Sunday, January 31, 2010

Free Speech Update: Atheists Double Standard Challenged

The goal of the left is to destroy the moral underpinning and education of America so that there will be no resistance to their agenda.  As they dumb down America and confuse the understanding of the difference between REAL rights (given by God), and merely privileges, they also work to incrementally take away our RIGHT to free speech and religion.

Contrary to what the left will have you believe ATHEISM IS A RELIGION.  A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Christians and followers of religions which believe in a higher power believe we were created, while atheists believe we are simply an accident or coincidence.  I happen to believe that we were created by God, and I have the right to say that in public.  You have the right not to listen.  Atheists believe that God doesn’t exist and that they evolved from amoeba and monkeys.  They also have the right to express that belief in public, and I have just as much right not to listen.

Notice that there is NOT a right NOT TO BE OFFENDED mentioned ANYWHERE in the constitution.  The simple sight of you might offend me, but there is little I can do about that unless the reason your appearance offends me is because you are breaking decency laws by running around naked in public, or you are appearing in my home which I can ask you to leave at any time.  The simple fact is that free expression of all ideas WILL put something out there that WILL offend some.  As long as the expression is in a form or venue where people have  a CHOICE of whether or not to listen, that expression SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  If it’s on TV, I can change the channel.  If it is at City Hall, I can choose not to attend on that occasion.  When it is in a public location where people must see it every day, and people work in that environment, then there better be equal time given to opposing view points.  But if the atheists, homosexuals, muslims, and followers of whatever belief system are going to cast dispersions on the other religions, they better be prepared to have a few insults thrown their way as well.  As it stands now, they can say anything they want about Christianity or Judaism and get away with it, but if a Christian preacher INSIDE HIS OWN CHURCH expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or that atheists will go to hell, then that is HATE SPEECH.  If you don’t like what the preacher is saying, get up and leave. FAITH UNDER FIRE

Atheists’ ‘hate’ sign blasted in lawsuit

Illinois candidate claims state ‘hostile’ to beliefs
Posted: January 30, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A political candidate in this week’s primary election for the office of comptroller in Illinois has filed a lawsuit against the state charging it officially expressed “hate” and “hostility” toward Christianity and other religions that include a belief in God by allowing atheists to post a sign in a state building at Christmas.

That sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,:
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
It was placed in the Illinois Capitol Building, through which GOP comptroller candidate William J. Kelly, a cable television executive, was required to travel for his responsibilities as a candidate.
(Read complete article HERE)

Craigs List Add: Victim or Victor? The 2nd Amendment Makes the Choice Possible

Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the benefit of being armed. It gives you a choice of whether or not to be a victim.

If the dirtbag has enough of a life to actually ruin, this would be a pretty cool way to handle the situation. However, I suspect the scumbag mugging you wouldn’t have credit cards with much of a credit limit, or anything else of much value.

Just shoot him and be done with it.

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.

Date: 2009-05-27, 1 :43 a.m. E.S.T.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it?!

I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you’d done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, — on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink “pimp mobile” that was parked at the curb …. after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver’s side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what ’s going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA’s office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.

The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you … but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you’ve chosen to pursue in life.. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours,

Saturday, January 30, 2010

1930’s Brownshirt Tactics Coming Back into Vogue

I don’t think you’ll find a better, more clear example of how the left and the progressives operate.  Straight up communist doctrine and right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook.  Intimidate into silence.  At first in this country it was done slowly by sneaking in small, unconstitutional laws that most people were to complacent to resist.  The first “big stick” used against the church in this country was MONEY.  LBJ had a law passed making it illegal for preachers to speak out for or against political candidates because he didn’t like that fact that they usually spoke out against HIM.  The IRS were his “Brown Shirts.”  They would revoke the tax exempt status of a church found in violation of this law.  Sadly, far too many churches and preachers let themselves and the Gospel be pacified by this intimidation, which has resulted in a much more timid church and body of Christians overall in America.  Now that most have been pacified over time, the left is stepping up its campaign to silence the church completely.  They are boldly employing thug tactics that have never before been seen in America, and haven’t been seen in a western country since 1930’s Germany.

If Christians, and Americans in general don’t stand up for EVERYONE’S right to free speech, then it will soon be gone.

Mall to Christians: God talk banned!

Rules challenged as violating ‘principles of free expression’

Posted: January 30, 2010
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh

Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man talking to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen’s arrest for “trespassing.” (Phony charges to silence and intimidate since they knew they couldn’t arrest him for what he was doing.)

The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.

A short time later the charges were dropped, but officials with the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.  (Again, they were sending a warning.  “Don’t speak about any of that God stuff, or next time we won’t go so easy on you.”  These are the intimidation tactics of the left.  Look at Hitler’s National Socialist Party and his Brown Shirts, Stalin’s purges, and Mao’s tyrannical reign.)

After a Placer County Superior Court judge in 2008 affirmed the mall’s regulations, an appeal was launched to the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento, and the briefs have just now been completed for that court’s review.

“It’s surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conservations,” said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds. “While a ‘don’t talk to strangers’ rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California’s free speech guarantees.”

The case is being pursued under the state’s constitutional provision for free speech, which extends protections to private locations, because the 1st Amendment to the Constitution deals directly with government restrictions.

McReynolds said had the case been argued in federal court, it would have had to focus on the discriminatory nature of the mall’s restrictions.

“Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression,” said PJI President Brad Dacus. “If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian T-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society.”

(Read complete article HERE)

Honduras Gives a Constitutional Lesson to Obama and the World

The Honduran people gave us a lesson on how a constitution is supposed to work and be followed.  While we are pissing on and shredding ours, they are honoring and following theirs.  They also showed great courage to continue following their convictions and their constitution in the face of political and economic pressure to cave in to the demands of both the thinly and not so thinly veiled communist countries and organizations around the world.  They are being led by people who are actually not afraid to speak the name of God in public, and to incorporate His guidance in their actions.

Here's to you, Honduras.  Well played.

With New Leader Installed, Shunned Honduras Seeks International Recognition

Friday, January 29, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

( – Honduras took a big step away from its protracted political crisis this week when its new president was sworn in and his deposed predecessor flew into exile, but the new government still faces a challenge in winning international recognition.

Only three presidents, those of Panama, the Dominican Republic and Taiwan, attended Wednesday’s swearing-in of conservative President Porfirio Lobo. Several other regional governments sent foreign ministers. (Notice that Che Gue-bama wasn’t anywhere near the place. Had it been a tin pot communist dictator taking power, Chairman Maobama would have been right there licking his boots.)

The United States, which recognizes the new government, was represented by the assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere, Arturo Valenzuela.

Also on Thursday, Lobo’s leftist predecessor, Manuel Zelaya, left the mission and flew to the Dominican Republic. He vowed to return someday. Zelaya was ousted five months ago and later sought refuge at the Brazilian Embassy.

Wednesday’s developments in Tegucigalpa, the capital of the small Central American country, marked a defeat for Zelaya’s regional allies, led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Critics saw Chavez as a leading behind-the-scenes player in Zelaya’s bid to change the constitution to extend presidential term limits – as Chavez and several of his leftist allies have done in their own countries. (This is a key thing to note here. Continue to read about how a constitution is SUPPOSED to work…)

Zelaya’s move violated Honduras’ constitution and triggered a Supreme Court ruling that led to his ouster by the military. His abrupt departure, says Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Ray Walser, was “a serious blow to a key Chavez ambition: a radicalized, anti-American Honduras.”

In line with constitutional rules of succession, Zelaya was replaced by congressional speaker Roberto Micheletti, who served as interim president until the previously scheduled presidential election in November.

In the election, 62 year-old rancher Lobo of the National Party took 56 percent of the vote, easily beating his nearest rival, the candidate for the Liberal Party (to which both Zelaya and Micheletti belong.).

Zelaya’s removal was viewed by many governments, including the Obama administration, as a “coup.” (This was all going on about the same time O-bow-ma was kissing My-mood I’m-in-a-jihad’s butt, and licking Hugo Chavez’s boots. Had a communist/Marxist dictator taken over, Obama would have hailed it as a “victory for the people.”)

Micheletti’s interim administration came under sustained international pressure to allow Zelaya to serve out his term. (Only the leftists were pushing for this. Conservatives and constitutionalists cheered the fact that Honduras actually obeyed and stood up for their constitution.) The U.S. froze aid, revoked diplomats’ visas, and backed a decision by the Organization of American States (OAS) to suspend Honduras’ membership. (Again, at the behest of the O-bow-minator.)

An accord negotiated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias called for the reinstatement of Zelaya, the creation of a national unity government, and a “truth commission” to look into the circumstances of his ouster. (All very Stalin-istic. This is what we can expect from failed organizations with leftists goals like the OAS and the UN.)

But lawmakers in December overwhelmingly voted against reinstating Zelaya. The interim government refused to back down despite the outside pressure, choosing to hold out until the date for the formal start of the new presidential term. (I only wish America would display such a spine.)

Lobo has pledged to work to promote reconciliation between Hondurans who supported Zelaya – many or most of whom boycotted the election – and those who applauded his ousting.

During his inaugural speech, the new president signed a decree, approved earlier by lawmakers, granting amnesty to Zelaya and shielding from future prosecution anyone involved in his removal from office.

The move drew criticism from Amnesty International. “Failure to sanction abuses that took place during the coup d’etat could give a green light to further violations in Honduras,” said the group’s Americas program deputy director, Kerrie Howard. (Kind of reminds you of Al Gore crying about the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, doesn’t it? These are the same voices from around the world who want to see Bush and Cheney tried for “war crimes.” To these nut jobs, it’s only a war crime if you’re not a communist dictator murdering millions of your own people.)

‘Bible and constitution’

Micheletti, who will now return to Congress, attended a special Mass Wednesday at a church in Tegucigalpa, where said he wanted to thank God and his supporters for their help during the crisis. (Finally, someone who understands that “separation of church and state” only applies if a) you’re trying to impose a state mandated religion, or b) you’re trying to destroy the moral base of a country so you can institute a communist system.)

He urged Lobo to govern with the Bible in his right hand and the constitution in his left, and called on the international community to support the new government, saying that Honduras had done nothing but defend its democracy. (I think these fellows are more in touch with our founding fathers than we are. The GET IT!)

Governments refusing to recognize Lobo base their stance on the fact he was elected in a vote organized under an “illegitimate” interim administration. (Only viewed as “illegitimate” by those who weren’t happy with the outcome. The Hondurans followed their constitution and the law to the letter. This should be viewed as a victory for law and order.)

In the region, they are led by Venezuela and its leftist allies, as well as members of the Mercosur trade bloc, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the OAS, Roy Chaderton, protested during an OAS council meeting on Wednesday that Lobo’s inauguration had completed “the successful circle designed by the coup plotters in Honduras.” (Communist propaganda.)

Critics of the OAS decision to freeze Honduras’ membership over what they considered essentially an internal constitutional matter contrasted the move with the regional body’s decision just months earlier to scrap a 47 year-old resolution that expelled Cuba for its alignment with the communist bloc. (THIS says it all. A bunch of communist dictators trying to prevent a seed of freedom from sprouting in their back yard.)

With its member states divided over the issue – those recognizing the new government include Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala and El Salvador – it remains unclear how the OAS envisages dealing with Lobo.

OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza said last week developments in Honduras would have to be “evaluated by countries.”

“In the case of the OAS, a process of gradual return of Honduras to the democratic community will have to be initiated,” he said. “We hope it will happen as soon as possible, and we are ready to help in whatever is necessary.” (Unlike the communist and/or dictatorial regimes making this phony offer, the Hondurans are quite able to handle this change of administration because they followed THE LAW.)

Regional powerhouse Brazil’s role will be particularly important.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim on Thursday seemed to leave the door open for a shift in the future, saying that his country’s position remained unchanged “for the moment” but it would watch how Lobo governs. “Everything depends on the new president.”

Meanwhile, Lobo faces not just a struggle for recognition but also severe economic challenges. Even before the political crisis and punitive steps by the international community Honduras already had the highest proportion of people living below the poverty line in Central America and, according to the CIA World Factbook, “extraordinarily unequal distribution of income and high un- and under-employment.”

“The costs of Honduras’s isolation have been substantial,” says Walser. “It has created a climate of uncertainty for businesses and investors. Honduras also suffers from generalized economic recession and a loss of remittance earnings that undercut its already fragile economy.”

Walser said the Obama administration must quickly end sanctions against Honduras, including the denial of visas. It should also press for the country’s return to the OAS, and international recognition.

Bias Alert: PMS-NBC Host Illustrates How “Leading Questions” Are Asked

This is exactly why (P)MSNBC is barely clinging to life at the bottom of all the ratings.  Dishonest, disingenuous, biased reporting.

Mizzz Brewer leads Judd Gregg with the classic “so when did you quit beating your wife” type of question.  If she thought she could have gotten away with more than the quip about taking money away from schools, she would have gone for it.  “So, you’re going to leave seniors on the streets to die?” Or, “So, your plan takes food away from children.”  This is how a BIASED reporter asks questions. There are biased reporters on all sides, but the majority of them seem to find homes with media outlets that have a decidedly liberal bias.

An HONEST reporter would have simply asked how the Senator intended to cut spending, then based upon his answers ask how that would affect various programs. They would not lead with an IDEOLOGICAL supposition.

GOP Senator Rips Into MSNBC Host For ‘Absurd,’ ‘Dishonest,’ Statements

By: Kyle Drennen
January 28, 2010 16:56 ET
On the soon-to-be canceled ‘It’s the Economy’ program on MSNBC on Thursday, co-host Contessa Brewer grilled Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg on his calls to reduce out-of-control government spending: “Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Gregg shot back: “What an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make.”

Gregg called out Brewer for her unfair framing of the issue: “…nobody’s saying no money for schools….On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.” He went to explain the kinds of budget cuts he would make: “I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money….I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner….reform our entitlement programs….I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them.”

Gregg was far from finished, he described the big government mentality shared by the Obama administration and the liberal media: “The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.”

Brewer attempted to deny suggesting that Gregg wanted to cut funding for schools: “That’s not what I said.” Gregg continued undeterred: “I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month….And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.”

Fellow co-host Melissa Francis ran to Brewer’s defense: “Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.” Gregg replied: “That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.”

Brewer then attempted to end the interview: “We appreciate your time today-” Gregg kept going: “You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.”

Gregg reiterated: “…you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.” Brewer again denied making that exact implication: “No, I didn’t.” She then concluded the interview: “Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

CONTESSA BREWER: Let’s bring in now Republican Judd Gregg, the Senator of New Hampshire, the top Republican now on the Budget Committee and a member of the Senate Banking Committee. What do you think about the money the President is proposing to spend on jobs and what [National Urban League President] Mark [Morial] was just saying that it has to go hand in hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills, and certainly educating very young people.
JUDD GREGG: Well, we’re running a 3 point – a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. The government’s going to spend over $3 trillion. All of that deficit goes into the debt, which has to be paid by our children and our children’s children. I think somebody’s got to ask a more fundamental question, how are you going to get the economy going if you run up the debt to a point where we can’t afford our government? That, I think, is a much more fundamental question.
If you want to do something to energize this economy, I think you put in place some plans which control the rate of government, so the people can have confidence that we as a nation are not going to go into some form of fiscal bankruptcy in five to seven years. And that will cause people to be willing to invest, to be willing to take risks, and to be willing to create jobs. Jobs are not created by the government. You know, long-term good jobs are created by a vibrant economy. And you don’t get a vibrant economy when the government and the size of the government and the debt of the government is overwhelming the capacity of the economy to function well.
MELISSA FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, Senator. How would you practically-
GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory.
FRANCIS: How would you – well, tell me-
GREGG: Don’t tell me that it’s good in theory.
FRANCIS: Well, tell me how to put it to work. Tell me – tell me very practically-
GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory. What are you – how do you get off saying something like that? Good in theory?
FRANCIS: Because it is good in theory. It is, it’s fantastic.
GREGG: Oh, of course.
FRANCIS: So tell me how to practically – here’s your opportunity, Senator, let me finish, to tell us how to practically put it to work. I’m all for small government.
GREGG: Well, you stop – you stop the spending spree. You stop growing government so fast that you can’t afford to pay for it. You don’t increase the size of the government from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP in two years. You don’t add a trillion dollars of new debt to the – to our kid’s back every year for the next ten years. You don’t pass a budget – the President doesn’t send up a budget which increases – doubles the debt in five years, triples it in ten years. You don’t say that you’re for fiscal responsibility and then propose a whole panoply of new programs which you can’t pay for. That’s not theory, that’s reality. That’s what we’re facing as a nation.
BREWER: So when – when-
GREGG: The reality of a fiscal meltdown of our country which is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives and especially cost a lot of jobs in this country.
BREWER: So my partner, Melissa, Senator Gregg, is really asking for specifics. If you don’t believe that we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you? Do you – and do you side then, with those who say – I mean, you look back at the Great Depression, economists say we landed back into real problems in 1937 when people got onto cutting a deficit and a lot of government spending was pulled back before it should have been.
GREGG: Well, first off nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.
BREWER: Well, I’m asking-
GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make.
BREWER: What we both are-
GREGG: On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.
BREWER: Senator Gregg, what we’re both asking, is which programs you expect to cut?
FRANCIS: Tell us what to cut.
GREGG: I mean do you know how much money we’re spending at the federal government on education this year?
BREWER: Which – Senator, you’re going to be asked to cut certain programs if you’re on the Senate Banking Committee, which programs would you cut?
FRANCIS: Just tell us, what do you want to cut?
GREGG: Oh I have no problem telling you, I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money, which would get us close to $400 billion. I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner, so that we can recover all the money that’s going to be spent outside the window of this recession. And we shouldn’t be spending it and adding it to the debt. I would take a major effort to reform our entitlement programs, in fact yesterday, or the day before yesterday, we had a vote to try to do that under a bill which I proposed with Senator Conrad. I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.
BREWER: That’s not what I said
GREGG: I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month.
BREWER: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.
GREGG: And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.
FRANCIS: Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.
GREGG: No, that’s what she said.
FRANCIS: And I think you answered the question.
BREWER: We appreciate your time-
GREGG: That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.
BREWER: We appreciate your time today-
GREGG: You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.
FRANCIS: She asked you what you would like to cut. She asked you if you’d like to cut schools. You said no. It was a question and answer.
GREGG: No, you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.
BREWER: No, I didn’t.
GREGG: Well, education funding isn’t going to be cut. Yes you did.
BREWER: Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.
GREGG: Thank you.
Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Friday, January 29, 2010

State of the Union-Loving, Narcissistic, Undocumented President

Lie after lie after lie. David said it quite well when he said "Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda."

Here are a few of the adjectives I would use to describe Chairman Maobama's State of the Union(s) speech: angry, narcissistic, disjointed, dishonest, unrepentant, unpresidential, classless, lacking decorum,and pathological.

The writer of his speech should be fired, then taken to the woodshed for the number of lies, lack of facts, and other breaches of decorum in the speech. But we know that will never happen, because O-bow-ma believed just about every word of the speech (except, of course, the part about drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants.)

The few democrats left that might remotely consider themselves as AMERICANS need to head for the life boats. The true "progressives," the followers of "the one," are going down with the ship.

It's time to start whispering "IMPEACHMENT."
There Was the President's Speech, and There Is Reality
By David Limbaugh
January 29, 2010

Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda -- even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn't once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That's the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his "stimulus" insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn't begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new "stimulus plan." And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first "stimulus plan" didn't achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me. How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent if his "stimulus" bill were implemented is jaw-dropping. He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words "transparent" and "accountable"? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn't raised income taxes "a single dime" on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family's energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don't believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way. (He also said he had CUT taxes on the middle class. Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if that had actually happened. Reducing my withholding so it looks like I’m getting a tax break, when it actually pushes me into a higher tax bracket forcing me to pay that much and more on April 15th is NOT a tax cut. A “stimulus” check, which just gives back a small portion of what was mine to begin with, is not a tax cut. Giving that same “stimulus” check to those who don’t pay taxes at all is just a handout, and communist redistribution of our hard earned money.)

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we've been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President. (There were some 9,000 earmarks in the O-bow-ma porkulus bill. I’d call that a step in the right direction, wouldn’t you? (facetiousness intended))

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against "partisanship, shouting and pettiness" as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations' campaign contributions.

How about his statement that "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity"? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he's out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems. (Narcissistic clown.)

All of this, especially Obama's obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal. (It’s like the speech he gave the other day on “tax cuts.” In that speech, he said “I” over 120 time while mentioning the subject of the speech, tax cuts, only TWICE. It’s kind of like the Toby Keith song “I wanna talk about me.” (I wanna talk about me, Wanna talk about I, Wanna talk about number one…) He is a self-centered, communist/progressive, anti-America, probably NOT American danger to America, our constitution, and our way of life.)


David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at


Nancy Pelosi: “Let them eat cake. THEN off with their heads!”

Taking artistic liberty with the words of the great Winston Churchill,
“Never in the field of human conflict, has SO MUCH, been done BY SO MANY, for SO FEW.
We have allowed our government to gain a sense of self importance that was never intended by our founding fathers.  For those in government, the government has become more important than the people whom they are supposed to serve.  They embody the sense of entitlement which they are forcing down the throats of America, which is also dividing America.
These elitists (not to be confused with ‘elites’) have not earned, nor do they deserve the privilege they partake in, and the respect they demand.  They are confiscating and squandering the blood and treasure of Americans more for their own benefit than for the benefit of America.
Nancy Pelosi may fancy herself a modern day Marie Antoinette, but she would do well to remember the fate of Marie.
Nancy, we are about to storm the palace.
Friday, January 29, 2010
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Taxpayers paid $101,000 for Pelosi’s in-flight ‘food, booze’

Speaker’s trips ‘are more about partying than anything else’
Posted: January 29, 2010
12:20 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh

It reads like a dream order for some wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer. 

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show that the Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time. 

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. “And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else.” 

Pelosi, D-Calif., who joined President Obama on a list of Top 10 corrupt politicians, was added to that list for her “sense of entitlement,” Judicial Watch said when the “honors” were announced not long ago. 

Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline,” the evaluation said. 

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, like one would with an on-call taxi service

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail then. (Having worked in a DV airlift squadron, I can tell you with certainty of personal experience that the preparation for these VIP flights is quite involved.  There’s flight planning (routing, diplomatic clearances, permission to land at certain airports), and logistics (fuel, food, hanger/tie-down space coordination, ground transportation), all of which is time sensitive and tied to the party’s request for travel.  Because the professionals in the military who make it seem effortless, and nearly always “make it happen,” these self-proclaimed royalty like Nancy Pelosi, the Botox Bolshevik Barbie, have zero appreciation for the effort and wealth expended on their behalf.  Nor do they care.)

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.
“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”
The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”
Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi’s demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco’s airport.
“She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker…” (Heaven forbid we upset the Botox Bolshevik!  She should be traveling commercial like the rest of us commoners, especially since WE ARE FOOTING THE BILL!)
Said another,
“This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker(’s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”
Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:
“Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens.”
Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.
Among the newest highlights revealed:

  • Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.
  • One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.
  • According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.
Pelosi’s office could not be contacted for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full so no messages could be left.
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.