About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS ANYWAY

 
   In an age where the greeting "Merry Christmas" is scorned by many as politically incorrect, I take special
pleasure in saying it to everyone. Unlike so many who seem to have forgotten, I still remember and revere
the origins and meaning of this special holiday season. And attempts to de-Christianize America by the
president. atheists, liberals and the ACLU make me all the more determined to proclaim the birth of Jesus
as the watershed event of history, whether anyone else likes it or not.
   Now, remember that we're not living in a "Christian nation." The president said so in his pandering anti-
American manifesto delivered to applauding Muslim throngs in Cairo. I'm sure he's right. That's why
Christmas is still a universal American holiday, including the federal government, and why nearly 80% of'
those in the country who profess a religion say they are Christian. It's why we have the inscription "In God
We Trust" on our currency, why the Ten Commandments still grace court buildings in states like Oklahoma
and why the pledge of allegiance to the American flag includes the phrase "one nation, under God." Note
that it doesn't say "under allah," or under "the spirit of goodness."
   It is said by PC devotees that open profession of Christian faith is offensive to those of other faiths or those
who reject faith altogether. In the true spirit of the season, my response is, "Tough beans!" Those who make a
vocation of being "offended" bystatements of belief and value contrary to their own only demonstrate their
own insecurity and intolerance. There is nothing ambivalent in respecting and honoring the faith of others
while steadfastly proclaiming your own. I have Jewish friends. Quite a number of them, actually. I have
observed Hanukkah with them, eaten the seder passover meal in their homes and attended their Bar
Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs. I wish them "blessed Hanukkah," although I do it when it really is Hanukkah
that ends the week before Christmas, not as a lame substitute for what I really want to say. I also wish them
Merry Christmas, and they do the same to me. Different choices need not imply disrespect or cause one to
behave dishonestly for the sake of apperances.
   At Christmas time I, like millions of other Americans, give gifts to my friends and relatives, regardless of
their faith. And I have never had a one of them refuse such a proffer because they were offended by it. The
spirit of giving did not simply spring from a vacuum or become tradition because of some compelling television
promotion of Zhu Zhu Pets. And it certainly did not arise out of Islam or the seminal beneficence of the
world of unbelievers. It arises, rather, from the biblical notion that in the birth of Jesus God gave humanity
an unmatchable and miraculous gift. He gave, and so, at this season, so do we. Now, of course you san waltz
in after the fact and substitute your own reasons -- your native generosity, perhaps, or cultural tradition, or
the need for self-actualization. All are wonderful rationalizations. They can ignore history, but try as they might,
they can never undo it.
   I know that the White House no longer refers to its holiday gathering as a "Christmas party," and given its
preference would feature the ACLU a capella choir in some hideous rendiion of their favorite Christmas song,
"O Come Let Us Ignore Him." But even to them, in fact ESPECIALLY to them, I say, "Merry Christmas."
If they are offended by my faith, I am equally offended by their lack of it. It is time for Christians to drive
a stake in the ground and declare an end to retreat. If liberal politicians and anti-religious bigots wish to exhibit
base ingratitude by scorning the heritage that provided every blessing they enjoy, then let them play the fool.
We, however, need not suffer fools gladly. The true miracle of Christmas is not some half-baked monstrosity
of a tax-raising healthcare reform bill rammed through in the middle of the night due to bribes paid to salivating
senators. It is still the one that happened in Bethlehem over twenty centuries ago. Have a very, very merry
Christmas, and know that you are in the company of millions worldwide, and in THIS Christian nation, who
will be shairng it with you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE PRICE OF LIFE

 
   According to the Bible, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Senator Ben Nelson's price
was considerably higher, but his sell-out just as ignoble.. The Nebraska Democrat who threatened a veto
over the pernissive language in Harry Reid's healthcare reform bill that would have allowed massive
expansion of the federal funding of abortion finally acquiesced to fancy language that still allows federally
subsidized insurance plans to offer the procedure. For his cave-in he got several hundred million dollars in
special help for Medicaid hospitals in his home state. Another day, another dirty Democrat deal.
   It has been revolting to listen as Senate abortion queens Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
and Patty Murray (D-WA) ramble on about women's "reproductive healthcare." Reproductive healthcare
is the euphemism they use instaed of "abortion" or "killing babies," both of which are too revolting for
their delicate sensibilities and inflammatory for the American public, a majority of which disapproves of
the practice completely, let alone the use of public funds to pay for it.
   Nelson's purchased vote gives Reid the sixty he needs to pass the bill in the Senate. Then it will go to
the conference committee for reconciliation with the House bill that contains the "Stupak language," wording
introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)to make any funding of abortion with public money illegal. House liberals
have vowed to strip out that language in conference, and if they do and it goes back to the House without the provison, 
Stupak has promsed that he and at least fifteen others will vote against final passage. We'll see whether he has the
courage of hisconvictions, or whether millions more of our taxpayer dollars will be used by Barack Obama's Abortion
Administration to buy him off too.
   As disingenuous as the "reproductive healthcare" euphemism is, all the prattle about a woman's freedom
to choose is no less nauseating.. Why can't women exercise their "freedom of choice" not to have unprotected sex
if they don't want to get pregnant? Why must the innocent unborn pay for their thoughtless stupidity and sexual
irresponsibility?
   Unless Bart Stupak and his associates stand their ground in the House, there is little those of moral conscience
can do to stop this baby-killing juggernaut engineered by the Abortionist-In-Chief, Barack Obama. Some day
he and God will have a chat about that, and we'll see what he's  "on the cusp of" then, Many of us who consider
ourselves patriots have never even thought about cheating on our taxes. But when the government wantonly
and intentionally expresses its intent to use our tax dollars for such an obscenely immoral practice, some of us
just may think again. In 2012 we can tell the arrogant oaf in the oval office just where he can stick his "historic"
healthcare reform.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GIGGLING WHILE DEMOCRATS SQUIRM

 
   I do so love it when Democrats, hoist on their own petard, start squirming and wriggling like so many worms
on a baited hook. Obama is so desperate to get his "signature" healthcare initiative passed that he clearly no
longer even cares what's in it. That was the sound of a flushing toilet you heard when the White House told
simpering Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Libermann, whatever it took, while the "public option" went down
the drain.
   Listening to the Democrats faunch and fume at Liebermann and Ben Nelson because the former doesn't want
spend the country into bankruptcy and the latter doesn't think the taxes of those who morally oppose abortion
should be used for that dastardly purpose has been a real delight for conservatives. And seeing how low and
mean-spirited Democrats can get, even with each other, is like watching a bunch of rattlesnakes try to commit
suicide. Liberal blog Firedoglake tried to get celebs like Ellen DeGeneres to pressure the Susan Koman breast
cancer fund into sacking Hadassah Libermann, Joe's wife, because of his opposition to their beloved government
run healthcare option. That must make the cowardly halfwits at Firedoglake feel like real men to atack a man's
wife for his point of view. But it's par for the Democrats' course. The Komen group's response? Hadassah stays!
   Now some Democrats. notably former party chairman Howard Dean, are saying liberal Dems should vote
against their own bill because they didn't get everything they wanted. Is that kind of nursery school logic
really the best the party in power has to offer?
   They have placated Liebermann by removing the public option and the early Medicare buy-in, and they may
yet cut some kind of abortion deal with Ben Nelson. But they hate the bill as it has deteriorated around them.
and the press conference photo of Reid, flanked by a scowling Tom Harkin, a positively pallid Chuck Schumer,
a cadaverous-looking Max Baucus and several other liberal Democrat notables was worth several thousand words.
Those bent on stuffing through a bad bill Americans don't want are choking on a little crow of their own.
Too bad, how sad.
   Reid has tried to blame the struggling bill's failure to pass on stubborn, united Republican opposition. He has
said that it's hard to dance when your potential partner won't get off the chair. Perhaps that's because the only
music Reid would allow to be played were the Public Option Polka, the Abortion Twist and the Coverage for
Illegals Bougaloo. Laying the gridlock off on Republicans is completely disingenuous. Reppublicans have said
from the outset that they would never support government run insurance and that they opposed any public
funding of abortion or subsidized coverage for illegal aliens. So it should come as no surprise to dimwit Reid
that they have followed through on their promise. The reason the healthcare bill is still languishing in debate
is simple. It's the Democrats! They can't get enough agreement within their own ranks to overcome a filibuster.
They overreached, assumed too much and now their moderate members have openly rebelled.
   While it is fun to watch the Democratic demamgogues drowning in the very cesspool they dug, the chances
are still strong that they will cut enough deals to pass a "healthcare reform" package that slashes Medicare,
raises taxes and increases health insurance premiums. Some reform! But they want to give Obama a Christmas
present. Vermont's Bernie Sanders (socialis toady) introduced an amendment yesterday that would have
reinstated a vigorous public option. the GOP's Tom Coburn of Oklahoma insisted, as was his right under Senate rules,
that the clerk read the entire 767 page amendment aloud before debate could begin. That would have taken
approximately seventeen hours. Three hours into the reading Sanders withdrew the amendment. Sorry Dems,
nobody ever said the fleecing of America was going to be easy.
   The best hope is that between the Democrat holdouts and Republican stubborness, a vote can be delayed
until after the Christmas break. Should that happen, it is important that each one of us call our senator and let
him or her know that it's time to junk this monstrosity of a bill, go back to the drawing board and work out a truly
bipartisan bill that will actually save us money and improve healthcare for everyone. Let them know that if
they vote "yes" on this turkey you'll be voting "no" when they want to be re-elected. The Democrats made
this mess, and it;s because they can't unite that it's still hanging. How embarrassing, how ironic. and what a
hoot. Maybe America will get the Christmas present and Obama will get the lump of coal. Let's hope.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHODO THE DEMOCRATS REPRESENT? (FINAL)

 
   Although Democrats garnered the most votes in the last two elections, it has become increasingly clear that
they have no interest whatsoever in representing the wishes of mainstream America. On healthcare reform,
the closure of Guuantanamo Bay, investigation and persecution of the CIA, trying terrorists under civil law
on American soil, cap-and-trade climate legslation, stimuli and bailout boondoggles and just about every
other important issue polls show decisively that the majority of Americans wants one thing and this Democratic
president and his party are going out of their way to do the exact opposite. It has become painfully clear that
Democrats actually represent the trial lawyers, the labor unions, minority and extremist groups,  "hate
America and everything it stands for and," and most of all, their own Marxist revolution. Their goal is to invert
society in such a way that the minorities enslave the majority. And it's working!
   So, the obvious answer is that those of us who love the country of our birth have to get rid of the Democrats,
run them out of office, send them packing back to the ivory towers of academia and the elitist haunts of New
England's monied high society. The problem is the darned Republicans. After Ronald Reagan the GOP fell in
love with the idea of looking so much like the Democrats that no one could tell the difference. Sure, some of
the rhetoric sounded different, but the spendthrift bureaucracies rife with corruption and dirty deal making
betrayed the party's stated values and crafted a new and ominous warning: "REPUBLICANS CANNOT BE
TRUSTED." If the Democrats will not do what we want thenm to do, and the Republicans are simply more of
the same, what's a patriotic American to do?
   There are three clear choices. One, we could try to reform the Democratic party. They've formed a strong
colaition made up of minority groups and protected classes. labor, the left-wing media and most of Hollywood.
It's formidable, and if it could be re-channeled could achieve the diversity America needs along with the power,
prestige and moral authority she craves. That one, however, is a non-starter. It has taken years for the likes of
Saul Alinsky and Norman Thomas to pull the Democratic party far enough left that the socialist party no longer
has a unique platform on which to run. If there is one inexorable historical equation it is that socialism results in
communism, which results in a fascist oligarchy claiming to rule on behald of "the people," and without
exception ends up in pain, misery suffereing and persecution for the common man, and national ruin. Russia,
and East Germany are two fine examples. Marxism sounds slick and noble. Only it never turns out to be what
it claims to be and it just plain doesn't work. The Democratic party has sold out to that ruined ideology, and
brigning them back to their senses would be like trying to climb Everest in a bikini and flip-flops. Not!
   We could start a third party. The Tea Party movement has nearly done that. The problem is that they have
no money, no real representation in government and none of the trappings it takes to get sufficiently recognized
to get on a ballot. There is a good reason why they call it a "two party" system. A recent poll showed that an
imaginary "Tea Party" would actually garner more votes than Republicans if elections were held now. That
should by no means be ignored, because it sweeps in a lot of conservative Independents (like me, for instance)
and gives voice to the moral outrage and patriotic passion that so many Americans feel. But while the Tea Party
movement may, in the end, prove valuable as a power broker and tie-breaker, it would take many millions of
dollars and at least two elections to build it into a viable third party.
   The only other option is to reform the Republican party. It is really the most realistic thing to do, although
it will also probably be the most painful. Much ado has been made about Rush Limbaugh and his disciples
trying to "purge" the party of neo-conservatives (ot what some call the "old Democrats") and moderates in
favor of hard line conservatives. "Purge" is probably a little over the top (Limbaugh invites that). But the Tea
Partiers have well illustrated that conservatives are sick and tired of electing Republicans who run as fellow
conservatives only to see them cave on tax-and-spend, the right to life, blanket amnesty for illegals, union
takeovers, taxpayer bail-outs of failing businesses and other issues about which conservatives hold deeply
cherished opinions, beliefs and values.. Most conservatives believe that it's high time for hinesty in government,
for politicians to run othe beliefs they actually hold and not simply on what they think their constitutents
want to hear. They believe that it is more honorable to lose on an up or down vote than to bargain away
their values in some insipid quid pro quo which is the way of Washington. In other words, conservatives are
sick of business as usual in politics, and if Republicans expect our support they have a major hill to climb in
convincing us that they truly represent our core beliefs.
   Can this happen? Maybe. It's really up to you, and me, and your neighbors down the street. The firs step is
getting involved. More later this week on how to do just that.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO THE DEMOCRATS DON'T REPRESENT? (PART II)

 
   Om yesterday's segment we looked at who Democrats don't represent: seniors, small businesses and the defenseless
unborn. But who do they represent? Who pays their bills, fills their campaign coffers and benefits from their big
government tax-and-spend largesse? The answers are hardly surprising.
   Democrats represent the big labor unions above all else. The unions gave huge, unprecedented donations to the
Democraric parrty in the run-up to the 2009 election, and Obama has publicly admitted that when the unions call he
"calls right back." He admits it's because "I owe those people." Andy Stern, president of the thuggish SEIU was a giest
at the White House 22 times in the first six months of the Obama presidency. So what do the unions get for their payola?
How about huge ownership positions in government funded Chrysler and General Motors, a scaled down auditing
bureaucracy that can no longer effectively look into union finqncial shenanigans and the egregious "card check" bill
that will allow union organizers to strongarm individual employees instead of relying on a secret ballot to unionize? Pay
for play in action, Democrat style.
   The Dems reprsent extremist organizations that want to re-write the constitution and transform all of American society
after their own image. That would include the environmental groups who say they want America to "go green" and then
tie up every single wind and solar farm project because it might "look offensive" in the landscape or transgress the
habitat of the desert puffer toad. This is the group that actually wants us back in horses and carriages. That's if we can
breed non-farting horses that don't release methane into the atmosphere with their flatulence. The cap-and-trade nincompoop
who sits in the oval office represents Al Gore's now discredited junk science and the climate change fascists at the United
Nations who also want Americans to shut down our factories, ground our planes and park our cars. They figure that if
they can force us back into a 19th century technological environment  and bilk us of American taxpayer money then they
can eventually catch up. Democrats represent gays who want to redefine marriage and who claim non-existent constitutional
rights and status as a protected class. Democrats represent the non-working poor who salivate at the prospect of seizing
what has been earned by the working non-poor (wealth redistribution), and militant blacks who never were slaves but demand
financial reparations from whites who never owned one. Following a rigorous program of public denigration and confiscatory
taxation the Democratic party has declared war on the upper and middle classes.
   Democrats represent a movement to re-value traditional American values. Abortion, gay marriage, unlimited government
intrusion into the private sector, radical environmentalism, anti-military, anti-law enforcement norms. amesty for illegal
aliens and open borders going forward, national security policy that amounts basically to a series of glib, vapid speeches
and has no teeth are among favorite Democrat hobby horses.
   So why would anyone who isn't a brick short of a full load vote for the Democrats? Blame the Republicans and the last
Republican administration. Republicans fell in love with the notion of being indistinguishable from Democrats, and they
have succeeded famously. Abandoning the policies of Ronald Reagan they lost every semblance of fiscal discipline and
launched a series of foreign misadventures without a clear guiding policy, realistic expectations or a feasible extraction
plan. In a recent Rasmussen poll of voters, 46% still favored Democrats, 18% favored Republicans and 23% favored
an imaginary "Tea Party," disaffected conservatives and Independents who are sick of both existing political parties.
Congress is polling at its' lowest approval rating ever, and Obama has slipped to 47%, well below other presidents
ten months into tgheir first term. This is an administration and congress whose spending would emkbarrass even the drunkest
of sailors. Moody's has recently re;eased a statement threatening the triple A credit rating of the U.S., the country is
wallowing in double digit unemployment and a stubborn, deep recession and two wars. And this is better than the Bush
years how?
   Barack Obama and the Democrats won election to power by running the ultimate scam on the American people. They
did it with glitzy Hollywood sets, social marketing, shady contributions, the internet, and willingly compliant and
uncriticasl media that abandoned its' traditional role of questioning and fact-checking, and the support of now exposed
crooked organizations like ACORN. Old time Chicago gangster Al Capone couldn't have orchestrated it any better. The
key to their strategy was a deep-seated American yearning for change -- change from Washington pay for play, change
from government by lobby, change from corruption, graft and scandal, change from open-ended American commitment
abroad with no strategy for either victory or exit. What they got in the Obama-Democrat administration was more pay
for play (only with different players). more and more influential lobbyists, more corruption, more graft. more scandal,
more foreign commitment without definiton of victory. big government takeovers of the automaotive and financial
industries, an attempt to take over the healthcare industry, bailouts, more deficits, more spending, bigger government
and taxes out the wazoo. Not, apparently, the kind of change Americans had in mind.
   The bitter truth is that while in two elections Democrats commanded the majority of votes, once elcted they have not
governed as representative of the majority. The polls show it starkly and umistably, whether one looks at the stimulus
bailouts,, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the trial of enemy combatannts in the criminal justice system or the  proposed
healthcare reform. Americans are saying "NO," and Democrats are saying "YES, WE'RE DOING IT ANYWAY!" They
simply do not represent the majority, exposing the obvious truth that they were elected by making false promises which
they are now breaking and claiming that poor, dumb Americans just misunderstood. So what can possibly fix this mess,
if it can be fixed? That will be the topic of tomorrow's post.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO THE DEMOCRATS DON'T REPRESENT

 
     After polls showed across the board that a majority of Americans opposed it, it was nauseating to
watch the House Democrats standing and applauding themselves for passing their version of healthcare reform 
anyway, by the narrowest of margins and with a significant group of their own jumping ship in embarrassment.
It begs the question. Just who do the Democrats represent? Who they DON'T represent is obvious.
   Democrats don't represent American seniors. They've voted to strip billions out of Medicare, and
did they use it to make the struggling program more solvent? Of course not! They used it to fund their
shiny new entitlement giveaway. They voted as a party to scrap Medicare Advantage, and voted against
the Gregg amendment in the Senate that would have forbidden the use of Medicare fuding for non-
Medicare purposes by a 56-43 margin with only three Democrats joining Republicans to protect Medicare
from the rape and pillage Democrats propose. They argue, of course, that they're going to do it by cutting
waste and fraud (which they should have been doing already). But are they going to wait until they see
if they can actually find $500B in waste and fraud before they spend it? Of course not! So let's just say,
for the sake of argument, that they can find only $300B in waste and fraud. But they've already spent the
other $200B. So what's going to heppen? Since instead of cutting the fraud and waste first, they've guesstimated
it and if they're wrong who's going to eat the other $200B? Doctors? Hospitals? Pharmaceutical companies?
Sure, when pigs fly! Seniors are going to eat it in higher co-[ays, deductibles, rationed care and increased prmiums.
It's as obvious as can be, only the Democrats don't care. They're going to have their healthcare giveaway come
hell or high water. But make so mistake. Democrats don't represent seniors in America. Not even a little
bit. And anyone 55 or older that votes for them has been drinking too much Kool-Aid.
   Democrats don't represent small business. Ronald Regan said that government's motto is "if it moves, tax
it, if it slows down, regulate it, and if it stops, subsidize it." The Democrats heartily agree, and are doing all
three with great vigor. In a recession featuring double digit unemployment the Democrats propose hitting
small businesses with a triple whammy. First, their "tax the rich" scam will hit small businmess owners
hard. This is the Dems' idea of wealth re-distribution. Then, they'll force them to provide health insurance
for all their rmployees or pay a fine equal to 8% of their payroll. Then, to finish off the few that are left,
they intend to either pass cap-and-trade legislation or impose Draconian EPA regulations to limit carbon
emissions, thereby guaranteeing heavy retro-fitting costs for already sinking businesses. Should there be any
left after that, there's always the union card check legislation to drive small businesses into the same success
pool as Chrysler and General Motors. (Or is that just a cesspool)? Fewer than 3% of Obama's cabinet and
high government appointees have any experience in the real world of business. They're all Ivy league
theoreticians or Chicago crooks. Barack Obama and the Democratic party are the biggest enemies that
small businesspersons have. If you are one (and I feel sorry for you), remember that voting Dem is voting
dumb!
   Finally, it's crystal clear that Democrats don't represent the innocent unborn. At this very moment they are
waxing eloquent in the Senate chambers arguing that taxpayer money should be allowed to fund abortions.
Obama, now widely know as the "Abortion President" has already removed prohibitions to government
funding for clinics that perform abortions abroad. His chief political advisor, David Axelrod, has said that
Obama "cannot bide" the language of the Hyde prohibition being put in the healthcare bill. Democrats argue
that it's a health bill, not an abortion bill. But when they stripped out the Hyde language they MADE it an
abortion bill. We'll see of the few pro-life Democrats have the guts to vote against the bill if it has no such
prohibition. The day this bill passes will be a very bad day to be a defenseless fetus!
   One could go on about all the different groups of Americans the Democrats do not and never will represent.
 If you take a close look at the groups the Dems do not represent, an appalling pattern becomes clear. With
AARP in the administration's pocket (and they are) seniors have no lobby with which to fight back. Small business
cannot match the large campaign contributions of Wall Street giants and the unions, so the Dems once again
choose to supposrt the big and powerful over the small and weak. Not content with spewing their ravages on
those already in the world, the Democrats take joy in empowering those who wish to kill babies. Babies, small
businesses, the elderly. Do you get it yet? Barack Obama lied when he said that no public funds would be used
to fund abortions, he lied when he said no public funds would subsidize insurance for illegals, he lied when he
told seniors that if they liked their health plans they could keep them and he's lying through his teeth when he
says this "heathcare reform" bill will not increase the deficit. Stop and think about who you really want running
the country.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OFFENDED (PART II)

 
   Are you offended by the media's defense of nonstop smut on television? Does it make your blood boil
that this Denmocratic president and congress are trying to ram through a healthcare bill that makes possible
the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions? Are you sick of government telling you that you
can't pray or talk about your faith in public, celebrate Christmas in the traditional way or display a cross
on your own property? Does it bother you that chaplains in the American armed services can no longer
mention the name of Jesus. while their Muslim counterparts can talk freely about Muhammad? Are you
repulsed by the move to scratch "in God We Trust" from our coins. the Ten Commandments from our
courthouses and all prayer from public schools?Are you sickened that homosexuality is being openly
condoned and  taught in  public schools, that gay marriage is being approved by several states and that
urinating on pictures of Jesus is considered "art?" Are you fed up yet? Have you had about enough?
   It's pushback time, and some of the most effective tactics are the ones liberals have been using against the rest
of us for so long. First, make some noise. Gay marriage activists stage marches, go on talk shows and lobby the
White House. Liberals representing dozens of sleazy causes repugnant to most Christians engage daily in a barrage of
labeling and namecalling that is then parroted by the media. If you claim Christian conviction you are now
automatically labeled as part of the "Christian right," one of those dinosaurs bitterly clinging to your guns and
religion. It's high time we start branding the namecallers for what they are, liars and social fascists who are determined
to remake this country in their own blasphemous image. Why are they so afraid of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher,
Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly? It's because when the libs engage in their bashing and trashing the
aforenamed people bash back. If we do that, you say, doesn't that lower us to their level? When, in response to
Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor we declared war on and attacked Japan, did that lower us to their level? The
point is that it's already a war. What are you waiting for?
   Reject political correctness now. Call real things by real names. If people are going to be offended then let's
all be offended together. Why should Christians be offended alone? That means that in spite of what the pro-choice
crowd says,killing baibes is still killing babies is still killing babies. No more nice guy. If you're in my face, expect me
to be in yours. My faith. my values and my freedoms are that important to me, and you're not going to walk on them
anymore without paying a price. What do you think would happen if the millions of us who continue to be labeled,
ridiculed, lampooned and marginalized took just that stance? Yes. it might be war. But there are more of us than
there are of them, and they know it.
   On November 20, a prestigious group of Christian leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, released a manidesto
known as the "Manhattan Declaration." It's purpose was to defend the rights of the innocent unborn, the institution
of marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and the rights, both God given and constitutional for people
to practice and profess their religion openly. In less than three weeks that document has been signed by over
200,000 religious leaders, public figures and private citizens who are ready to stand up and be counted. Have you
signed on? You can do so my going to ManhattanDeclaration.org.
   Those who drafted this document are by no means starry-eyed idealists, and include professors from noted law
scholls as well as clerics and theologians. They go so far as to challenge unjust laws, like taxpayer money being
used for abortions, and suggest civil disobedience as a beginning remedy. The Declasration is both civil and
scholarly. But it does little to hide the underlying frustration and anger of the Christians who penned it, and suggests
that now, more than ever, is the time for pushback.
   So this is the message Mr. Liberal, Miss Atheist, Mr. Hollywood smutmonger: we're done putting up with your
garbage and from now on when you take shots at us you'd better bring your lunch. You've pulled the tiger's
tail once too often.
   There are MANY other strategies that can be effectively employed to undermine the social fascists. Learn more
in the next installment of this blog.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARE YOU OFFENDED?

 
   Bill O'Reilly has an interesting piece on Townhall discussing the fact that religious people in America are
angry -- fed up with profane secularism, government encroachment on religion and blatant affronts to
their most deeply held beliefs, some of which are reflected in actual or proposed government policy. Even
more interesting are some of the root causes of this growing anger.
   Bedrock in the creeping discrmination against the religious is the doctrine of political correctness, a mind
set esposused by the liberal establishment, propagated in the leftist media and deified by Hollywood and
the administration of Barack Obama. The doctrine of political correctness holds that it is socially unacceptable
to publicly say or display anything that might prove offensive to others, especially protected groups such as
minorities. It is therefore necessary to cleanse the public vocabulary of words and phrases to which some groups
attach offnse. For example, La Raza argues that use of the term "illegal alien" is "hate speech." This makes
talking about almost anything publicly increasingly precarious since almost everything is offensive to someone.
   But that is where the gross inequity of political correctness raises its ugly head, because public scorn, media
disdain and, in some instances, even legal sanctions are reserved for those holding traditional or majority\vuews,
and are seldom or never enforced against those holding non-traditional or minority views or status. In other words,
it is okay to offend one group, but not the other.
   And when such offense is taken, the minority employs an effective three-pronged strategy to silence and
thereby control the majority. First, they blitz the airwaves with whining complaints of discrimination and personal
attacks on those they consider representative of the other side. A good example of this was the verbally vicious
and vulgar attack of homosexual blogger Perez Hilton on the former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for simply
stating that she believes that marriage is for a man and a woman. Since such attacks are controversial in and of
themselves and make juicy copy, the media is only too happy to spread them on the airwaves and in print. And
it's intersting how in nearly every instance the facts are manipulated to make the whining offended look like a
rightoues martyr and the so-called offender like a heartless neandethal.
   A second line of attack is sometimes violent civil disobedience. When gay marriage was rejected by citizens of
California, the election was followed by days of "gay rage," in which homosexuals marched, attacked innocent
bystanders and destroyed property, both public and private. There was, of course, no media coverage on whether
and of them actually did jail time for their offenses.
   Finally, the offended resort to legal action. Gays are suing the state of California claiming it is their constitutional
right to marry (guess I missed that amendment) and that citizens had no right to vote otherwise. Does anyone
seriously suppose that it would, conversely, have been well within the rights of Californians to approve of gay
marriage and that no one would have sued to say otherwise.? If the very process of the people deciding the
issue was uncnonstitutional, then why was it allowed on the ballot in the first place. And if one outome is
constitutional and the other not, then Californians never really had a choice. The American Civil Liberties
Union is fond of pursuing just such suits on behalf of the whiners who lose. Would they have been willing
to represent the citizens of California who won? Guess!
   If ever a group had a right to be angry due to discrimination, it is today's American religious community.
They have been deprived of public prayer, public nativity scenes at Christmas, crosses on their own
property and virtually every right to speak of their faith outside their home or place of worship. They have
been lampooned by the media, force fed abortion on demand and gay marriage, treated to nonstop obscenity
on television topped off this week with ABC's American music awards in which Janet Jackson grabbed a
male dancer's crotch and homosexual Adam Lambert simulated oral copulation on stage. If it's filthy, obscene,
perverted or an attack on tradition, then it's just fine. All others shut up!
   It's time for a revolution in this country, and the rumblings are beginning. The next installment on this blog
will discuss what is being done, and how those of us who are tired of being silently offended can be heard.
   
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE MEASURE OF A MAN

 
   Jesse Jackson recently commented that "you can't call yourself a black man if you don't vote for the
healthcare bill" now pending before congress. This below-the-belt comment was clearly aimed at Arthur
Davis (D-AL) who broke with many of his Democratic colleagues and voted against the House version of
the bill that passed by a razor thin 220-215 vote. While namecalling and race baiting are nothing new for
the irreverent Jackson, there is more to this particular smear than meets the eye.
   For decades black American leaders have operated from a "you owe us" mentality, holding out hope
that they could extort monetary reparations from modern day white Americans for the travesty of pre-
civil war slavery and years of racial discrimination. They have supported every welfare and entitlement
giveaway and become willing dupes of liberal Democrats who lavishly dole out such favors only to take
them back through exhorbitant taxation. They have made common cause with groups like the now infamous
ACORN in trying to blackmail and extort businesses, banks and mortgage lenders to extend to African
Americans terms, conditions and favors not available on the same basis to whites. They have continued
to champion affirmative action, with its insidious hrring and school admissions quotas that deprive the
most qualified in favor of racial minorities. Their pandering has become so embarrassing that other blacks
like Bill Cosby, Alan Keys and yes, even Barack Obama, have said it's time for blacks to assume the
burden of responsibility for their own lives.
   Jackson's enthusiastic support for Obamacare is hardly surprising, for it is the most grandiose entitlement
program ever proposed. It will provide subsidies for the poor, whom Jackson assumes to be predominanatly
black, so that they can "afford" health insurance. If it's free, and Jackson thinks it will benefit blacks above
other ethnic groups, then he's all for it. The thought that well-to-do whites (and eventually middle class
whites AND blacks) will foot the bill for this boondoggle makes it seem even sweeter to Jackson, who was
hawking wealth redistribution when Obama was a coke-snorting collegian.
   Now, in order to attain this giveaway-of-all-giveaways, he has chosen to challenge the blackness and the
manhood of a man (Davis) who had the guts to buck his party and actually vote his conscience based on
what he thought was best for the constituency he serves. While this cowardly attack ranks well up on the
how-low-can-you-go meter. it is also more a commentary on the manhood, AND the blackness of Jesse
"Race Card" Jackson, than on Davis.
   American blacks stand today on the verge of a new frontier in which, by their own strength of character,
ingenuity and sweat equity they are forging themselves into a force majeure in the American economy as
entrepreneurs and businessmen/women in nearly every venue of commerce. In so doing they have availed
themselves of the same kinds of resources available to all Americans. Certainly, they have gotten some extra
help along the way, but they didn't blackmail or extort anyone to get it. They are claiming the equality of
opportunity and expression that is theirs under the constitution, and they are shaping their own destinies. To
these progressive African Americans the Jesse Jacksons and Maxine Waters are increasingly dinosaurs of
a bygone era. Jackson, though crass, is not as stupid as he looks, and he despareately wants (1) to be needed,
and (2) to sustain the "you owe us" giveaway-sucking mentality that would make the people he wants to
represent slaves all over again.
   If there's a fake black man out there it's certainly not Arthur Davis. But more and more the shoe fits Jesse
jackson. Dependency, victimization and self-pity are the arch enemy of black Americans. But they are the
fuel that drives Jesse Jackson's engine. Now that engine is running on empty, and he's resorting to desperate
measures like the attack on Arthur Davis to jump start his has been hegemony. It won't work.
   But what kind of a man makes his capital out of dependency, victimization and self-pity? What kind of
leader can only grab headlines by playing the race card? What kind of man champions reliance by a whole
racial group upon entitlements from an increasingly bankrupt government instead of applauding and lifting
up the accomplishments of those who have chosen a different path and taken their destiny in their own hands?
When you look it that way, it would be fair to say that it's Jesse Jackson who "isn't muvh of a black man." In
fact, it's not much of a stretch to argue that Jesse Jackson's not much of a man at all.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DEBATING THE BIG LIE

 
   Within a few days the United States Senate will begin debate on the so-called healthcare reform bill drafted behind
closed doors and then disclosed privately to members of the majority before either the minority or the public were
allowed to see it. Once debate begins. seanators will have an opportunity to propose amendments before a final bill
can be voted on. The process is expected to be long and acrimonious.
   What is most astonishing is that grown men and women, elected to the snior house of the legislature by their own
respective constituencies will spend so much time discussing, and then trying to pass into law something that does
not even rise to the level of good fiction. It is, instead, a flimsy tissue of outright lies.
   At Barack Obama's insistence the language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibiting the use of any federal funds
for abortion has already been stripped out of the bill. If it passes in its current form. it will constitute the largest
expansion of abortion since it was legalized,  use tax dollars to pay for elective abortions and penalize private
insurers who do not wish to fund abortions. There are two issue here. First, if you believe the killing of unborn infants
is immoral, you cannot support this bill. Second, whatever you believe about abortion, if you believe your tax
dollars and the taxes of those who do object o moral grounds should  not be used to fund elective abortions
then you cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has promised Nancy Pelosi that if the
bill comes back from the conference committee without the amendment banning public funding of abortions she
will lose ten to fifteen votes toward final passage. The bill only passed by five votes,
   Second, the message that the bill will not increase the deficit, either in the short or long term, and that it will reduce
the costs of medical care are groundless fantasies based om hypothetical projections much like those used to pass
Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are now nearly bankrupt and continue fueling the deficit. It's a lie, plain and
simple. If you believe it you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny!
   Third, the notion that the only tax increases will be for the wealthiest class is false on its face. In fact, taxes will
go up on small businesses -- that's right, the ones run by Joe and Mary Middleclass. And those new taxes on wheelchairs,
crutches, breathing assistance machines and the like. Do you believe that only the wealthy buy such things" If ever there
was a true gouge, this is it. Let's take healthcare for the poor out of grandma's social security. It's obscene!
   Fourth, if you believe it's possible to whack $400M out of a program like Medicare without reducing the availability
and quality of care, then please say hello to the tooth fairy for me. If this government can save that much in fraud and
waste then why didn't they start doing it when Obama took office and use it to avoid some of the bailouts? They can't
do anything like what they're promising. The Congressional Budget Office knows it and I guarantee you that senior
Americans know it.
   Fifth, how can any sane adult believe that an entity that makes and enforces the rules governing health insurance
can go into direct competition with those who have to live by those rules without gradually squeezing them out
of business? This is one of the biggest Obama lies of all, and it's so obvious it's hardly worth arguing. It's why
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have said they won't vote for any bill that inclides the "public
option," and why Repuiblicans unanimously oppose it.
   Finally, if you want to look through a crystal ball at the future of government run healthcare, just look at what
a wonderful job it has done with the H1N1 vaccine that's been too little, too late and is still not available to
all of the at risk. This is what big givernment does to just about everything it touches. It can't even accurately
count the jobs that have been produced (or not) by the great stimulus boondoggle that should never have been.
   But the fact that in spite of the obvious mendacity with which this president and the Democratic party have
tried to sell America this tripe, they continue to trumpet it from the rooftops, even applauding themselves for
thinking of it, The resaon this administration has abandoned the prosecution of marijuana violators is that they
hope more Americans will smoke themselves into a stoned stupor until they can slide through a entitlement
program that will hopelessly indenture future generations to an unsustainable debt, and not fix anything now
in the bargain. Joe Lieberman, Blcnahe Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landirieu are the key senators who
can block this misbegotten bill from ever soming up for a vote. Write or call them if you can. Tell them you;re
counting on them to see through the lies and vote "no" for cloture. Maybe that will finally give this "Abortion
Presidnet" something to think about.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA MAKES BAD DECISIONS

 
   Since taking office Barack Obama has made a series of decisions which, to many Americans are unfathomable.
Why did he announce the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay before having a concrete strategy in place
to deal with the dangerous men being detained there? Why is he still dithering about what to do in Afghanstan
when continued delay plays into the hands of the Taliban? Why, after promising that he would not do so, does he
allow his attorney general to persecute, er, prosecute the CIA tasked with catching and interrogating these monsters? 
But the question pushing others to the back of the line today is why did Obama and his attorney general decide to try
accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators as criminals, and in New York?
   The simple answer to what goes on in the mind of a liberal is "not very much." But reflection reveals a carefully
calculated political and philosophical equation in which certain basic commitments drive everything else. It can
best be seen in Obama;s reaction to the Fort Hood massacre in which radical Islamist Nidal Hasan murderd
13 and wounded thirty more while screaming "allahu akbar," god is great. A number of White House critics
have rasied the question about why Obama's first response was to caution against "jumping to conclusions" and
to quickly label what happened "a horrific crime,." even insisting that the Senate delay investigating related
intelligence and security breaches until the criminal investigation is completed. The reason is simple, and it also
explains why Obama wants Mohammed tried in New York. He wants no linakge whatever between terrorism
and Fort Hood because if we call it terrorism then we have to concede that it was this man's radical Islamist
ideologoy that drove him to murder and thus connects him to the worldwide network of violent Islamic jihad.
If we paint him as a lunatic, or even a common criminal who acted alone, we are spared the exercise of
connecting the dots that Obama desparately wants to avoid connecting. If a person commits a crime, then
we simply try him as a criminal. If he commits terrorism, then that connects his actions with a broader international
consppiracy, whether specific to the event in question or generalized as a crusade to kill Americans.
   If Americans reach the latter conclusion, which polls suggest more than 60% have, then the carnage becomes
an attack in a wider war for which Obama has no stomach. If he labels Fort Hood terrorism, then he concedes
that it is an act of war, involving not just an individual but a group. Since it is very difficult, if not impossible
to try a group so large as the whole jihadist movement in criminal court, some other means must be found to
render justice, i.e., war. Obama's liberal mindset will simply not allow him to countenance the possibility that we
are unalterably and unequivocally at war with radical Islam. It's a war he's afraid of, one which distracts from
his socialist domestic agenda and one which financially strains a nation he has already spent to the verge of
bankruptcy with his bailouts, stumulus packages and entitlements. And it is at odds with the version of reality
that he tried to seel to the Muslim world in his Cairo speech. In his mind, if we can simply convict and imprison
some of the more notorious jihadists, that will get us off the hook to succeed in fighting terrorism abroad. Ah,
if only it were that simple.
   It is definotely more politically correct to say that Mohammed, Binalshib and, for that matter, Hasan were
random sociopaths who did terrible things. It is completely another to face the fact that it is an extreme and
violent faction of one of the world's most popular religions that motivates and binds them inextricably together
in their nefarious intent. Killing a few of the snakes can never substitute for wiping out the nest. In his pique to
appease Muslims, Obama has thrown criminality, war and terror all into the same perverse blender and concocted
a mixture too bitter for Americans to drink. In so doing he is using the typical liberal sleight-of-hand by calling
something obvious by another name, in hopes that no one will notice that he's trying to do a hammer's job with
a screwdriver.
   Differentiate for us if you can, Mr. President, between 9/11, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of the
Nairobi embassy and the massacre at Fort Hood. Each wantonly took American life. Each was planned and carried
 out by radical Muslims. Each was applauded worldwide by still other Muslims. Exactly what would it take for you
 to admit that America is at war with radical Islam? The answer is that there is no imaginable set of circumstances
that would elicit such an admission from this president, because to make such would be to set in motion a nearly
infinite regress of policy shockwaves would simply unravel his liberal commitments.
   So we have come to this. We bring one of America;s sworn enemies to our most populous city, a city he has
already profaned with his murderous acts and his obscene version of a religion, and we involve him, after the fact,
in a criminal prosecution in which evidence may now be suspect, procedure difficult to follow, security a nightmare
and the outcome uncertain. This is Barack Obama and Eric Holder's concept of justice. The only thing missing to
complete the farce is a judge with "empathy" for the murderers. But the White House is undoubtedly interviewing.
Why does Barack Obama make so many bad decisions? All of his intellectual water is drawn from a poisoned well.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT

 
   Whoever said that democracy is rule by majority? The only time that's even semi-true seems to be at
the time of a presidential election. From that time forward the president and the party in power seem
to do as they jolly well please without reference to the majority opinion of the American people.
   Recent history is replete with examples, and the polls tell the sad tale. A majority of the population
opposes the healthcare reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and vigorously
lobbied for by the president. A majority of Americans opposes closing Guantanamo Bay and and an even
larger majority disagrees with bringing the terrorists to American soil and trying them in civilian courts.
Yet that is what is in progress today. A clear majority of Americans oppose raising taxes to pay for
more entitlement programs, government encroachment into the private sector, union takeover by
card check, cap-and-trade energy policies, abortion on demand, gay marriage and gays in the military
and a host of other things that Barack Obama are daily striving to impose on the nation. The election
was last year. The majority clearly does not govern this year.
   What's wrong with these people that they're not listening? Even more important, what's wrong with
our system that a president and his party can run roughshod over the American people on issues
ranging from their most dearly held moral principles to their freedom of speech to their healthcare?
In many of the world's Democracies massive public denunciation of a leader's actions can lead to
mandatory special elections. If elections were forced today, would Barack Obama and the Democratic
legislative majority retain power? Only when pigs fly!
   The problem with the Democratic party and their president is that they have spent decades flirting
with and adopting a socialist political philosophy, and when America granted them the windfall of
near unbridled control of the White House and both houses of congress they reacted like a child who
stole the entire cookie jar. They plan to stuff themselves until they eventually get sick. Trouble is,
they're making the rest of us sick in the process. Are they miscalculating? Doubtful. They understand
that when their agenda has been enacted they will be thrown out of Washington for abusing their
power and doing the very things a majority of American don't want. But they also know that whatever
they can successfully write into law will be extremely difficult -- maybe even impossible -- for
successor givernments to undo. They are exactly like the kid who stole the car he could never afford
to buy, and, like him, they're going to drive it as far and as fast as they can before they crash. The
bad news is that there won't be anything left of the car, and America is the car.
   So what can be done about presidents and parties who habitually break promises they made to get
elected and who insist in ramming policies the majority don't agree with down America's throat? Very
little on the short term. The Tea Parties, angry town hall meeting protests and the precious few news
organizations that have criticized and challenged them have, at least, rocked them back on their heels
a bit. But they have also become more determined to enact their catastrophic agenda fast, before the
mid-term elections and the looming presidential election of 2012. When those elections occur, Americans
will have a chance to prove ther're not as dumb as electing Obama made them look. That might be too
late. It is critically important to wrest majority status in the House of Representatives from the Democrats
in 2010. But that may be a long shot.
   What about the longer term? Term limits would help, althugh the current Democratic majority in the
Senate will never pass that suggested limitation. What we need is a constitutional mandate to demand
immediate new elections when it becomes clear that elected officials have lied to gain power and are not
acting according to the will of a majority of American citizens. Good luck with that!
   Meanwhile, what we've got is what we've got. Hugo Chavez, socialist dictator Venezuela has clutched
 and consolidated his power by silencing critics through intimdation, restricting the free press, forcing
enactment of legislation and nationalizing everything from oil refineries to gilf courses. Can anyone with
half a brain look at what's going on in America and say, with a straight face, that Barack Obama is NOT
doing or trying to do all of those same things? Of course he is, because he fancies himself a socialist
dictator, not the president of a free democracy. America is well down the road toward having an emperor
instead of a president. I'm passing on a family gathering this weekend because I have a Tea Party to go
to. What are you willing to give up for the country we used to know?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO TO NEW YORK AGAIN

 
   Just when we thought the Obama administration had completely exhausted its bottomless bag of abject
stupidity, faux Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed
and his accomplices will be given a civil trial in New York City. Undoubtedly we will be putting them up at
the Waldorf on the taxpayers' dime, buying them brand new prayer rugs and making certain the call to
prayer is broadcast promptly at 6 AM over the hotel speaker system. There will probably be changes in the
menu during their stay, too. Don't go looking for a late night BLT in the coffee shop.
   A criminal trial for a Pearl Harbor style act of war against an unsuspecting civilian population, eh? Never
mind the compromise of top secret national sceurity data that will have to be released in dicovery. Or the
probable exclusion of evidentiary statements extracted under "torture." Or the tab to taxpeyrs for funding
the astronomincal cost of their trial defense. Or the trial the CIA will be put through (it wasn't enough to
puublicly call them liars and open an investigation into them). Or the possibility that the chain of evidence
may have been violated by soldiers who had no idea they were responsible for upholding rules of criminal
procedure.
   What if Mohammed and/or some of the others walk free? What if some liberal judge throws out all the
evidence? What if the ham-handed Obama administration screws this up the way they have everything they've
touched? What do we say to 3,000 grieving families? That justice was served? That the killers had their day in
court and prevailed? If that happens what odds would you give on Mohammed actually leaving New York
alive? Three-thousand families makes lots of angry, hurt people.
   America has a president who does not know the difference between terror, war and crime. It has an attorney
general whose actions have been racially motivated from the day he was sworn in. And it has a justice system
which is now, according to Obama, to value empathy over the rule of law. Maybe after the trial is over we
can take th culprits to D.C. so the Democrats in congress can apologize to them for what WE have put THEM
through. Can it get any sicker than this?
   But look at the bright side, If even one of these scurvy jihadists walks free, Barack Obama couldn't get elected
homeowners association president in Chicago, let alone president of the United States in 2012. It was said over,
and over and over again before the election. The man has no experience in governing anything, and has no clue
what he's doing now. His slavish devotion to blind socialist ideology is weakening the military, devastating our
intelligence community and now, at last, making amockery of our criminal justice system.
   Putting Mohammed and the others on criminal trial in New York is a monumental mistake, one in what will
apparently be an unendingline of them. And it will badly hurt the nation Obama has sworn to serve. Mohammed
begged to be executed while he was at Gitmo. The trial hasn't started yet, and it's still not too late to grant his wish.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK . . .

 
   A radical Muslim terrorist shot and killed 13 at Fort Hood, and wounded 30 more. If that's not politcally
correct enough for you, go read some other column. Here, for the next few paragraphs, we're going to
tell it like it is.
   The President urged us not to jump to conclusions, and a general officer who reports to him fretted that
the diversity of our military might be in danger. Then the intel began to leak out, and the rest of America
wondered why someone didn't jump to the obvious conclusion a long time ago, and just how many good men
and women the army is prepared to lose in order to protect diversity.
   Look at the plain facts. Major Nidal Hasan told a group of military doctors that "we must sever the heads
of infidels and pour boiling oil down their throats." He warned of "adverse events" if Muslim soldiers were
forced to fight against fellow Muslims. He had contacts with al Qaeda in Pakistan, sent money there and
had a relationship with a mosque frequented by 911 attackers. He had a business card engraved "SOA" -
soldier of allah, and before commencing his murderous rampage is reported to have shouted allahu akbar --
god is great -- the favorite rallying cry of the jihadists. Just how much more do you want, Mr,. President,
before you'll let us "jump" to the obvious conclusion that while this guy may have had a screw loose, he
was carrying out murder in the name of his ultra-violent religion?
   There is a real sense in which political correctness is as responsible for the needless deaths at Fort Hood
as is is Muslim wack job. And it's something our president embnraces and touts. In his Cairo speech and his
visits to Arab countries he toadied up to Muslims. One by one he has downplayed the attacks by Muslims
on our military -- from the fragging of officers in Kuwait to the brutal assassination in Arkansas -- as
isolated events. He has bought into the consensus of liberal scholarship that the Arabic "allah" is a version of
the Hebrew "el" and therefore while the Muslims' prophet is Muhammad and the Christian's is Jesus we
really all worship the same deity.
   Well, get this through your obtuse, politically correct head, Mr. President. Many of us don't worship any
so-called god who obligates us to support our fellow believers in their attempts to murder others. We think
Muhammad was a knock-off prophet who purveyed junk religion, and whose life was hardly a paradigm
of virtue to be emulated. The Constituion enjoins us from prohibiting the free worship of any man, but it
does not compel us to believe in a religion which we consider both false and dangerous. You give all the
speeches that you want to, and have your anti-American "diversity czar" issue rules and regulations until his
behind falls off. That won't make Islam credible, nor will it make America safer.
   If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, guess what? It's almost always a duck. Obama and the
liberal PC sycophant papers like the NY and LA Times can deny, delay, obfuscate and foam at the
mouth as much as they want to. Nonoe of it will change the fact that the dastardly execution carried out
at Fort Hood was jihadist murder, Islamic terrorism. It's time Americans stopped playing games. It's time
our president, so quick to condemn Cambridge police over an incident hw knew nothing about, faced up
to and admitted the facts about Fort Hood, which he now knows a lot about. Will he do it? Not a chance!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA LIED!

 
   When President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of congress, he stridently and aggressively made
certain claims about the bill Democrats were trying to pass and that he supported. At one point he was
interrupted by Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted, "You lie." Wilso was subsequently
pilloried in the media and disciplined by Democrats in the House for his outburst. Ensuing events have
proven beyond a shadow of doubt, however, that Obama did lie, and did it repeatedly. So the real
question is not why did Joe Wilson shout, "You lie?" The real question is what will it take to muster
the intestinal fortitude in the rest of us to do the same?
   The facts speak for themselves. Obama claimed that the proposed healthcare reform would not allow
coverage for illegal aliens, A Sebate committee spent the entire week after the promise had been made
stripping out the loophole that proved Wilson's contention. Now, the Houseof Representatives, caving
in to the Hispanic Caucus, has put it back. Illegal aliens will be able to get insurance through the "public
option." Democrats point out that they will have to use their own money to do it, but  ignore the fact that
the reason they will be able to afford it is because it will be subsidized by your tax dollar. Wilson was right!
Obama lied then, and he's lying now if he says that the House bill just passed will not cover illegals.
   Obama promised that healthcare reform would not provide federal dollars to pay for abortion. It was a
lie when he said it, and it was a lie up until an hour before the health vote in the House. Democrat Bart
Stupak (R-MI) put together a coalition of pro-life Democrats and threatened to join Republicans in
blocking the healthcare reform bill's passage unless it strictly prohinited any use of federal dollars to fund
abortion. His amendment to that effect was known as the Stupak-Pitts amendment. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi prevailed upon pro-choice elements to agree to its passage in order to bring the bigger bill to the
floor for a successful vote. The amendment passed 240-194. Does anyone want to bet that Pelosi didn't
promise the pro-choiceers that Stupak-Pitts would be stripped out of the final bill in conference? If so,
you're on! If Obama was telling the truth, then why was Stupak-Pitts necessary? Clearly, it wouldn't have
been. Obama lied through his teeth.
   The president promised that "if you like you;re healthcare plan, you can keep it." To ten million seniors
on Medicare Advantage that was a lie, because all the existing bills de-fund Medicare Advantage in order
to pay for healthcare reform. This means that those seniors will not. as Obama promised, be able to keep
the healthcare plans they are happy with. They will eventually have to purchase a medicare supplement
plan which is several times more expensive and does not cover much of the preventive and maintenance
care that Medicare Advantage allows. Obama lied to ten million seniors, and he did it knowingly and to
gain political advantage. How much lower can it get?
   It's not okay for presidents to lie to congress or the American people. When Democrats became convinced
that George W. Bush had deceived congress and Americans about the reasons for invading Iraq, they labeled
him a liar and pressed the assertion through the remainder of his term and throughout the 2008 election
campaign. They had far less proof that Bush lied that we now have that Barack Obama did. When it comes
to prevarication, America has allowed its leaders a good deal of slack (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, et al). But
when deception becomes the daily modus operandi of an entire administration -- from the White House right
down through the congress -- Americans are unlikely to be so charitable. It is a painful thing for a nation
to admit that its elected leaders were elected and continue to govern supported by a tissue of premeditated
falsehoods. Obama promised that if opponents said things that weren't true about his beloved healthcare
reform "we're going to call you out." Well, Mr. President, you have lied to us, repeatedly and premeditatedly.
Now we're calling you out. That's what comes just before we throw you out!
 
   
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »