Obama Threatens August Social Security Checks

Our cowardly President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a last-ditch attempt to defeat the resistance of Congress (and therewith, the will of the people) to his beloved debt ceiling increase, threatens to withhold August social security checks if the ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. And, from whom will he withhold this money? From people who have paid into the social security fund all their lives! People who were promised by the government that the money they "contributed" to the fund would be there to help them when they retired. He would rather do that, than reduce government spending by downsizing our government, or eliminating some of the true entitlement programs, such as welfare.

Here's my idea:

The entire Congress, along with the Executive and Judicial branches of government, take an immediate 50% pay cut.

The White House staff reportedly just got an average 16% pay raise, so let's take that away and reduce their pay by another 16%.

Repatriate 20-30 million illegal aliens to their country of origin, and then secure our borders, thereby eliminating trillions of dollars of unnecessary taxpayer expense in welfare payments, medical expenses, and financial losses by our hospitals.

Cut off all foreign aid to countries who have not proven themselves to be friends and allies. Why should our tax dollars be spent to support those who wish us nothing but harm?

Withdraw from the United Nations and require them to leave the country. The United Nations assesses dues upon all members, which is fair... but, the United States assessment is greater than the next top 5 nations combined! And, on top of that, we supply the meeting hall. Is this equitable?

The government should stop borrowing money for the purpose of lending it to other countries. Let them get their own financing!

And why are our tax dollars being spent to build/refurbish mosques in the oil-rich middle-east? These are the same countries that are gouging us for every drop of oil that they pump out of the ground. Our government doesn't spend our tax money on building or updating Christian or Jewish houses of worship here, and they shouldn't! STOP DOING THAT IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

Eliminate welfare as a family business - one that's passed along from generation to generation. Close the "Welfare-r-Us" businesses, and replace them with a program that provides the less fortunate with a subsistence income for 18 months. During that 18 months, they must attend a government-sponsored training program designed to provide them with a marketable skill upon completion. At the end of 18 months the recipients must report to the nearest State-run employment service, where they will be interviewed. This applicant will be given priority placement over anyone currently employed who is just searching for a new job. There is a big difference between indigence and indolence - let's not punish the indigent so that we may reward the indolent. Let the "grasshoppers" earn their way in society, just like the "ants"! Welfare should be a once in a lifetime condition of dependency. But, it should not be for a lifetime unless the recipients are physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves (as verified by a medical evaluation board).

Eliminate the almost innumerable, and in most cases frivolous (as in a political "thank you for your support") grants for ridiculous things.

Obama apparently wants to be viewed as Emperor of the World, passing out trinkets to his subjects, while destroying the country we love. Anyone who votes for him in 2012 should be very careful sitting down... they're liable to break their own neck.

First, Second and Fourth Amendments To Our Constitution? Kiss Them Goodbye!

Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms (ATF), is expected to step down in the wake of the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme in which weapons were sold to Mexico’s drug cartels.

"Melson, who has been acting director since April 2009, is likely to resign within the next couple of days", says CNN.

Under Operation Fast and Furious and its sister program Project Gunrunner, about 2,500 weapons were sold to so-called straw buyers, who in turn sold them on to the cartels. The idea was that it would allow the ATF to trace the weapons and discover who was selling them on.

But the plan went disastrously wrong and the weapons have been used in at least 150 shootings. The ATF now admits it lost track of two-thirds of the guns. The "plan went disastrously wrong" because of disastrous decisions made by those responsible for enforcement of our firearms laws!

The controversy came to a head in December when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona and two weapons discovered at the scene were found to have been part of Project Gunrunner. Brian Terry was only one of several law enforcement officers and civilians who have been murdered by guns sold illegally to these straw buyers... sold at the direction of ATF agents.

President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the plan was flawed. “There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made. If that's the case then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable,” he said in March. Obama said he had no prior knowledge of the operation.

I don't think that having "no prior knowledge" is an acceptable excuse from the Head Monkey of any organization, much less the Federal Government. After all, a military commander can be held accountable for the actions of all the men who serve beneath him, why is Obama any different. And, Obama is the cherry on the top of the chain of command sundae. Certainly underlings wouldn't be allowed to do anything as illegal as knowingly encouraging firearms sales to those who are fully expected to transfer control of those firearms to Mexican drug cartels. But the ATF DID! They coerced law-abiding, federally-licensed firearms dealers into making these otherwise illegal sales. How did they manage to do that? The ATF determines who does - or does not - get issued a license to sell firearms. You can probably work out the intricacies of the "how" question for yourself.

I mentioned in a recent blog that politicians will "create the conditions" if none exist "to support their claims". The Obama administration is, almost to a man, anti-Second Amendment, and virulently against any form of private gun ownership in the USA. Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung were smart enough to recognize that the only way to enslave their people was to remove their means of resistance, and put all the firearms in the hands of their military.

Would our military support a government that turns against the will of the people? Would our military attack the civilian population? There is a little-known, and never taught, historical precedent for exactly such an action by our military.

In the spring-summer of 1932 - in the midst of the Great Depression - roughly 43,000 people descended upon Washington D.C. - approximately 17,000 WWI veterans, their families and "affiliated groups", demanding immediate cash payment of their service certificates. According to the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act" of 1924, Congress entitled each veteran to a "bonus pay" of $1.00 per day (not to exceed $500) for each day of domestic service, and $1.25 per day (not to exceed $625) for each day of overseas service. Amounts of $50 or less were paid immediately. These were Americans who had served our country honorably when it called upon them, yet they were unable to provide for their families... while the government wanted to sit on the bonuses that they were promised until 1945.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. The D.C. police were met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded, only to die later. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the veterans' campsite. Two men touted as American "heroes" were dispatched to do the deed - Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, who commanded the infantry and cavalry, backed by six tanks, and then-Major George S. Patton who led the cavalry charge. The Bonus Army veterans, with their wives and children, were driven out of Washington D.C. and their shelters and belongings burned. And that should answer the question of "Would our military attack the civilian population?".

Thanks to the reinstatement and extension of the so-called "Patriot Act", almost any federal law enforcement agency can now ignore the requirements of the First, Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution. They now have the Congressional approval to search and seize without a warrant, and to wire tap any and all forms of communications - like this blog - with only a letter from a federal field agent. Your mailman may bear close watching now, along with the storm troopers of the Department of Education (mentioned in a previous blog).

The BATF now has all the authority of Russia's FSB (previously known as the KGB), or Secret Police for Internal Affairs.

God save us from the sheer socialist folly of our leadership...

THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

Come November 2nd, WE have THE HAMMER!!

This song was written by a 26 year old middle school football coach in Tennessee. He was terminated by the principal for alleged "political incorrectness" after writing this song and sending out on an e-mail list which included students and parents. Some think an apology and suspension would seem more appropriate. Personally, I think it is a First Amendment issue! He should be reinstated with all back pay, and the principal that fired him should be censured by the school board. Hopefully the parents will rally around this young teacher and get him his job back. In the meantime he is becoming famous thanks to the internet. Don't be surprised if the Tea Party groups start using this song at their meetings.

The First Amendment seems to protect only the lefties that have permeated our educational system. Why does it not protect everybody? If Ward Churchill, who not only lied about his credentials, but plagiarized much of "his" academic work, can speak out against conservative values with impunity, why can't this man speak out against what he sees as the fantasies and lies of the current administration?

THERE IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!

Let's rid ourselves of the stench of government
directed socialism this November 2nd!

D.C. Just Gets "Curiouser and Curiouser"

Lesbos and Marxists and fags... OH MY! Has anybody else noticed that the Obama administration seems to be loading the federal government with radicals of various and sundry bents, or am I the only one paying attention? In his efforts to destroy the American Republic as we knew it, he has done everything in his power to create irreparable harm within the federal infrastructure. There is at least one Hispanic/gender radical on the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan), an "I'm here and I'm queer" (Kevin Jennings) "Safe Schools" czar, and Obama's latest federal appointee, (Amanda Simpson, Obama’s Transgender Appointee) who proudly proclaims "...as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds". Now there's something to which we can all look forward, eh?

Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)

Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.

"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!

Ground Zero Imam Travels on Uncle Sam’s Nickel!

"The State Department will be footing the bill for Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the controversial ground zero mosque, as he embarks on a tour of the Middle East.

Plans for the $100 million mosque have drawn strong criticism from 9/11 families, as well as prominent figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

Rauf personally has become controversial because he refuses to acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist group and for his stated belief U.S. foreign policy partly was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The trip’s announcement Monday raises concerns Rauf will be taking advantage of taxpayer dollars to raise money for the divisive project. But the State Department says the publicly funded trip intends to foster “greater understanding” about Muslim communities in the United States."

WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS??

We already HAVE a "greater understanding about Muslim communities in the United States", and that understanding is that those communities are a potential threat to the security of our nation. Perhaps the trip is meant to "foster greater understanding about Muslim communities in the United States" among ARAB nations. If that's the case, then let Feisal Abdul Rauf pay for his own trip! Why should you and I have our tax dollars squandered on a junket for somebody who wishes us nothing but ill-will?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE BUREAUCRACY IN WASHINGTON D.C.?

Obama's Motto

CONGRESS INVESTIGATES FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS? THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES!

"WASHINGTON — Congress and the Obama administration on Monday headed toward a showdown over access to information about how an Army major with known contacts to Islamic extremists was able to carry out a deadly shooting spree at a Texas military base last fall.

Saying the Pentagon and Justice Department had failed to cooperate in Congress' efforts to understand what took place, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued subpoenas to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder, demanding documents about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the disgruntled Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people and injuring another 32 during a Nov. 5 shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas."

Here's my question - Why can't congress let the FBI and Army CID finish their investigations and then just read the report? Oh, I forgot... they don't even have time to read the BILLS they pass! How many members of Congress are qualified criminal investigators? The only thing they seem qualified to do is spend our money on PORK projects, give themselves raises, and foist a national health care program on us that we don't want!

"There were repeated signals being sent off by Major Hasan that he was a potential danger," Senator Joe Leiberman stated. Well, DUH! He can thank Political Correctness, and nobody wanting to be labeled a racist for that crack in the floor. Lacking those two elements, Hasan would have been identified, and discharged from the military long before he would have been able to create the carnage at Fort Hood! Name one career military officer who wants to dead-end his career by pointing a finger at any member of any minority for any reason. Immediately the "race card" comes out - which trumps logic every time. Don't you DARE "profile".

PC has no real place in our society - least of all in matters of national security. The buck shouldn't stop on this one until it reaches Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security Chief) and Barack Hussein Obama (Commander in Chief).

I could be wrong about this... and Hasan could be innocent. Somebody else killed those people and then threw the guns to Hassan, which he just reflexively caught. Yeah... that story should satisfy the morons in our Congress!

RIOT SHOTGUNS ORDERED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!

I find it interesting - in a perplexing way - that the U.S. Department of Education in Chicago, Illinois feels a need for 27 Remington Model 870 pump-action shotguns, with 14" barrels (4" shorter than the ones you or I could legally buy without a federal tax stamp) and Ghost Ring rear sights, at a cost of $35,000 when the country is in a financial crunch. That works out to $1296.30 per shotgun. For full details on this story see:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=7326068.
First I have to wonder WHY the "Department of Education" needs combat-ready riot shotguns. Then I have to question their sense of fiscal responsibility and integrity when it comes to fraud, waste and abuse. A similar Mossberg Model 500 "Cruiser" shotgun can be had for $435 RETAIL, with the exception of a 14" improved cylinder barrel (which Mossberg could probably modify an 18.5" barrel to satisfy that requirement for almost no charge). Just for arguments sake let's say Mossberg would sell their modified 500 Cruiser model to the government for $400 (and I'm certain that it would be considerably less), which calculates to just $10,800 - for a net savings of $24,200. I own a Mossberg 500 shotgun - it's 25 years old - and it still works like new. How can people who supposedly investigate fraud, waste and abuse in the educational system justify that kind of waste within their own agency? The purchase order ends with:
Place of Delivery:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
c/o: Gary Pawlak, Special Agent
500 West Madison Street - Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60661

HOW ARE THEY PAYING FOR THIS WASTE?
WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INSANITY!

Now that we have almost 40 "Czars" - unelected political appointees thrown positions as a "thank you for your support" gesture by Obama - (comprised of tax dodgers and perverts of various stripes - but all good, strong leftists) he wishes to add a documented power abuser as the head monkey of the Transportation Security Administration.

Former FBI agent Errol Southers, while in the FBI, was essentially fired by the FBI for improperly accessing an FBI criminal database in 1987 and 1988. The technical term used was "censured", but that's a career-ender in the FBI. Southers is currently the chief of homeland security and intelligence for the Los Angeles International Airport Police Department.

Southers originally wrote in an October affidavit to a Senate committee that he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by the FBI 20 years ago for it. Southers wrote to senators last week clarifying "inconsistencies" in his recollection of the background checks. After the committee approved his nomination and sent his name to the Senate, Southers wrote back and said that he actually personally ran background checks twice. You don't "forget" something like that... unless you think you're about to get caught in your lie.

Here we have a man who abused power, ignored established security procedures, is a union sympathizer and a proven liar being considered for a top level security position. Actually, he sounds like a perfect fit in the Obama administration's grand scheme of crippling the country.

Unionizing any positions involved in functions even remotely related to national security is absolute insanity! What happens when they decide to have a work stoppage to demand less of this, or more of that? What's next... collective bargaining for the military? How about this idea: collective bargaining for inmates in federal prisons!

Is there nobody in the intelligence community with a clean record, who speaks the truth, and who can see the obvious folly in unionizing national security positions? There probably is... but such an individual would stand in contradiction to the Obama administration's grand scheme of creating the United Socialist States of America, and therefore would never be nominated. Besides, what upright individual would want to be surrounded by Obama's cadré of left-wing loonies?
Southers professional credentials aren't all that bad... but his demonstrated deficiency of character is! Aren't 40 anti-Americans enough in this corrupt administration?

TRANSPARENCY MY TUCHAS!

The GOOD NEWS IS: Dems Doing Everything They Can To Give Away The House and Senate in 2010!

Well, the Obama governmental fiasco continues. It's just one thing after another: government bailouts, government controlled healthcare, government controlled industry, government controlled lending, government caps on executive salaries (I agree with the concept of executive caps, but not by government mandate), government directed climate control, government Czars (doing exactly what that isn't already under some official government directorate?), more taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens, government subsidies for ACORN and similar criminal activities, and on, and on - ad nauseum. To give you an idea...

Someone once said (this saying - one with which we are all familiar - has been attributed to many different people, including Samuel Johnson), "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And, I suppose, there are many instances in which that has been true... but NOT in the case of the Obama administration! Obama and his minions in the White House staff, Cabinet and Congress are intentionally leading our country into socialist/Marxist ruination. There were no "good intentions" in Obama's being rude to the Queen of England during his first State visit to the UK. There were no "good intentions" in borrowing money from communist China to attempt to stop our economy from bleeding green! There were no "good intentions" in Obama's World Apology Tour! There were no "good intentions" in Obama's deference to Arabic leaders, and his submissive bow to Emperor Hirohito of Japan! And there are no "good intentions" in the Democrats plans for universal, government controlled health care! There are no "good intentions" in mass amnesty for as many as twenty million illegal aliens, who will further drain our welfare, social security and Medicare coffers by increasing the already unsustainable strain upon them! These are all well-planned moves to increase our dependency upon the government. Nobody wants these things except those who will profit from them! Our government has left "the road to hell", and now has us on the fast track to hell.

"Redistribution of wealth" is not an American concept. In our Democratic Republic, your "fare share" is the end result of what you have contributed your talents, labors and expertise to earn. You union lovers who think redistribution of wealth is a good idea, apparently believe you will be exempt from contributing to that redistribution. The on-going greed of the labor unions, and your excessive wages have greatly assisted in the creation of the unsatisfactory financial condition our country is now in! (Perhaps Obama has promised the SEIU special dispensation from increased taxes to support his liberal give away programs. These mandated taxes will be dumped into expanded social[ist] programs and increased benefits and pay raises for our worthless Congress.) Anybody who believes that you can expand social programs in an already financially and morally bankrupt government without increasing taxes is a fool. Where would you think the money comes from? The government doesn't have a paper route, or retail kiosks in the local Malls. The government has no income producing job other than collecting money from We the People - those of us who actually perform physical or intellectual labor for our hard-earned money. We are rapidly becoming a...


The Obama administration has created a multitude of distractions in an attempt to keep Americans from discovering what the subterfuge is actually hiding. The more balls he can keep in the air for us to watch, the easier it will be for him - and his masters - to destroy our intended form of government. Who is "The Great and Powerful Oz" anyway? Who is the puppet master behind the scenes? Is Obama himself truly the mastermind of our destruction? There are any number of individuals, organizations and governments who desire to see the United States of America implode. Surprisingly, even those who have become extremely wealthy under our existing system, such as the ultra-left George Soros, and the majority of the Screen Actors Guild. Then there's the United Nations, and any country that is envious or resentful of our previously unheard of success in slightly over 200 years (like Cuba, most of the countries below our southern border, and the Arab nations). This administration is selling us out at every opportunity.


If you can judge a man's character by the company he keeps, simply open your eyes and look at what Obama has chosen to surround himself with - Communists, Marxists, socialists, and assorted revolutionaries and terrorists! Where are the "checks and balances" to keep the government from running roughshod over the desires and needs of the citizenry?

BUT... Obama is not doing all this by himself. He has the full cooperation of the Democratically-controlled House and Senate, so let's get rid of them all! Eleven months from now the majority of the House and 35 Senators will be up for re-election. That will be the time for them to experience the quiet wrath of the American people... in the voting booth!

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE - AGAIN

Well, the lefties are at it again, and given the recent spate of mindless shootings I could have predicted as much. This is the "ammunition" they needed to launch another attack upon our Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". It seems to me that a similar challenge was dismissed by "the Supremes" earlier this year, but... that was a pre- anti-gun Sotomayor challenge. Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, and she is every bit as far to the left as he and the rest of his cadre of liberal loonies. The court is scheduled to hear opening arguments in early March of 2010, but no decision is expected until late June or early July of 2010. EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. The left has been fast-tracking our country's ruination since January 20th.


When will "We the People" tell this corrupt and incompetent administration that we have had enough? Keep in mind that without the 2nd Amendment all our other Constitutional guarantees are in jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment protects not only our right to keep and bear arms, but our entire Constitution!

Almost daily Obama moves us closer to the European model of liberal socialist government dependency that he so loves, and dependency in this case means control. It is so much easier to control an unarmed populus than it is to control those who have the means - and the motivation - to resist that control.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-emphasized their Constitutional sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I hope you don't live in one of the other 17 gutless states). Those actions should give Obama a clue that the people are not happy with bigger and more intrusive government.

As for me... I'm doing what I feel is necessary to cope with the potential events of the foreseeable future. Perhaps you should do the same... everybody should have a contingency plan.

WE NOTICED!!

INDEED WE DID! I received this email today, and on the chance that some of you may not have been lucky enough to get it, I thought I'd post it here. It pretty much says it all...

_____________________________________

Snopes says: "We Noticed" is commonly attributed to Sherry Hackett, the widow of comedian Buddy Hackett.

We doubt that attribution is correct because the piece originally circulated without attribution, and versions identifying Sherry Hackett as its author did not appear until well after the text had been widely spread across the Internet.

Gil says: I don't care who wrote it - it was written and needed to be said! Sooooo...

This was written by "Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett's widow"........

"WE NOTICED"

President Obama:

Today I read of your administrations' plan to re-define September 11th as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.........

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states.
We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.

YES, "We noticed."

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

YES, "We noticed."

Every time you apologized to other countries for America's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

YES, "We noticed."

When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America " and said that 9/11 was " America's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.

YES, "We noticed."

When you announced that you would transform America, we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, a very unremarkable one.

YES, "We noticed."

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.

YES, "We noticed."

You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.

YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American","racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.

YES, "We noticed."

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

And YES, "We noticed."

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.

YES, "We noticed."

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.

YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

YES, "We noticed.."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

Take notice.

ADOPTING ISOLATIONISM AS AMERICAN POLICY... It's Looking Better Every Day!

The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference is to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18, 2009. There have been concerns raised, on my blog as well as elsewhere, that Obama would attend and sign a "Climate Change Treaty" which is purported to hold dire consequences for our nation, including the acceptance of a "Climate Debt", primarily levied upon developed (read: western) nations (all of Europe, Canada, USA, Japan and probably Australia). The disturbing text of the UN draft treaty reads, in part:

"8. Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries] in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and realistic changes in emission patterns [will be] [are urgently] required to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention. Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. Avoidance of damage to SIDS and LDCs as a primary benchmark for assessing the adequacy of long-term cooperative action.
9. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacitybuilding. Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation of NAMAs, reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could result in abrupt climate change."

Disregarding the several contextually unrecognized acronyms, and the legalistic wording, the bottom line appears to be that somebody in the UN seems to think that the successful nations of the world should be billed for their successes. That somehow. that success was made possible by the sacrifices of the "3rd world countries", rather than those who - through their own efforts, expense, and ingenuity - created success from ecological chaos. Therefore, the developed nations owe a debt to those who were too lazy to get up and answer the door when opportunity knocked.

EXCUSE ME??

Who put the UN in charge of global debt collection? If they want to start, let them begin by collecting the war debts owed to the United States by most of the developed world! At last count, only Finland and Great Britain had repaid their WWII debt to the USA. The remainder was primarily ignored or even forgiven for political reasons.

The "mainstream media" - almost to a man - publishes articles expressing serious doubts that Obama will attend the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Keep in mind however, that the mainstream media has been in Obama's pocket since he announced his candidacy for the office of President. Another effect of the aforementioned treaty would be to place the United States under a "World Government", International law, and the auspices of the World Court, which would - in any practical sense - be handing over our sovereignty to some third party!

For a change, I actually hope the mainstream left-wing media is correct in their assumptions. Obama may be spineless and incompetent, but he cannot possibly be stupid enough to expect that signing us over to a "World Government" would go unanswered by Americans.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?