hope that Dr. Aslan's reports of the War on Terror's death are greatly exaggerated.
Ned Rice is a Los Angeles-based television writer.

Barack Obama’s Endless Media Honeymoon
By Brian Birdnow

Barack Hussein Obama, the swimwear model, good friend of Oprah Winfrey and Jay Leno, dance partner of Ellen De Generes, bowling enthusiast, and President of the United States can now credibly add one more title to his ever growing Curriculum Vitae: The American Media’s most coddled public figure. A cursory examination of media coverage concerning the Administration 100 Days reveals a breathtaking pro-Obama bias, which cannot be explained away as a simple case of the mainstream media leading cheers for their favorite liberal Democrat of the moment. Conservatives believe this universally and accept it as an article of faith. Interestingly, some liberals, notably Howard Kurtz and Mark Halperin, are admitting this themselves and are predicting that the most egregiously guilty parties “…will regret this.”
Despite this apparent ripple of liberal doubt the current rolls on and the fawning press continues. Harry Smith compares Obama to Moses, Chris Mathews feels a trickle running down his leg, and ABC’s Terry Moran contrasts Obama favorably with George Washington. The leading lights of the prestige media are singing from the same hymnbook. The question is, and always has been: Why? Why have the media gone in the tank for Barack Obama and when will the honeymoon end?
The answer to the latter question is that this infatuation will not end anytime soon. The answer to the former question is much more complex. Many commentators have advanced their various explanations for this phenomenon but they can be reduced to four logical possibilities. First of all, some argue that Obama’s personal qualities lead to favorable press coverage. True, Obama can be petulant at times and he seems quite thin-skinned when taking personal criticism. He does, however, seem generally affable and his Secret Service retinue said he was a nice guy who eschewed diva treatment and played a mean game of basketball. Perhaps the ladies and gentlemen of the press are showing their approval of a regular guy.

There is also a certain elitism at work here. People who present stellar academic and intellectual credentials can bring many liberals, who are usually difficult to impress, to their knees. In this regard Barack and Michelle Obama are the new generation’s ultimate power couple. They possess Ivy League educations, complete with law degrees. The President worked as a law professor at the prestigious University of Chicago law school and Michelle served as Executive Director of Community Affairs for the university hospital after serving a stint as a practicing attorney at a downtown Chicago firm. The media stars see the Obamas as a couple of upper middle class high achievers just as they see themselves and they extend sympathetic coverage to their own class.
In addition to the class issue involved we can also see an undeniable racial strain just below the surface. Many reporters, anchors, and commentators believe that they will earn their liberal bonafides by showering effusive praise on this historically significant figure. Many of these same media personalities are too young to have covered the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s and they now see themselves as participants in the Final Act of this grand struggle. Also, many white reporters, anchors, and commentators who heaped ridicule, mockery, scorn and abuse upon George W. Bush and, to a lesser extent Bill Clinton would not dare to subject Barack Obama to the same type of character assassination for fear of the racial backlash.

Finally, and most convincingly, there is the question of ideological affinity. The first 100 days of his Presidency revealed Barack Obama as the most ideologically leftwing Chief Executive in American history. While he has disappointed some extreme liberals by not moving fast enough on their pet issues, this simply reflects those groups unrealistic expectations and does not change the fact that Obama has turned the nation sharply to the left. When liberal media figures see one of their own they will close ranks to protect that individual. Who can forget Eleanor Clift stating in 1992 that most reporters were willing to give candidate Bill Clinton wide latitude with the truth because they shared his basic ideological views?

So, people should not expect this love affair to end anytime soon. The public can expect more leg-tingling, more schoolgirl crushes, and more generally fawning media. The Barack Obama media honeymoon shows few signs of concluding. More likely this is one romance that will last until the tropic sun grows cold.

Interesting Quote:

Norman MattonThomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1911. As a candidate for President of the U. S., Norman Thomas said, in a 1944 epoch speech:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
So—another month has passed and the extravaganza continues. Dollars are coming off the press faster than the working man/women can be taxed. Hands are grabbing for the money without thought as to where it comes from. Give me, give me, give me, I want it-- I AM ENTITLED!

People are encouraged to demonize the working and successful for taking their God given rights (which is also their’s) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It used to be if we worked hard and followed the rules, the sky was the limit. Now the government is going to limit the salaries of those working for success. How long till your pay will be limited? Well, if you look at it logically isn’t that what this administration is doing with the never-ending taxation? Our hard earned dollars are going to those with the entitlement mentality. Instead of everyone pitching in and bucking up, the expectation is for someone else to supply their every need. I don’t have to agree with the bonuses, but I don’t want someone telling me what I can and can’t be compensated for my hard work.
The Obama administration and its supporters are out of control! We need, we need and we need. Now, pass it NOW! This “crisis”, as Obama is fond of calling the state of the economy, needs to be evaluated and solved. Not in an emotional panic (man, I hate to let this crisis go to waste) but with clear calculated solutions.
It is also time that those responsible for this mess be held accountable. People made huge bonuses and others were gifted monies all fraudulently acquired. How about they give it back, how about promises made be kept?
It’s time to “Palin-up” [to hold responsible those in your own party who misuse their elected authority] Obama needs to clean house. In the United States justice is blind; not deaf, dumb and stupid. He must think we, the working-class, are gullible and easily manipulated. Does he really think we will follow blindly for a promise of a utopia where our freedom is the cost?
Where has common sense gone? Where are the values and principles this country and our families were founded on? And why have we let this happen?
Envy, jealousy and greed are dangerous emotions. Nothing good has ever come from holding these feelings as idols of adulation. Respect for your fellow man and honoring those that fought and continue to fight for the inalienable rights granted through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the way to prosper. Our forefathers knew this country would remain great only when individual freedoms are appreciated and respected.

From Glenn Beck
Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them. So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain?
Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common.
The Nine Principles 1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me. You Are Not Alone

12 Values
· Honesty
· Reverence
· Hope
· Thrift
· Humility
· Charity
· Sincerity
· Moderation
· Hard Work
· Courage
· Personal Responsibility
· Gratitude

LETTER FROM THE BOSS.....As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%.But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lot and found six 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.They voted for change, I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

Government out of my bedroom! Unless it's green related, that is. Apparently the same idiots who don't want the government meddling in their personal bedroom affairs want the government in their bedroom if it's concerning the hot tub or the lighting. The 648 page climate bill has a lot of eyebrow raising material in it just like that--- but the dolts we elected most likely will not read it, so don't anticipate hearing about any of this in the news
(For the rest of the article go to April 6, 2009)

Joe, the average worker says; Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their lazy butts, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!! Guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, & current Speaker of the House. The Pentagon provides the House speaker with an Air Force plane large enough to accommodate her staff, family, supporters, and members of the California delegation when she travels around the country. But, Pelosi wants routine access to a larger plane. It includes 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Pelosi wanted "carte blanche for an aircraft any time," including weekend trips home to San Francisco. Pretty nice but very expensive perk! Her Air Force C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour or approximately $300,000 per trip home.
And she has the guts to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington!YOU WOULD THINK, SHE ALONG WITH A HUSBAND, WORTH AN ESTIMATED BILLION DOLLARS, WOULD LEASE OR BUY AND FLY THEIR OWN PLANE, OR FLY FIRST CLASS ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES LIKE OTHER RICH PEOPLE.NANCY PELOSI FACTS:Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco
Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of StarKist stock.
In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.When the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa.Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT"
How do you spell "HYPOCRISY" ? ?
FYI: Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time he never made use of military air craft.

Thomas Jefferson in some cases could be called a prophet.

Here are some of his quotes...

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pays its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered’

Please forward this to all your friends. Email us if you would like to add a name to our mailing list!