Dividing the Country while Destroying the Economy

Not many years ago in America, when a son asked his father the reason why a classmate or a neighbor had a bigger house or a nicer car, the answer was along the lines of, “he went to college, he worked hard to get where he is and he works hard every day to earn the money.” Today, in President Obama’s America , the answer is more about the wealthy being immoral and greedy; and Mr. Obama uses those words every day to describe the wealthy or the companies where they work.



The president of the United States should not fan the flames of class envy and class warfare, while showing no basic understanding of capitalism and economics. The actions of our current government leaders have been disturbing to those of us that understand what turned America from a collection of agrarian colonies to the economic superpower that we are today.



Over the past fifty years, we have come a long way from the founding fathers' vision of America . Even among the founders, the early advocates of a strong central government would be deeply disturbed by the level of invasiveness and control exhibited by the federal government today and dismayed by the level of federal taxation and debt. None of this, however, would disturb them as much as the rhetoric of class warfare and the shameless promotion of class envy by this president and the other democratic leaders.



The majority of the millionaires in America today did not inherit their fortunes, they earned them. They earned them legally and through education, personal risk and hard work. We need to encourage the next generation of Americans to follow in their footsteps and resist the temptation to use the tax code to punish their success or to garnish additional revenues to temporarily boost the standard of living for the rest of us.



Every dollar taken from the investment class diminishes our ability to create new companies and grow jobs. In the long term, this dollar will produce far more for America in the hands of those that know how to invest it, than it will by the temporary redistribution that is underway. While the new administration learns about basic economics through on-the-job training, I would hope that they can refrain from dividing this country with their rhetoric and personal attacks.

Submitted by D.B.Jackson

The Transformation of Arnold

It seems so long ago but few can forget Arnold Schwarzenegger's introduction into American politics. He was campaigning for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 Presidential race and uttered this memorable line:

"They call me the terminator, but when it comes to America's future, Michael Dukakis is the real Terminator...of the American dream."

Well, it seems, things change. The one-time chum of Presidents Bush is now, in 2009, singing the praises of one President Barack Obama.

In a recent article in Politico, Carol E. Lee writes of the Obama-Schwarzenegger hugfest:

“When have you ever seen a president be that out there?”

That was a mesmerized Arnold Schwarzenegger after Obama’s town hall meeting.

“I’ve never seen that,” Schwarzenegger said to a couple reporters as he and his wife, Maria Shriver, tried to make an exit. “Usually people are so guarded. The aides are always so guarded. They’re so afraid that you will blow it or that you will make news that’s unintended and all those things.”

Schwarzenegger continued to gush about Obama.

“But I think he’s so smart,” he said. “He’s so clear with his thinking and he’s so well informed and has been dealing with policy in all this and is also very philosophic it’s almost like. I think he’s just like – I think it’s beautiful.”

Asked how he feels about supporting a stimulus package most members of his party did not, he said. “You know me. I don’t look at things as a Republican. If it’s good for California, it’s good for me.”

There has been a transformation in Arnold Schwarzenegger from Republican hopeful to Democrat fellow-traveler. This was not an overnight change. As governor of California, Schwarzenegger has seemingly determined that political survival depends upon personal transformation into a left-leaning "governator." The final stroke is his embracing of Barack Obama, a man even more radical than the Michael Dukakis that Arnold once saw as the Terminator.

If you do not think that California's 40-plus billion dollar deficit has something to do with it, you are not paying attention. Arnold sees federal largess as the short-term solution to California's problems that should be solved by common sense governing. Obama comes to California with cash in his pocket and Schwarzenegger wants some of it.

Even has Barack Obama's policies continue to drive the U.S. economy further into the tank with his excessive spending and taxation, some things never change. Money can still buy political friendship.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

No Room for Life

The practice lives in infamy in Scripture and other ancient texts. It is child sacrifice, the killing of children to appease a deity for the purpose of obtaining some temporary benefit.

In Scripture, God called it an "abomination" (Jer. 32:35) and assigned the death penalty for anyone who practiced it (Lev. 20:1-5). Greek and Roman writers attested to the practice, describing its utter cruelty. To destroy one's own children is considered by most thinking people to be the lowest form of depravity.

It is alive and well in twenty-first century America.

This past week, President Barack Obama did what liberals have been wanting all along. He countermanded a Bush-era executive order that barred federal money for stem cell research using frozen embryos.

He did it with great fanfare, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's celebration of partial-birth abortion. He did it to great acclaim. Ted Kennedy said, "Today, an extraordinary medical breakthrough was achieved with the stroke of a pen."

Candidate Barack Obama, like all liberals, castigated the Bush administration for placing "ideology over science" primarily because of this issue and that of global warming. George W. Bush, after agonizing deliberation, could not bring himself to sanction the destruction of human embryos for the sake of medical research just as he would not sacrifice American economic prosperity for the pseudo-science of climate change. To most conscientious people, Bush's actions demonstrated political courage in the face of tremendous pressure, from both the media and politics.

For those responsible decisions that placed human life and human welfare above unthinking science, Bush was pilloried by the media, academia, the left, and some who call themselves Republicans. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama promised to "restore science to its rigthful place." By that, he seems to mean that science goes from servant to master.

In no place is this more clear than with this issue of embryonic stem cell research where human life is sacrificed in the hope of medical breakthroughs. The only difference between using embryos for medical research and the Nazi experiments upon people is stage of gestation. The morality is the same.

Chuck Colson said it well:

"If we deny the things that make us truly human, by definition we create a culture that is inhuman - a culture that, for example, embraces moral horrors like the killing of humans at the earliest stage of life on the spurious grounds that doing so might cure other people's diseases. Or cloning. Or medical experiments on humans, as the Nazis conducted."

The culture of death that this administration promotes does not end with stem cells. In one of his first acts as President, Barack Obama rescinded Bush Administration restrictions on using American money to pay for abortions in other countries, thus putting the United States on the side of the international death merchants. Also, in stressing his objection to human cloning, Obama words were "for reproductive purposes," seemingly leaving the door open for therapeutic cloning, cloning for the harvesting of body parts or the creation of stem cells.

We are truly entering a brave new world...one in which science not only trumps ideology but also morality.

It is both a testimony to modern smugness as well as an ignorance of history that we can condemn the ancients for sacrificing children to a god while we sacrifice them for our own convenience and monetary gain.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Welcome to the Obama administration where we smile and affirm our love for children even as we kill them for our own selfish benefit.

May God have mercy on such a wicked nation.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Bernie Madoff, Democrat (LINK)

One of the great misconceptions about the current political landscape is that it is the political landscape from ancient history. The media helps to keep the legend alive, but much has changed between the parties.

Some gross misconceptions:

Republicans are the party of the rich.
Republicans don't care about the poor.
Republicans are not charitable.
Republicans exploit the poor.
Republicans pollute more.
Republicans are against science.
Republicans are the establishment.
Republicans are corrupt.

A co-worker once told me assuredly that he always voted Democrat because the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the poor and middle class. (Despite the combined income of he and his wife topping $175,000, he still considered himself middle class).

He was surprised to learn that the top 13 richest U.S. Senators were Democrats. The Democrat that he intended to vote for for president in a few weeks, John Kerry, was #1. He was also surprised to learn that the Republicans raised most of their money on donations of less than $50 per person. The Democrats cannot nearly make that claim. The majority of their campaign contributions come from people giving the legal maximum. Over 50%. (I had fortunately just been provided the data from a column on townhall.com).

Ann Coulter's latest column contrasts the four most famous representatives of their party for salary and charitable donations: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Joe Biden. It is enlightening (link above). I wish she had reminded her readers about the charitable donations that Al Gore made the year that he ran for president...$147 (sic).

anncoulter.org

Without the time or space to prove that the exact opposite of all of the above misconceptions are true - I will leave you with the thought that 'whatever the democrats or the media tell you is true, the truth is more likely the exact opposite.'

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

No More Talk of Obama's Centrism

Election day had hardly come and gone with Barack Obama winning the Presidency than when we began to be assured by seemingly everyone that he would now "govern from the middle." It is understandable that Democrats would do this, knowing that they would need moderate support for Obama to effectively govern and establish their agenda. What was surprising was how many, supposedly, conservative voices said the same thing. The verdict was overwhelming. Obama, having won while espousing virtually every position of the radical Left and who now had a commanding majority in both houses of Congress, would now throw it all away in a grand move toward the center.

We are now less than two months into Obama's presidency and no one is talking about centrism any more. Barack Obama, true to his far-left roots, in accordance with his campaign rhetoric, and in cahoots with the Democrats' radical Congressional majority, has uncorked a liberal agenda that is unprecedented in American history. None of us who had really paid attention to Obama's speeches over the past two years was surprised at this. He is doing what he said he would do and what his party has been wanting to do for years. That some talking heads believed he would throw that aside in a mad rush to the middle casts great doubt on their abilities as analysts.

Let's have a quick review of President Obama's emerging vision for a "new" America.

• Abortion: Obama's first official act as President was to reverse an executive order by George W. Bush so that international abortion providers would now receive federal funding thus putting the U. S. government into the international abortion business.
• Higher Taxes: Not only will Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire, he will impose new higher taxes upon those making more than $250,000. The marginal rate will return to 39% for these people but new changes in what they can deduct will raise their taxes even more. For example, his proposal only allows those "rich" people to claim 28% of their charitable contributions as deductions on their taxes. This will have a terrible effect upon charitable institutions.
  
• Radically increased spending: Following Hillary Clinton's dictum to "never waste a good crisis," Obama has proposed a trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package that has a lot of social engineering but little stimulus. Thus, we incur tremendous debt to no effect. Obama's first pork-filled budget proposes a $1750 billion deficit with more red ink to follow.
  
• A Remade Medical System: The American medical system is the envy of the world. Why else do foreigners come here to be treated. Obama wants to transform this system into European-styled socialized medicine. Without going into the long lines for treatment and the reduced coverage, the cost is prohibitive. Obama's 2010 budget contains a $634 billion "down payment" on universal health coverage. The Administration claims that this is two-thirds of their estimated $1 trillion cost of this program over 10 years. Does anyone really believe that this program will only cost $1 trillion to cover "all" Americans, both legal and illegal?
  
• Socialism, More Socialism: The Obama Administration seemingly wants to get the government into "everybody's" business. There are bailouts for banks, bailouts for states, bailouts for cities, bailouts for the auto industry, bailouts for homeowners, etc. etc. This all amounts to the federal government having their fingers in everyone's pie. With federal money comes federally-attached strings. Uncle Obama Sam is no philanthropist. He expects government control in return for his money.
  

These are scary times. The economic problems would concern anyone. Add to that the Obama Administration's seeming determination to literally "break the bank" with radical tax increases and spending in the midst of a growing recession. Only fiscal sanity can lead us to the financial recovery we need.

I see no evidence of sanity of any kind in this new Administration.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama's Recession

During the pseudo-state of the union that Obama hosted this week, I played the game that I downloaded from the American Spectator - OBINGO. It was a bingo card with 'likely phrases' that Obama would work into his speech. One of the squares was "the trillion dollar deficit that we inherited." He said it three times.

I went to High School in a time when they still taught irony. As Obama is pitching the Pelosi pork plan , which will easily triple the deficit in 2009 and 2010, he was blaming his predecessors. Unbelievable!

Obama certainly inherited a recession, as did George W. Bush. And I would agree that Obama's recession is far worse. The difference is, Obama is making every move that will prolong the recession and worse.

He is raising taxes on the very people that create jobs and innovate. He is instituting the long awaited cap and trade policy, which will unilaterally cripple U.S. manufacturing and force more jobs offshore. And this is in spite of overwhelming evidence that global warming is not happening. He is creating a trillion dollars of government spending that will plague the U.S. economy for decades.

None of his actions will have any positive impact on economic activity in 2009 or 2010.

Does he care? Does Pelosi care? No and No. This is about social engineering. They are striking while the iron is hot. They know that they will have very few opportunities like this. A world-wide recession, panic and a democratically controlled country. Heaven help us!

In the end, two to three years from now, the economy will still be languishing. He will still be blaming George Bush. Hopefully, the public will stop buying it by then.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Red Ink As Far As The Eye Can See [Link]

Remember when the Democrats complained about $450 billion deficits in a wartime, post-911 budget? Try quadrupling that and you will have the deficit of the first Obama-Pelosi-Reid budget. This avalanche of red ink is just the beginning. Expect more and greater deficits in the future.

The budget that Barack Obama will submit to Congress has a projected $1.75 trillion deficit. When Obama made his grandiose promise to half the budget deficit by the end of his term, he was talking about a deficit in the $2 trillion dollar range. Even with his rosy predictions and under the best of circumstances, we will still be looking at a $800 billion to $1 trillion deficit in four years.

Obama's budget projections, like those of all Presidents, assume the best of all circumstances will occur. That never happens so that projections never pan out. A prime example of that is the money allocated for universal health care. Obama's 2010 budget sets aside $634 billion as a down payment for universal health care. This sum is alleged by Obama to be two-thirds of the 10 year price tag for a universal health care package that they say will cost $1 trillion. If any of you actually expect Obama's socialized medical coverage to cost only $1 trillion over 10 years, I have some prime swampland in Louisiana I'd like to sell you.

We are in serious trouble as a nation. When a nation casts aside fiscal sanity for the sake of ideological or political gain, we are heading down the road to third-world financial status. Certainly, Republicans, as well as Democrats, have contributed to this mess. The Presidency of George W. Bush, while commendable in many ways (and certainly patriotic), was not a time of fiscal conservatism. Because of that, Repubicans must regain their credibility to speak on fiscal matters. They can begin doing that by standing shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition to the Obama Democrat's attempt to turn American into a European socialist state.

Let's hope that someone in Washington will exercise some fiscal responsibility...and sanity.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Going Hat in Hand to the Commies

In a dangerous world in which the United States is engaged in two foreign wars, the Obama Administration is sending a strong signal as to where its true focus will lie. In her first diplomatic venture as Secretary of State, Hillary was dispatched to Beijing to plead with the Chicoms to continue buying American treasury bonds, i.e., continue funding American deficit spending.

Many Americans ignore budget deficits. This is not surprising since the U.S. has balanced its budget only about 3 times over the past 60 years. We have budget deficits because the federal government spends more money than it takes in via tax revenue. Those deficits must be made up each year by either borrowing or printing money. Printing money devalues a currency and brings inflation so the federal government borrows money by selling treasury bonds to whomever will buy them.

Communist China is the biggest holder of United States debt. China currently holds $696 billion of U.S. debt in the form of treasury bonds. The Obama Administration needs for them to buy much, much more. According to the London Telegraph:

The Treasury says it needs to raise almost $500bn (£350bn) in debt in the first quarter alone. Estimates for 2009 reach as high as $2 trillion, a huge sum in a world starved of capital at a time almost all the major governments are launching fiscal rescue packages.

This need for cash has almost totally silenced any criticism on the part of the Obama Administration of China's human rights policies as pointed out here by the Times of London.

[Note: It is extremely sad that one has to turn to foreign newspapers to find any substantive criticism of the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama but I digress.]

The Telegraph also noted that Hillary Clinton's actions are completely contradictory to her statements while running for President.

Mrs Clinton's plea for Beijing to keep buying US bonds comes in sharp contrast to comments during the presidential primaries when she said Chinese ownership of US government debt had become a threat to national security.

Secretary Clinton tried to persuade the potential Chinese investors that the continued prosperity of both parties depended upon China's willingness to continue funding American debt.

"We are truly going to rise and fall together. Our economies are so intertwined, the Chinese know that to start exporting again to their biggest market the United States has to take some very drastic measures with this stimulus package, which means we have to incur more debt."

To be fair, deficit spending did not begin with Barack Obama. Republican as well as Democrat Administrations have engaged in it. However, it is unprecedented for the chief diplomat of the United States to be sent to a former enemy to beg for money in such a public, and embarrassing, manner.

Maybe this is what Barack Obama meant when he said, "Change is coming to America."

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Mileage Tax Reprieve...For Now

Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary for the Obama Adminstration raised eyebrows last week with his suggestion of a mileage tax to replace gasoline taxes. In an AP article appearing on Yahoo.com, LaHood said that gasoline taxes can no longer be counted on to fund infrastructure needs.

He said:

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled."

The article went into further detail on how such a tax would be implemented.

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

What is truly interesting is the culprits named for the shortfall in gasoline tax revenue...more efficient cars and a decrease in driving. The "shortfall" is expected to increase as motorists switch to electric and alternate-fuel automobiles. Of course, the term "shortfall" must be interpreted. "Shortfall" refers to the disparity between the spending that the Obama Administration wants to do versus the funds available with which to do it.

The Administration was quick to deny that they had any plans to impose a mileage tax. Their denials ring pretty hollow when you consider the extent to which this Administration seeks to control their message. What this actually sounds like is a minor Administration official floating a trial balloon so that administration can immediately shoot down. What makes the Obama Administration's denials even more questionable is the fact that a blue ribbon national transportation commission is expected release their report next week recommending the adoption of a mileage tax. In such a case, the Obama Administration could immediately say that they oppose such a tax but must consider it because the "experts" say it is needed.

The upshot of all of this is the old canard that "no good deed goes unpunished." American motorists have responded to high gasoline prices by doing what the Left has wanted all along. They have reduced their driving and switched to more fuel-efficient vehicles. This has resulted in something that the Left loathes far more than carbon fuels...lower tax revenues.

Be warned, dear readers, this is only the beginning. Just as Larry Holmes said that Michael Spinks threw punches from places he had never seen, this adminstration will bring new tax proposals in ways never anticipated by the public.

I wonder if the American people will continue to go along with the Obama Administration's radical plans to impose European-styled socialism on the most efficient industrial society in history.

We will have to wait and see but, for my take, like Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama fails...miserably!!!

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Now She Tells Us

After years of media disparagement of George W. Bush and portrayals of him as being out of touch and inarticulate, a major news personality finally sets the record straight. In an interview with Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast, CBS News anchor Katie Couric let slip a trade secret of the national news: "George W. Bush was not the ignoramus we made him out to be."

Couric said this to Grove:

I didn’t get a chance to interview President Bush all that often. I often went to lunches that I was invited to before the State of the Union, before they announced the "surge," and that was really interesting because I think President Bush felt a lot more relaxed and was a lot more facile with information and details and policy than I think probably the American people gave him credit for and were exposed to.

Couric's last statement..."were exposed to"...is the most telling statement. If the American people somehow drew the conclusion that George W. Bush was not intellectually up to the task (I'm not sure they did even though it was an article of faith among the American Left), it was because he was portrayed that way by the mainstream media.

I will be waiting with bated breath to see if Ms. Couric and Co. apply the same standard (or lack thereof) in reporting on President Barack Hussein Obama. Somehow, I think we will see a stark change in how the presidency is viewed.

Prove me wrong, Ms. Couric...please!

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Amateur Hour

"The bottom-line is, Obama has no idea what the hell he is doing." Mark Levin

"This is Amateur Hour!!" Dick Morris

We have confirmed two things this week. Democrats love to raise our taxes, but will do almost anything to avoid paying them themselves. Over half of Obama's nominees have had serious tax problems. Tom Daschle topped the list with over $100K of back taxes.

The other obvious conclusion here is...these jackasses have no idea what they are doing.

The trouble is..change is coming and the lemmings that elected Obama and those that did not are watching the conversion of our wealthy and moral country as it is being fed to the wolves of socialism and secularism.

Abortion is being forced down our throat and so is government run industry; complete with salary caps for the investment class.

Nothing that has happened should come as a surprise to his supporters or his detractors. If it does, you have been in a coma. He is a Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright disciple and he is executing the game plan.

The good news is, the Republicans are standing up to him and the public is wary of some of the tactics and, certainly the specifics of the stimulus package.

We picked a bad time to fight. It is going to be a bad year to be a Catholic and a bad year to be a Capitalist.

Can we do more than slow things down? We'll try.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

1_20_09: CHANGE !!

Dana Delaney (some actress, I have never seen her in anything) was asked by a fox news reporter what the most important thing that Obama can do now that he is president. She said that he needs to "make abortion accessible to all women in all nations." Did you hear a single democrat, actress, reporter or college professor ever say that abortion was the most important thing that the president can do at any time DURING the election? I certainly did not. They were well behaved then. They talked about war, privacy, global warming...

Two things that Obama has in abundance is Charm and Self-confidence.

As we enter into his first term, the electorate appears willing to follow our new leader almost anywhere. People follow confidence, especially in troubled times - if you add an warm smile to that confidence, we'll go almost anywhere.

Policy? Ideas? Doctrine? These are now meaningless concepts as we are told that we are to 'give our new leader a chance.'

A chance to do what? I'll give him a chance. He has signaled a move to the center (a weak signal), especially regarding economic issues.

A woman asked me today, what would cause you to turn on him. Any one of the following, I replied:

1. Abortion
2. Gays in the Military
3. The retreat on the war on terror.

She disagreed with me 100% on each item. She accused me of intolerance. She almost said that she would turn on our new president if he didn't do the exact opposite of my direction. I didn't accuse of her of intolerance.

In the end, the stimulus package under BHO would have been 90% the same as the stimulus package had MCain won the election or Bush remained in office. The things that matter over the long run, the things that make America the greatest nation on earth are in jeopardy.

Tomorrow, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, hundreds of thousands of Americans will protest the 1973 ruling - an abomination of law if there ever was one. I expect that Obama will sign, as an executive order, the Freedom of Choice Act that very day...just a few thousand feet away from these silent protestors. If we say anything but 'thank you, sir, may I have another,' then we are not supporting the president.

I'll give him a chance. That is more than Bruce Springsteen and Al Franken did for the former president.

Submitted By D. B. Jackson

Had Enough?

When people ask me what my problem with the Democrats is, I usually net it out to the following…

They don’t understand economics.
They don’t have a clue about defense or international relations
They don’t understand human nature
They are hostile to religion and the first amendment
They don’t recognize the second amendment
And because they have no serious scrutiny from the media, they tend to be much more corrupt.
(and that is REALLY netting it out, I could go on much longer)

To prove my last point, I would pit the last few weeks of the ‘president-elect’ period against any in history for corruption, incompetence and circus. Had enough? We still have a couple weeks to go…and then four years of the media swooning over the soon-to-be accomplishments of the country’s greatest future president. When the scandals are filling the front page of the left wing media, you know you have a serious ‘tip of the iceberg’ situation in the party. It stands to reason.

To name a few:
Democratic IL governor tries to sell and profit from the vacant Obama senate seat.
Amidst indictment, impeachment and scandal, he cynically appoints a black statesman from IL to occupy the seat
MN Canvassing board steals an election from the ‘election night’ winner Norm Coleman and hands it to an SNL comic
Bill Richardson, ex Gov. of NM pulls his name out of the nomination process for Commerce Secretary amidst some quid pro quo scandal investigation in NM. For this media favorite to withdraw without a fight, the situation must be BAD.

Had enough? We have a long way to go.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Senate Candidate #5

Chicago politics have quickly seeped into Washington politics. The prize of Obama's senate seat (one of the most underutilized offices in history), is up for grabs and the inner city mob bosses and politicians are jockeying to see which one of their favorite insider will get the reward. How much is the seat worth? $500K, $1M !! Is this the representative government that the colonists were hoping for when they sacrificed life and wealth for independence. They never envisioned THIS democratic party - trust me on this.

At the center of the controversy is IL governor - democrat - Rod 'the Rod' Blagojevich. Very close to the center, we have the candidate (#5) that was not willing to pay more than $500K for the position - Jesse Jackson Jr. - son of thug race merchant Jesse Jackson. And slightly out of the center, but working the action through his inside guys, the greatest president elect in history - Barack Obama.

It is hard to know precisely what went down, the democrats in congress and their allies in the media are making sure this becomes a one perp story....The Rod. But it takes two to tango. Barack wanted his guy in and so did Jesse Sr. The Rod's biggest offense, by Chicago ethics, was getting too greedy.

I wish I knew more. Will we ever know more? Probably not, but if we do, it will be after eight years of democratic presidential and congressional maneuvering and media silence to hide the truth.

Here is my suggestion. A Presidential pardon for The Rod by ...George W. Bush - in exchange for a beautiful song.

What does this all mean?? Here we go again !!!!!! Maybe the Clinton's are no more depraved the the party they belong to.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Three Piercing Words

Every time I hear the words "President Elect Obama," my brain inpulses send an electrical shock to my spinal cord. By Jan. 20th, I will have generated enough electricity to start a 1943 Oldsmobile.

It does not help to see Obama on the cover of Time, in the image of FDR. The media has gone from elect obama mode to protect obama mode, even before he has taken the oath of office. As Ann Coulter so sarcastically put it, "Indeed, historians have just named Barack Obama the best president elect ever."

What are the chances that we will have any real investigative work and analysis during his presidency? Nil.

It will take the work of AM talk radio, the internet and word-of-mouth to highlight to God-fearing Americans the dangerous agenda of Barack Obama. Subtle things, like judicial appointments, procedural changes to block out pro-life and pro-family efforts, will never see the light of day. We saw, day-to-day, in real-time, the crazy leftist ideas of the Clinton's during his first two years. The democrats and the media have learned their lesson.

We need to do two things:

1. Stay Informed of the Issues
2. Do NOT support the left wing media.

On point 2., there are plenty of alternatives out there, including Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal. The latter has expanded beyond just business coverage, to compete head on with the New York Times. I subscribe to both. They are great pro-American papers.

One proof point for the left wing coverage of the election and now the run-up to the inauguration is the fact that we never found out, through a year and a half of election coverage, that Barack Obama smoked. At least Time got that piece right.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Two Signs of Where We are Heading

Barack Obama is hitting the ground running as the President-elect. In fact, one could be excused for thinking that Obama actually believes that he already is the President. There are many smiling syncophants in both the political and the media realm who are willing to assume the same.

Two items caught my eye this morning that signal where we are heading under an Obama Administration and I'm not even going to mention the fact that his campaign had surreptitious contacts with Hamas prior to his election. To these two things could be added several more but I will limit myself to what I read this morning.

Conscience Protection for Medical Professionals

The International Herald Tribune reported here about a newly issued rule by the Bush Administration concerning federal money and reproductive services. The article stated:

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

This rule is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."

This would seem to be a reasonable protection for those religious organizations and individuals who perform valuable services but who may object to some things that pass for "health" in today's society...namely, performing abortions.

Barack Obama had a predictable reaction. He said that the "proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives." Obama aides stated that Obama would try to rescind the rule once he is in office.

Why is it that increasing abortions seems to be the Democrats' major goal despite all their protestations to the contrary? To read further on Obama's intentions regarding abortion, see the blog entry "Freedom of Choice Act" below.

Push for Radical Climate Change Measures

On a second note, in an action reminiscent of closing the barn door after the horses have bolted, Obama promises a big push for climate change legislation just as it is increasingly evident that global warming is not happening.

In a video address to Republicrat Arnold Schwarzenegger's climate change summit, Obama makes clear that he has fully imbibed the left's religious belief that humans are destroying the planet by man-made global warming and that drastic actions are required without delay.




According to Obama:

"Few challenges facing America -- and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security."

It is hard to know where to begin with this. First of all, the science is not "beyond dispute" nor are the "facts" clear. The chorus of voices opposing the notion of man-made global warming is rising, especially in the arena of science. Politicians, a sure cause of global warming, have not caught on yet.

Despite Obama's apocalyptic language, his facts are wrong. The hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, not the 1990s as the global warming cadre wish us to believe. Storms are not getting stronger and the increase in hurricane activity a few years ago was due to a natural cycle, as any hurricane expert can tell you.

There is a word for people who use dire language to stir up the public against imaginary evils that require actions that only they can provide. They are called demagogues. With the media acting as the thralls of Obama, it is clear that his mendacious statements will be never be called into question. This is especially true when the media, the supposed watchdogs of government, agree with his solutions, facts be damned.

America is entering into one of its most dangerous times in history. Never has so much power been granted to so many people who have so little sense of what it really means to be an American. Never has the media been so corrupt as to allow such gross deception to be foisted upon the American public with little or no accountability. Sadly, most of it is because the media themselves believe the lies.

May God shield us from our "saviors."

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Now...A New Ice Age (LINK)

The Democrats are now poised to take over both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. Among the various promises that the Democrats made was the assurance that they would deal with the catastrophic global warming that some scientists and many politicians say will bring life on this planet to the brink of extinction. At least that is what the more extreme are saying. And, as we all know, the politicians love to quote the more extreme so as to generate more sympathy for their government solutions.

Anyway, as the Democrats are about to take the reins of power and implement economically disastrous remedies for global warming, prominent scientists are now saying that global warming is not the problem that we should be concerned with but rather the onset of a new ice age.

A recent article, appearing in the British Daily Mail, referenced the work of two scientists whose findings were published in the prestigious science periodical Nature. These scientists are predicting a new ice age due to...get this...FALLING LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

According to the Daily Mail:

British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice. Most of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England could be covered in 3,000ft-thick ice fields. The expanses could reach 6,000ft from Aberdeen to Kent – towering above Ben Nevis, Britain’s tallest mountain.

The article continues...

And what's more, the experts blame the global change on falling - rather than climbing - levels of greenhouse gases.

Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.

Now, I do not for one minute think that the Democrats will allow such findings deter them from enacting radical climate measures to combat supposed global warming. This will not happen for two reasons:

First, bureaucratic inertia, the most powerful force in this country, is with the global warming crowd. They are too close to victory now and will not be stopped by something as pedestrian as actual scientific evidence. Perish that thought.

Second, this thing was never totally about science. Science, or the misinterpretation of it, was merely the justification. The actual goal of the left was greater government control over the lives of the populace. If it can be done by legislating socialism...great. If it must be done by judicial fiat...fine. If it must be done by cajoling the public into thinking that the world is ending and that drastic actions by the government are required (along with sacrifices on the part of the populace)...fine also.

For the Dems, the band will keep playing and the Obama legions will keep goosestepping along (Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Roman legions did not goosestep).

For the rest of us, as the Dems are conquering global warming that does not exist, get a good overcoat. It is going to be a long, cold winter.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Freedom of Choice Act (LINK)

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

How come we are just hearing about this now? I think we know.

One thing you can be sure of with Liberals. Whatever they say, you can assume that the opposite is true.

When they say that they care about the poor, check their tax returns.

When they say that they care about fairness in broadcasting, know that they want the exact opposite.

And when they say they want Freedom of Choice, the choice is option A or option A.

The Catholic Church is going to be forced to go to war. It's about time.

The Catholic Bishops are convening right now. They are considering the closure of every Catholic Hospital as a counter strike to the FOCA.

My question is...how come 47% of Catholics voted for the candidate who stated that his first act as President is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act? How come we didn't hear this from the pulpit? Are we afraid of taxes? Let's grow up ! They want war, let them come after our tax status.

Jesus didn't say "Teach them all that I have commanded you, unless you lose your tax exempt status" He didn't say that he would pit 'brother against brother' unless the tax rates are too high.

Catholics could select every President, Governor, Senator, Rep and Judge in this country if they had the will. Maybe Obama will wake up that will !!

Bring It !!

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Executive Orders !! Here we go.

For anyone who believes that Obama will govern from the middle OR that he will tackle the economy or poverty as JOB one, you haven't paid much attention to Obama - or to Pelosi and Reid.

Obama's chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual (an aggressive, caustic liberal) has already hinted that Obama believes he has a mandate for change and that he needs to quickly reverse the policies of George Bush. His first course of action are Executive Orders on:

1) Re-opening embryonic stem cell research AND
2) Reversing the natural gas exploration authorized by President Bush.

The Poor? The Economy? More like "The Liberal !!"

For any Catholics (and we know there are 47% of you out there that voted for Obama) who thought they elected a thoughtful, moderate leader...take heed. The Church is in for the worst four years it has seen in a long, long time.

And this is just the beginning.

I spoke to a McCain supporter this weekend. He said he was optimistic about the new president and hoped that he would be successful. Yikes !! The last thing I want is a successful President Obama (see 1. and 2. above).

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Aftermath

No discussion of failure.
No discussion of opportunity lost.
No discussion of what might have been.

The citizens of these United States of America, the greatest country in the history of humankind, has cast its lot. For the next two years, we will look to the Democratic Party to govern according to popular demand, and hope that they follow the path wished for by the vast majority of its citizens, rather than reacting to the extremes as demanded by the few fringe radicals that speak loudly.

And ensure that they govern according to the Constitution, not just their interpretation of it.

As a law-abiding, respectful citizen, I will support our leaders until they demonstrate that they no longer are worthy of such support. As an American, I will voice my dissatisfaction if and when our leaders take us down the wrong path.

But today, rather than focusing on the character and/or policy shortcomings of elected leaders; rather than falling into traps of name calling, vitriol, and class- and party-warfare...

It is time to focus on what will be.
It is time to focus on what shall come.
It is time to focus on what we will become.

"Thoughtless words can wound like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."
D. B. Jackson and B Bryant, let the healing begin.

2010 and 2012 will, indeed, be remarkable years.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley