Historical Race With A Blackkk Panther

Before I start I'd like to ask you for a few things. First, take the time to go through this entire post, be warned, this is not a quick one. There is a ton of info here. It has taken weeks of research, and many hours to write. Click on every link in this story and read, (or watch), everything you are brought to in it's entirety. Secondly, spread the word. I'm not afraid of what I'm about to show you. Send this to everyone you can think of. Some of this is very important to know, for too many of us don't know enough of this stuff and it's proving devastating to our country. This is the first story I've ever done that was big enough to have not only an intro but acknowledgements at the end showing you the sources offline that gave me some of the info. Here we go.

It's always considered a controversial topic, race. There are few areas where liberal hypocrisy is more outrages than when the issue of racism is brought up. You'll notice that I've spelled black with 3 k's in the title above. I'll be continuing that just about every time I mention the Blackkk Panther Party in this post.

I'm going to show you some history and of course provide the resources and proof not only showing the similarities between the KKK and the Blackkk Panthers, but also exposing the accurate history of racial politics in our society. While everyone has made mistakes in the past, especially in the younger years, teenagers etc. Those mistakes teach us life lessons that make us into the adults we grow to be. Some learn from mistakes, others ignore them. It's time to start learning.

Before we begin I'd like to note that I will be using many links and quotes, (with sources of course). I will also be using a good deal of information from History.com and while at times I'll show highlights from topics I will also include a link for you to see the information for yourself. Some may call this post controversial, you'll have to decide that for yourselves. Perhaps I'll be criticized, perhaps not. Either way it's time to expose the Liberal lies for what they are, lies.

Let's start with the most obviously exploited topic of groups like the Blackkk Panthers and so called civil rights leaders, slavery. After that we'll talk about racism.

From History.com

"Although twenty Africans were sold to settlers in Virginia as early as 1619, throughout most of the seventeenth century white indentured servants were far more numerous in the English mainland colonies than African slaves."

In case anyone doesn't know what that means. This is saying that most slaves throughout the 1600's weren't African slaves sold through the slave trade to colonial whites. An indentured slave was someone, (in many cases white at the time), who owed a debt to another for whatever reason. If you couldn't pay off the debt then you worked off the debt as a slave. Encyclopedia Britannica describes it as this:

Indentured servant - a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.

Again via History.com

"Only after 1680, when the flow of indentured migrants from Europe diminished, did European servitude increasingly give way to African slavery. By the middle of the eighteenth century, slavery existed in all thirteen colonies and formed the heart of the agricultural labor system in the southern colonies."

We must keep in mind that before the Revolutionary War the colonies were an extension of England. England used the slave trade in the colonies and therefore the colonies all participated in the slave trade so all had slavery. George Washington had slaves but you should read more about his belief as to what would in time become of slavery here.

"George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation."

Part of what made the slavery issue escalate from our founding up until the Civil War was the fact that the country had repeatedly avoided dealing with it. There were even 2 instances before we won the Revolutionary War that slavery could have been abolished.

1. When the 20 African slaves sold to Virginia in 1619, (mentioned above), first arrived the colonist could have emancipated them and didn't.

2. When Thomas Jefferson first drafted the Declaration of Independence with the "Committee of Five" he included the indictment of England's imposition of slavery on the colonies. Read about the Committee of Five first, then I'll explain.

Congress would not tolerate the Committee of Five s original language condemning Britain for introducing the slave trade to its American colonies as a "cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty."

What's interesting is that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were members of the Committee of Five. While George Washington warned of political parties John Adams and Thomas Jefferson's disagreements with each other in time led to early establishment of political parties, although it wasn't at all quite like it is today.

This showed that both Republicans and Democrats as they are now known stood against slavery, (even though Jefferson owned slaves he knew it was wrong and also knew a time would come when it would end).

Remember now, "Congress would not tolerate the Committee of Fives original language". Objection from South Carolina, (the first southern state to succeed from the union after the election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1860), and other southern states who also objected to the committees language followed suit. It was through southern slave-state objection that the language regarding slavery was eliminated from the Declaration of Independence. This forced the addressing of slavery to the future yet again.

During the American Revolution there were African-Americans fighting with the American colonists. During the Revolution Congress blocked the proposals sent to it that wanted to free slaves who fought for the revolution, the southern states blocked these proposals.

Beyond the Declaration of Independence there was the Constitutional Compromise. Basically the northern free states, New England, wanted to count slaves toward taxes but not toward representation in the House of Representatives. The slave states of the south obviously objected to this.

The reached compromise counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. This move gave an advantage to the South because counting slaves as 3/5 of a person gave the south more seats in the House of Representatives due to the high population of slaves. While this did indeed make the Constitution imperfect on slavery, without the Compromise the foundation of this nation wouldn't have been realized.

Then you had the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850, which continued to delay the inevitable. There could be no middle ground on slavery. You either supported it, or opposed it.

The modern day Republicans like to point out that it was the Republicans who fought to free the slaves and the Democrats who fought to maintain it. The Democrats try to dispute that by claiming that the parties somehow switched. As if one day all of the southern Democrats decided to become Republicans and vice verse. This of course is nonsense as nothing is quite that black and white.

Republicans of the 1860's were pretty much united against slavery, but the Democrats weren't united for it. The truth is that a majority of Americans were ready to abolish slavery, the south was simply too dependant on it economically to let it go. That's not to say racism wasn't an element of those who were for slavery, it's just that economic reasons played a far bigger role.

Another problem that liberals run into regarding the argument that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans could be explained with Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 in Virginia. Wilson was a boy in Confederate Virginia. That means he was raised in the Democrat south. If the myth about the parties switching between then and now were true, wouldn't future progressive liberal president Woodrow Wilson have become a modern Republican?

Perhaps you've heard of the Jim Crow laws? These progressive laws segregated the south separating blacks and whites. Woodrow Wilson brought those laws to the white house.

What's interesting is that Woodrow Wilson's racism was no secret and is easily proven. Yet modern progressive liberals, (and liberal history professors) ignore the facts.

Progressive history professors have no problem painting Woodrow Wilson in a good light using the fact that he led us during World War 1, even though he ran for re-election on a vow to keep us out of the war.

At least Wilson was on the side of women, right? He did make mothers day an official holiday after all. On this he proved to be a failure once again.

"During the 1912 presidential campaign against Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson and his opponent agreed on many reform measures such as child-labor laws and pro-union legislation. They differed, however, on the subject of women’s suffrage, as Roosevelt was in favor of giving women the vote."

Two candidates, two parties (Republican Roosevelt and Democrat Wilson), two pro-union, anti-business progressive presidents. Maybe today's America isn't that different after all. Hmmmm......

How about Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League which would later become Planned Parenthood. Instead of telling you of Margaret Sanger's history myself, I'll let the African American group LEARN, (Life Education And Resource Network), tell you of her history.

Now that you know the history of Margaret Sanger and that she was a racist using eugenics and abortion as a means to destroy the black race what would you say if you were offered a reward in her name? Modern day Planned Parenthood gives out this award and Hillary Clinton was proud to receive it.

“It was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award,”

"The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago." - Hillary Clinton

Actually Hillary, Planned Parenthood began as a means to exterminate black babies through the belief in eugenics.

"The assumptions of eugenicists came under sharp criticism beginning in the 1930s and were discredited after the German Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals."

Would it be a "great privilege" to receive the German Nazi eugenics award Hillary? You should be ashamed of yourself for getting the Margaret Sanger award. I wonder how many college professors consider Hillary Clinton "right-wing"? After all they call Nazi's right-wing all the time don't they? Hmmm.....

Let's get back to the issue of race now and talk about the two major racist groups in America, The Ku Klux Klan and the Blackkk Panther Party.

First the Klan. Founded by Confederate Democrats at the end of the Civil War. Another reason it's in the Progressive left's best interest to convince you that the parties switched.

Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK's first grand wizard; in 1869, he unsuccessfully tried to disband it after he grew critical of the Klan's excessive violence.

"Most prominent in counties where the races were relatively balanced, the KKK engaged in terrorist raids against African Americans and white Republicans at night, employing intimidation, destruction of property, assault, and murder to achieve its aims and influence upcoming elections."

The Klan was a huge group at one time but all hate groups are eventually discredited in the eyes of the majority. They just have to make the right mistake. Like the Birmingham Bombing of 1963.

"Outrage over the death of the four innocent girls helped build increased support behind the continuing struggle to end segregation--support that would help lead to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In that important sense, the bombings impact was exactly the opposite of what its perpetrators had intended."

Is the Klan still around? Of course. Do many people think they are relevant? No, unless you're trying to paint the Tea Party Movement as an extension of the Klan but we'll get back to that in a minute. Just remember that the Klan primarily hates blacks and Jews, remember that as we talk about the Blakkk Panthers.

The Blackkk Panther Party has been in the news a lot in recent days. There's something very telling about the founding of the Black Panther Party though that I haven't seen highlighted much.

"The Panthers eventually developed into a Marxist revolutionary group that called for the arming of all blacks, the exemption of blacks from the draft and from all sanctions of so-called white America, the release of all blacks from jail, and the payment of compensation to blacks for centuries of exploitation by white Americans."

Marxist, another name for Communist, named for Karl Marx, writer of the Communist Manifesto.

"Marx adopted the more extreme form of socialism known as communism, which called for a revolution by the working class that would tear down the capitalist world."

Maybe the next time you hear someone call the Nazi's "right-wing" you should correct them since the National Socialist Party represented right-wing communism, not right wing conservatism. How can the Nazi's, who believed in universal health care (for the supreme race of course) and total government control, not to mention eugenics, be a right-wing idea?

Malik Shabazz, head of the Black Panther party, has been on the news a lot lately trying to defend his organization against charges of racism. I want you to watch this interview he had with Geraldo. I'm going to point out something and tell you where to look for it.

At 3:48 of the video Malik Shabazz mentions Che Guevara as someone who was "seeking freedom before you sold them out". This is not a "right-wing conspiracy", you just heard him say it for yourself. I have just proven that the head of the New Black Panthers supports Che Guevara. Read about Che Guevara and you'll see why that's so disturbing.

"The overthrow of the Arbenz regime in 1954 in a coup supported by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency persuaded Guevara that the United States would always oppose progressive leftist governments. This conviction became the cornerstone of his plans to bring about socialism by means of a worldwide revolution."

So, progressive leftist governments are the cornerstone of bringing about socialism. I want you to think about that for a minute, literally. There is no doubt that Obama is a progressive leftist, we've seen what he's done with health care, regulation, etc. Yet he and his supporters reject the notion that he's a socialist. How much more proof do you need?

Go back to the interview with Malik Shabazz. At 4:47 he says, "you know we don't carry batons....psyche". What's interesting is that after he says the word batons you hear other black panthers saying, "that's right" in agreement. Then he says "psyche" and they seem to agree again. How is that possible?

We constantly see Republicans, especially conservatives, labeled as racists. Meanwhile the Democrats stand by Robert Byrd.

Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

"The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas"

Bill Clinton defended Robert Byrd after his death.

"he spent the rest of his life making it up" - Bill Clinton

If Robert Byrd said some racist things when he was a teenager and that's all we had I could believe that. When I was a teenager I did a lot of stupid things, most of us did.

I've said and done plenty of stupid things when I was in my teens and I'm man enough to admit it here. I also saw my biological father, who was a druggie when I was a little kid, sent to prison when he tried to kill my mother. I've lived in poverty and prosperity. I smoked weed and took ecstasy in my late teens. To act like I've lived a perfect life would be beyond a huge lie.

The myth of the left that conservatives have all lived this rich elitist life is laughable. I'm not trying to throw myself a pitty party. That is all true, but I've grown up. My past and past mistakes have helped me to learn and I've become stronger for it. I have a great stepfather and I've focused on learning true history, for the truth will truly set you free.

Robert Byrd, born on 11/20/1917, was 46 years old when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A bill Martin Luther King praised.

"If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill" - Martin Luther King Jr. from his I've seen the promised land speech.

Aparently MLK Jr. wasn't praising Robert Byrd the way the shameful Liberals did recently, but remember it's those evil Republicans and crazy Tea Partiers who are against civil rights. As Malik Shabazz talks about in his recent interview. *note: video glitches around the 7 minute mark but you don't miss much.

"history has proven that in America it is very difficult or impossible for blacks and whites to exist in America on an equal basis."

Unfortunately, that will remain true for as long as the racist progressive left have a stranglehold on the African American vote. For the record Martin Luther King Jr.s father was a lifelong Republican.

"The black power convention, over 4 days which brought together many leaders; from the All Africans Revolutionary Party, the African People's SOCIALIST party"

Remember earlier? History.com showed us that: "The Panthers eventually developed into a Marxist revolutionary group that called for the arming of all blacks." Also, remember from earlier: "Marx adopted the more extreme form of socialism known as communism." So Malik Shabazz is holding conventions in an attempt to merge Marxist Communist and Black Socialist groups together.

He claims to stand against recent racist comments from a member. By the way, is the black former NAACP member who spoke out against The Black Panthers a racist? Malik Shabazz's Black Panthers were carrying Communist flags and asking gangs like the blood's and crypt's to rise up with the Black Panthers.

This is the same Malik Shabazz who was criticizing white people for arming themselves. He criticizes Jews (Zionists), and Whites. The KKK criticizes Blacks and Jews. You tell me, are the Blakkk Panthers and the KKK really all that different. Doesn't the saying go, 2 wrongs don't make a right?

Why the Jews? Have you ever thought about that. The Jews historically have suffered more persecution than the slaves, they were in fact slaves themselves. Isn't the bible full of that theme. So called civil rights leaders and the Blakkk Panthers think they are suffering and believe they deserve reparations because of slavery. The Holocaust is a hell of a lot more recent than slavery.

Martin Luther King Jr. disagreed with all hate groups. Here are 2 clips where, unlike The Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr. stands up for Israel: The first one, the second one.

Do you really think that Malik Shabazz is against these comments like he says he is? He's welcomed the speaker as still being a Blackkk Panther. Yet Malik Shabazz calls the Tea Parties Racist. The NAACP has also condemned the Tea Parties as racist as well.

"your enemy can not make you free, fool" - Samir Shabazz

Exactly, which is why most Americans do not support your call for racist socialism Samir. Also, how can you support President Obama Samir? His mother is white. Without that "dirty, white, cracker, whore", there would be no Obama. Why would you stand outside a polling place trying to intimidate voters in his favor?

MSNBC had to edit video in an attempt to show racist gun-toting Tea Party supporters. It took Glenn Beck and Fox News, whether you like them or not, to expose the truth. The shameful reporter of MSNBC actually dared to say:

"Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist."

Are you going to deny the proof there just because it was Fox News that had to prove MSNBC was lying?

"I didn't ask for whites to start buying guns at a record rate" - Malik Shabazz

So you support gangs like the bloods and crypts that aquire guns illegaly, but you don't support Americans of all races exercising their 2nd amendment rights and aquiring guns legally. Does that make sense to you who are reading this?

Look, most people, regardless of race, don't agree with the KKK. Most people, regardless of race, don't agree with the Blackkk Panthers. Knowing that maybe we should dismiss the constant claims by the left that there is some vast right wing conspiracy. Right wing conservatives could only dream of being that powerful. Most Americans just tend to turn on politicians who suck, regardless of party, end of story. (I've gone after "sell out Scott" Brown several times for voting against the good of the country recently). Obama's failing policies, not his race, are causing his falling in the polls.

There is far more evidence that the distortions of history is a vast left wing conspiracy. It makes sense given the amount of money the teachers unions give to Liberals.

Imagine if there was an NAAWP, National Association for the Advancement of White People. The cries of bigotry would be deafening. How about having a NAAAP, National Association for the Advancement of the American People. That one sounds pretty good.

Imagine if this had happened to a black Democrat.

Harry Reid uses racial remarks about Obama but it's cool because he's a Democrat. Liberals would have been calling for a Republicans head if they had said something even less racist.

You've seen some of the footage with Janeane Garofalo doing the typical liberal bashing of the tea-parties and Republicans in general. Armed with the information I've given you here, who seems crazier? Watch the entire interview. Notice it was on MSNBC which I've proven earlier lied about the gun at the tea party to claim false racism.

Janeane claims it's people like me who don't know history. People who know me and hear me regularly would say different. If by chance she sees this I'd welcome a debate with Janeane Garofalo any day of the week. Of course she'd have to take time away from making crappy movies to find the time for a debate. Remember when she bashed Robert Byrd for his racism?.....Of course you don't because she never did.

Remember this question at the youtube debates? The answer should be another question: Why do most blacks vote for liberals when liberals have historically been the most racist and done the most damage to the black community?

He gave a good response to the answers the Republican candidates gave here.

"A lot of blacks just don't trust the Republican Party and so they would rather vote Democrat and vote for a party that they don't necessarily agree with all the time than vote for a party they may agree with but don't really trust"

While many African-Americans may not trust Republicans, what has made the Democrats so deserving of that trust? You now know that teachers with a political agenda hide accurate history from all of us. Both parties have proven not to be worth the trust of the American people. No political ideology has a monopoly on corruption.

Maybe it's time for all of us to start looking at what's going on in this country not in terms of black and white or left and right. It's time to look at our problems in terms of right and wrong. I've said many times before on this website that it's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong.

Nobody is born a racist. It has to be taught or assumed. Everybody seems to want a scapegoat when it comes to our own failures. It's easy for a young white kid to assume the problems they have in life are because of blacks. It's also easy for a young black kid to believe that the reason they are being held back is because of the oppression of the rich white guy. Elitist politicians, not to mention gangs like the Panthers, Klan, or any of the other gangs, feed off of that victimhood mentality and they use it masterfully.

By making us think with our emotions, we tend to forget how to think with our brains. It comes down to each of us. Children don't see race differently unless they are taught too. I'll give you an example with a true story.

I went into the doctor's office with my daughter a few years ago, she was 4 at the time. In the waiting room was a pregnant women and her boyfriend/husband, both white. My daughter asked her if she had a baby in her belly. To which the woman replied that she had two. Then out of curiousity as only a child can, she asked if they were going to be brown. This drew a laugh out of the room. The question certainly had the shock effect, but it showed the innocence of a child.

You see, kids don't see a difference in people of different races. My daughter didn't think that it would be unusual for 2 white people to have black babies. Children have to be taught hate. That can come from parents, friends, teachers, or politicians. It's up to us to stand against it. Racist will show up at Tea Parties, but they will also show up at polling stations. It goes both ways.

In conclusion, this isn't about black and white. The future of our children is truly at stake. We got lazy, we got selfish. We were manipulated because we stopped paying attention to the truth. We stopped learning from history. Because of that we got the leadership we deserved. I will not be quiet because of a fear of critics. There is too much to lose. Our children's future is more important to me than political correctness. From here it's up to you, send this to anyone and everyone you can think of.

I've shown you as much as I could think of. I've spent a lot of time both researching and writing this. I'm not perfect. However, if we are to lose freedom I'm going to go down swinging. Perhaps we are destined to tell future stories to our children about a time when we were once a free country with free people.

If it comes to that my children will wonder and ask what I was doing while we were losing our freedoms. Writings such as this will be able to at least show that I was paying attention and involved in the struggles of our time. The question shifts now from me to you. Who do you believe. Do you believe these people? or these people, one, two, three? Will you sit there and hope for the best, or will you rise up?

Acknowledgements:

I'd like to thank everyone who has gone through this post and hope that it was worth your time. Also, my friends and family who put up with my constant political and historical rambling.

I'd also like to thank the following people and books, you should definately check these out. You'd be amazed with how much you don't know. There are plenty of others but this should get you started.

A Patriot's History Of The United States.

Liberal Fascism.

Bamboozled.

The Greatest American Speeches.

History.com

Read more...

The Supremely Endangered Court

It's a great day for the second amendment today as the Supreme Court ruled against the high crime city of Chicago's handgun ban. The handgun ban is of course part of why Chicago has such high crime in the first place.

Common Sense:

Criminals don't follow the law, that's why they are criminals. When you ban guns from law abiding citizens with blatantly unconstitutional laws the only people left with the guns are the criminals.

Never forget what happened during Hurricane Katrina when the Bush administration forcefully, (and unconstitutionally), took handguns from legal owners: looting, raping, crime. The criminals had the advantage since they knew the guns were gone.

There's a huge problem with today's ruling though and I haven't seen anyone talking about it yet. The decision was 5 - 4!! That's no reason to be happy. This should have been an easy 9 vote victory as the second amendment is clear, short, and uncomplicated.

Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, (ratified effective on December 15, 1791):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are currently serious regulations on people with gun licenses. There are extensive background checks etc. Therefore, current law already upholds the "well regulated Militia" end of the amendment.

It's the criminals who aren't well regulated so it's also the criminals causing the problems with guns. However, what political ideology tends to be softer on crime?....Liberals.

Their belief in excuses of circumstance and rehab they hope will work leads to child rapist getting lean sentences and therefore repeating the offense. My state, Massachusetts, for example is very restrictive with gun control and makes it hard to get a gun, yet it's also a state where the Liberals won't pass Jessica's Law because they deem it unfair to child sex offenders. That's the kind of insanity you get when you get too Liberal. That was the kind of stance the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court tend to take and they showed it again today.

It's funny, states are challenging the health care law with the base of the 10th amendment regarding states rights as the Constitution grants no such power to the federal government.

Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution - (also ratified on December 15, 1791):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This administration and the left laugh at the fact that states are challenging the health care law with this. At the same time the right to bear arms is under assault by the left all the time even though it is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

While Elena Kagan will be confirmed regardless of what she says since the Democrats have enough of a majority to confirm her anyway. Now it gets dangerous.

Obama is one replacement away from flipping the court to the left decisively. The court is just another politically partisan group. The fact that 4 of the 9 Justices couldn't rule on the side of the Constitution in such a clear and easy case is dangerous at at time when we have a president who himself has called the U.S. Constitution "a charter of negative liberties".

Negative liberties!! What's negative about this:

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

Thesaurus

Liberty - Meaning: the state of being free from the control or power of another

Anybody want to explain what's negative about that?

Dictionary -
1: : the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges: the power of choice

2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits

3: : an action going beyond normal limits: asa: a breach of etiquette or propriety

You see, the Constitution isn't a charter of negative freedoms, it's a charter of positive freedoms. The right to bear arms isn't a negative freedom meant to enable criminals to kill. It's a positive freedom meant to enable law abiding free people to have a defense against criminals.

It's a freedom that must be protected as well as all of the Constitution's positive, (not negative), liberties. If you don't like it then there's a process to amend it legally. That is how many positive changes have been made over time, the end of slavery by amendment 13 for example:

Amendment 13 of the U.S. Constitution - (ratified December 6, 1865):

Section 1 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for a punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2 - Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The most important responsibility of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and it's no health care bill. The Constitution is pretty easy to understand. That's part of it's ingenuity. You've read some of it in this post and how much did you find confusing?

We now know that 4 of the 9 justices, as well as our president, find much of it confusing. The progressives only need 1 more after Elena Kagan. If they get it then the protection of our Constitution against an overreaching government will be in danger. The government already has far more power than it should. It must not get any more.

FDR was trying to pack the courts for the left because it was shooting down many elements of his massive New Deal failure. Obama has the same mentality in the face of a similar problem.

While the left will demonize today's ruling in favor of the second amendment the rest of us should applaud it. I wish the Liberals would put as much effort into fighting crime as they put into painting all gun owners as criminals.

Read more...

MoveOn's Propaganda For Social Security

MoveOn.org is of course blaming Republicans and Conservatives for the cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Dear MoveOn member,
It sounds like something Glenn Beck would cook up: a powerful cabal of right-wing ideologues hatches a secret plan to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and they're on the verge of succeeding. 1 But it's true.

Right now, the stars are aligned for conservatives who've spent decades trying to cut Social Security—the heart of the New Deal. They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars, the "deficit hawks" want us to cut the programs vulnerable Americans rely on to survive—Social Security and Medicare. 2

And instead of articulating a progressive response, Democrats seem frozen, like deer in the headlights.

Against this backdrop, the President has appointed a "deficit commission" stacked with deficit hawks. Right after the election Congress will vote on the commission's recommendations.

Right now, this threat isn't even on most of our radar screens. So we have a special request: will you help us fund a major campaign to keep this from happening? We'll use every tool at our disposal, and the combined voices of 5 million MoveOn members, to demand that Congress deal with the deficit the right way—by helping the middle class get back on their feet and making Wall Street pay its fair share. And we'll show wavering politicians that cutting Social Security will cost them at home.


To do it, we need to raise $185,000. That means we need 3 people from your town to make a contribution. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/deficit_commission2.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=21110-17182837-ayB3Pax&t=3
Why does the deficit commission pose such a threat? Because almost all of its members have interests in seeing cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other safety net programs.

Here's an introduction to some of the folks on the Commission that we're up against:

Erskine Bowles, Co-Chair: An investment-banking millionaire who now sits on the Board of Directors for Morgan Stanley and General Motors. Bowles was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, where he was called "Corporate America's Friend in the White House" as he negotiated with Newt Gingrich for how best to cut safety net programs.

Alan Simpson, Co-Chair: A GOP power player during the Conservative movement's heyday, he led Clinton-era attacks on Social Security and is already crusading publicly for cuts to Social Security and Medicare to address the deficit.

David M. Cote: CEO of Honeywell, a defense contractor making millions from the Department of Defense and responsible for costing us millions of dollars in misconduct—including failing to test bulletproof vests sent to US troops.
And they're just the tip of the iceberg.


We're planning a full-court press. Washington has to hear the stories of the real people who will be hurt by cuts. We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can.

But we need to get started. Can you chip in $5 to make it crystal clear to lawmakers how the American people feel about Social Security cuts?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/deficit_commission2.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=21110-17182837-ayB3Pax&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Daniel, Duncan, Amy, Stephen, and the rest of the team

MoveOn.org's been dealt quite a blow recently when Blanche Lincoln beat the progressive they were fighting for in the election, Bill Halter. They've been pretty quiet with the e-mails since that loss.

Now they're trying to tackle another issue with lies. MoveOn's exact words call Social Security "the heart of the New Deal". That's proof enough that the New Deal was a bunch of sh*t from the beginning.

Did you know that when Social Security was passed the average life expectancy was 59? Yet the program didn't pay out any benefits until you turned 62. Coincidence...you make the call. If you did in fact live past 62 then you made out well in the beginning of Social Security. Most who received it made far more on the program than they ever paid into it and there were far more workers paying the Social Security tax than there were collecting the checks.

The problem is that the program has remained the same for nearly 80 years! It has never been reformed even though people now tend to live much longer than 62. Hell, many people work until they're 65 before they even retire, never mind the likely 20 years or so they can be expected to live beyond that retirement.

MoveOn thinks that nobody has been paying attention to the spending of the Obama administration. They say, "They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars".

They should research history a little more. When taxes are decreased, revenues increase, it's an easily proven fact if you do the homework on it. Art Laffer's Laffer curve explains it fairly simply. If you want the proof then read, The End Of Prosperity, by Art Laffer and Roger Moore.

Also, it's worth noting that all of the failed stimulus spending, political payoffs in health care, the health care bill itself, plus the billions and billions more being spent by this administration as well as the last one, are costing us much more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember this: *note: I'm sure you don't:

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance." - Ronald Reagan July 24, 1981

This quote has proven so true that it makes Reagan critics look ridiculous. Nobody can deny that he was right. It's also worth noting that he did temporarily save Social Security in the 80's but let's get back into modern times.

Do you remember when Bush talked about private accounts for Social Security? Democrats were proud of the fact that they didn't support the long term solution for Social Security. You don't have to agree with that plan, but isn't it fair to ask for a solution of your own. The Democrats didn't support private accounts but offered absolutely no solution themselves.

Now it's a far bigger crisis. There are far less people working now than there were a few years ago. That means less people paying into the Social Security system and even more people taking money out of the government because of unemployment benefits etc. It's causing Social Security to go bankrupt even faster.

"We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can."

Let me ask you something. What sounds more like propaganda to you, the letter from MoveOn.org, or the points I'm making?

The progressive left call accurate history propaganda. They call various positions supported by a majority of Americans extremist positions: Tea parties, no government run health care, believing the Constitution doesn't need to be interpreted because it says exactly what it means.

I also find it laughable that every time MoveOn.org takes on a position they send a message of: MoveOn can fix it, send us money. Proof of how dumb the real supporters of MoveOn.org truly are.

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

Aren't the progressives, as well as those in groups like MoveOn.org, pushing for a government that stands for the very thing Jefferson as well as just about all of the other Founders were warning against?

Read more...

The Coming Collapse

The oil spill still dominates the headlines of course and the finger pointing is still the best solution Obama and BP have come up with. Now there's even talk of $7.00 a gallon gas coming our way! I wonder, if that does come true, whether the Liberals will be as vocally outraged as they were when gas went up to $4.00 under George Bush.

$7.00 would be devastating to our already hurting economy. Of course if you're childhood dreams included, "one day I want to work for the census!!" then I guess you're in luck. That's one job that's thriving, good job Obama. That's what we get when someone with absolutely no economic experience, and a group of progressive new deal liberals are in charge of economic policy.

I have something fascinating you should all read if you haven't already. It's from my favorite economist, Art Laffer. He is predicting a collapse of our economy next year if we don't change course. I doubt he would put his credibility on the line and say something like this if he wasn't pretty sure of the direction he thinks we are heading.

Here's the article from the Wall Street Journal.

"Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%."

The critics hammered Reagan pointing to that period of no growth as evidence that his economic policies were a failure. For example:

"I'm slipping badly in the polls. I think it reflects the constant media drumbeat of biased reporting against what we're trying to do." - Ronald Reagan, written in his diary on April 2, 1982

This is why it's important to understand the points Laffer is making about the recession of '82 and even more important to understand why we face the potential of him being right about what to expect next year.

While Obama continues to make the misguided mistakes of the New Deal with his massive spending with little to show for it I can't help but wonder how long he will be given a pass those who stand so closely by his agenda on the hope that he knows what he's doing.

I also believe he knows what he's doing but I don't think the average everyday liberals have the same goals as Obama. The problem may be that the very culture he has worked so hard with the progressives to create. Let me explain.

Progressives have worked for generations to create an entitlement mentality in Americans. While historically Americans have overcome unbelievable odds through hard work, family values, and yes religion, (part of the reason so many early Americans could read during the American Revolution was because many regularly read the bible). Going back even further, the Pilgrims also read the bible. This proved invaluable as news of the Boston Massacre spread throughout the colonies sparking outrage that led to the American Revolution.

Progressives like Obama have now taught entire generations that hard work isn't important, that the government has a responsibility to take care of you if you don't want to take care of yourself.

The Liberal feminist movement created the idea that women don't need men in their lives and far too many men have walked out on their families simply due to the selfish inability to step up and put their families above themselves. This has been a tragedy for children and caused a massive explosion of poverty.

Ironically, the same Liberal culture that caused these problems in the first place decided to take care of the problems through a cushy government welfare state. Instead of inspiring people to lift themselves out of poverty through responsible decisions those same poverty programs have made people comfortable in that "poverty". That assured comfort zone is hard to teach people to leave. It is for that reason that there is so much protest every time anyone attempts to reform the various welfare programs.

The reason this is so important as it relates to the potentially coming collapse is this. If we face an even bigger recession next year and it continues to slide downhill, how do you expect those trained in the progressive entitlement culture to react?

If the only way to solve our problems is through a massive coming together of all Americans under the values that made us the country that we are. How do you convince those who have spent their entire lives learning that they are entitled to a free ride because they are always victims of circumstances?

It will take hard work, sacrifice, and strong families. It is those values that have allowed the United States to overcome impossible odds time and time again. It is the turning on those values that have brought us to where we currently are. The progressive experiment has failed, accept it.

Embrace change only when it proves to be change for the better. Acknowledge your own failures and don't be afraid to criticize your own party. For the record I didn't vote for John McCain or Barack Obama. It took awhile for me to see big government progressive republicanism for what it was. It's time for the other side to do the same.

If we don't wake up and work together, then not only will the coming collapse be assured, but we will have such a lack of preparation that it will be far worse than it should have been. I'm glad I wasn't around during the Great Depression and I hope I don't see another one. However, as the saying goes, "hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

Read more...

The Oil Spill

The largest environmental disaster in U.S. history and it's business as usual for most involved, finger pointing. As failed solution after failed solution continues to fail in bringing about a stop to the leak, Obama, (in an attempt to appear more competent than his administration actually is), seems more interested in demonizing BP than working with them to stop the leak.

Dick Morris launched an all out assault on Obama's incompetence regarding the oil spill etc.

"America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill."

There's more, here's the whole story.

Of course Robert Reich over at the Huffington Post is calling for Obama to take over BP. Yeah, great idea, after all we all know that everything the government runs works out great, like welfare, low income housing programs, bailout and stimulus packages, cash for clunkers, the post office, the RMV etc. You'll also see some of the more phosisticated, elitist thinking leftist, (and yes I misspelled sophisticated on purpose), making fun of Sarah Palin for blaming environmentalist.

“Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.” - Sarah Palin

While her critics attack as usual, even if you aren't a big fan of Sarah Palin there's no denying that she has a point. The policies practiced in the US at the behest of environmental idiots who push through nonsense, causing more dangerous tactics to be utilized, in order to appease the misguided ideas of global warming alarmist and other such environmental phonies.

For example, we can't drill more in ANWR, (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), even though we would only need to drill in a relatively small area and wildlife would practically not even be affected. We can't drill in more shallow water and are forced to drill a mile under the surface in deep waters in order to get the oil.

Here's what's wrong with not increasing drilling on land. Suppose you have an oil rig on land and a pipe burst from an explosion, in other words apply the BP gulf disaster situation to land instead of deep water.

First of all it would be easy to access and fix because actual disaster crews and other people could go right to the area and contain and fix the rig, plug the pipeline, and whatever else they'd have to do but in any case it wouldn't be that difficult.

Secondly, all of the oil that leaks from such a disaster would land on dry ground and just begin to go back into the ground, not such a big deal since that's where it's being taken out of anyway. In light of this gulf disaster "drill, baby, drill", at least on land, is sounding better than ever.

What about drilling where the water isn't so deep? That may sound scary to some but think about it for a second. If the water isn't so deep than it wouldn't be so hard to send a crew of people and technology to the source of the spill and work to contain it. Most of the oil spilled in such a case would be closer to shore and therefore carried mostly onto the same shoreline. I may be oversimplifying this since I'm of course no expert on drilling for oil, but I'd rather see one beach area in trouble from a spill that's easier to reach than an oil spill spreading all throughout the gulf and affecting several states.

Don't think I'm giving BP a pass on the situation with this post either. BP's response to the spill has been almost as big of a joke as the Obama administration's. While the record on deep sea drilling is impressive.

"This is unprecedented. We've had more than 30,000 oil wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico off our four states -- Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama -- in the last 50 years. And this is the first time there's ever been something like this, after more than 30,000 wells." - Haley Barbour

50 years, 30,000 wells, 1 major catastrophe...Show me a government program with such an impressive record. However, oil companies like BP should have more of a hope for the best, plan for the worst mentality when it comes to deep sea drilling.

The ideas coming out of BP have been laughable at best, to the point where now we are taking the idea of stuffing the pipe with golf balls and tires in an attempt to stop the leak seriously. They are currently working on the lower marine riser package containment operation. Here are BP's details on the program. Hopefully this one works. If it doesn't then you have to wonder what they'll try next.

So if you want to point the finger of blame at someone then there's plenty of blame to go around. BP, Obama (the largest receiver of BP campaign money in the '08 election cycle), Bush, environmentalist, special interest, politics as usual in Washington, and lobbying of course.

One solution, make lobbying illegal. If politicians weren't controlled by money from corporations in the form of lobbying maybe Washington D.C. (District of Corruption), could actually get some things done for the good of the country, instead of for the good of their own special interests.

With the way Washington currently works nobody wins. Instead of the country working together to solve our problems we just treat every problem as an excuse to point the finger at others. Whether it's politicians vs companies, Republican's vs Democrat's, black vs. white, etc. Sometimes the finger has to be pointed into a mirror. Beyond that it's time that the people of this country see problems for what they are and work together to solve the problems we face.

This is America, and a United States can accomplish anything when we work more at solving problems and less at pointing fingers. This oil spill is just another example of a problem that should've been avoided, and after the fact could damn sure be solved if there weren't such a desire to score a political point with a pointed finger. Under that type of system we all lose in the end.

Read more...

The Immigration Debate

It's a debate that never ends. Border security and illegal immigration have been front and center due to the new Arizona law. I've been putting a lot of thought into how I wanted to present this post. I could just pick a side and engage in the same argument you see in countless other blogs and protests but I wanted to present a different type of argument regarding this age old issue. By the end of reading this only you can decide for yourself whether or not I've succeeded.

I can't blame the illegals for wanting to come here and for taking such risks in many cases to get here. Would you rather live in Mexico than the U.S? Our dismal economy has actually caused some illegals to leave for economic reasons. Yet Obama and his supporters continue to try and convince us that the economy has been saved due to his stimulus etc. It sure doesn't seem like it.

What we need is a more streamlined process to come here legally. If becoming a legal resident of the U.S. was an easier process and you didn't have to wait in line as long then there would be less of a reason to risk coming here illegally. We could then work on sound policies that encourage the many immigrants we want here to do so the right way.

On the one side you have those who wish to do nothing to crackdown on illegal immigration and create an amnesty program. That argument tends to come from the more left-wing Liberal side simply because they want to turn all of the illegal immigrants into loyal Liberal voters.

This is not surprising given the fact that Hispanics/Latinos are now a larger minority group than African Americans, this was true even in 2005. That divide continues to grow as Hispanics currently have the highest fertility rate in the country.

From The Washington Post: 12/21/07

"Hispanics have the highest fertility rate -- about 2.9 -- followed by blacks (2.1), Asians (1.9) and whites (1.86). But Hispanics do not represent enough of the population to fully explain the trend, and the fertility rate of U.S. whites is still higher than that of other developed countries."

While this story comes from December 21, 2007 the statistics haven't changed much as the above demographics statistics show. The other factor lies with abortions.

"While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely."

That fact comes from this site, but I've checked many sites through google and all present the same statistics quoted above.

Now, how does all of this tie into the immigration debate? It's simple. Liberals already have a lock on a vast majority of the black vote due to a misrepresentation of history and a continuing lie from the left which tries to paint all Republicans and especially all Conservatives as racist. The black community has been led to believe that it's the Republicans holding them down. That's pretty funny considering all of the highest crime, highest poverty, African American communities are completely run by Liberals. Perhaps they'll also find this interesting.

The immigration debate of today is a ploy by the left to try and secure the Hispanic vote for Democrat's much in the way government has been used to shift the African American vote into a virtual lock for Democrats. Many illegal immigrants are forced to work for practically slave wages and the only reason businesses get away with poor treatment of them is because they are illegal.

They use the argument that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans "just won't do". Well let's see where illegals tend to work:

Service occupations 31.0%
Construction 19.0%
Production, installation, repair 15.0%
Sales and administration 12.0%
Management, business and professional 10.0%
Transportation, moving 8.0%
Farming, other 4.0%

Those statistics come from those right wingers over at MSNBC!! Isn't one of the usual argument's that we'll pay far more for fruits and vegetables if we enforce illegal immigration laws? That argument is usually framed to convince you that most illegal immigrants work on farms. Apparently that isn't the case.

Now for the other side of this argument. Those who support the government cracking down on illegal immigration and therefore support the law in AZ. There's no debating that there's a problem on the border regarding the current drug wars and gang related violent incidents. It's also true that many of the victims are in fact illegals themselves. The violence on the border exists but it's not as widespread as you think.

Perhaps you've heard of Ronald Reagan's amnesty bill signed by him on November 6, 1986. Some have used that as justification for a new amnesty but many factors of the 1986 bill are ignored.

Here are Reagan's comments about signing the bill. There are of course some highlights to the statement:

"New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if ``likely to become a public charge.'' This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period."

In other words, if you are on welfare or any other government assistance you do not qualify for the amnesty this bill provides.

"Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people."

What this means is that illegal immigration isn't specifically a problem between the U.S. and Mexico. The fact that we know terrorists want to infiltrate the U.S. through the borders is proof of that. This is also clearly stating the fact that this isn't a way to discriminate against any one race or ethnicity, like Hispanics.

A good article from Matt Hayes published on June 10, 2004 compares Reagan's reforms to GOP reforms at the time of the article.

"In tandem with the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian."

You see the similarities of today? Punishing businesses that hire illegals = draconian.

"Reagan reasoned that if an employer were fined for hiring an illegal alien (as much as $1 million in the worst cases), any payroll savings achieved by the hiring would be wiped out by the fine. In effect, it would be more expensive to hire illegal aliens than to hire Americans or lawful permanent residents."

So, no amnesty for illegals on government subsidies like welfare, and fines for businesses that create an incentive to offer a better wage to a legal immigrant or American. This would encourage more people to come here legally and discourage those who came here illegally. So what went wrong?

"While Reagan’s 1986 immigration reforms can at least be called rational, they were a failure."

"This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission."

So much for the argument about Ronald Reagan's amnesty.

While we have added more Border Patrol agents in recent years they are routinely demonized for doing their jobs by one side and criticized for not doing enough by the other.

In an effort to look like he actually wanted to do something regarding the problem with illegal immigration President Bush began a "virtual fence" program that was initially supported by President Obama as well. The program is a failure.

"The Obama administration will halt new work on a "virtual fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes."

"In a four-sentence statement, Napolitano said the department will immediately redeploy $50 million of stimulus funds to other technology, including mobile surveillance devices, sensors, radios and laptop computers."

Sounds great right? The problem is that we all know the Obama administration is no more serious about actually stopping illegal immigration than Bush was. We know this because of the way President Obama has been criticizing the new AZ law. This criticism comes even as Rasmussen finds that nationwide voters favor local law enforcement verifying immigration status by a 60% - 31% margin. In Arizona voters favor the new law by a 70% margin. So just like health care the President is criticizing a majority of the people.

In the end it comes down to all of us. It's time to ignore the fringes from both sides. Many who are to the extreme on one side are going to cry racism and try to stir emotions up and try to look like the sympathetic saviors of mankind. Some on the other extreme are going to hold more of a round em up and throw em out position painting all illegals like members of the drug cartels. I believe that if we step back and take a look at the big picture while ignoring the fringes then we can have a real debate and come up with a real solution.

If there's anything we've learned after decades of debate on this issue it's that a solution sure as hell isn't going to come from Washington anytime soon.

Read more...

Wall Street Regulation (TARP 2): MoveOn VS Morris

So the government wants to vastly expand it's regulatory powers even more over Wall Street. This of course is being sold to us in the context of the righteous politician's trying to protect people like you and I from the evil big corporations and their greedy exec's.

Here's MoveOn.org's opinion about how the Democrats are trying to save all of us and the Republicans are just protecting their friends at the big banks.

"It seems hard to believe that anyone would want to oppose Wall Street reform in the middle of a major financial crisis like this. But the Republicans are willing to do it to protect their allies at the big banks."

Dear MoveOn member,

Wall Street is spending $500 million to convince Congress to kill the reform bill that will finally curb their reckless behavior.

That's one investment that's paying off. Every single Republican is now on record opposing Wall Street reform.

That means every single Republican is on record protecting the big banks instead of the countless Americans who lost jobs, money, houses, or their pensions because of Wall Street's behavior.

We have to call them out right away. If we don't, their bogus arguments against reform will stick—just like they did on health care.

We're working on a hard-hitting ad that lays out for the American people exactly whose side Republicans are on. But we need to get it up on the air fast—while this story is hot. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/wallstreet.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=19921-17182837-Ku6Eszx&t=3

It seems hard to believe that anyone would want to oppose Wall Street reform in the middle of a major financial crisis like this. But the Republicans are willing to do it to protect their allies at the big banks.

They know this is a high risk strategy. Their pollsters say the only way they'll get away with it is if they lie about Obama's plan and say it will cause more bailouts—even though they know that it will do the exact opposite.

But if we don't expose them—their lies will stick. Remember health care?

The truth is that Wall Street reform will:

End the bailouts by forcing big financial companies to put aside money now, so if there's another AIG-like disaster, taxpayers won't be on the hook. We'll use the big banks' own money to shut them down.

Protect consumers by creating an independent watchdog that would finally stop credit card companies, mortgage brokers, and big banks from hiding information in the fine print.

Shut down the "shadow markets" by cracking down on the backroom trading that put our economy at risk. Unlike the stock market, these "shadow markets"—where trillions of dollars of "derivatives" are traded each year—are secret, highly risky, and virtually unregulated.

So we're fighting back. But we need help. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/wallstreet.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=19921-17182837-Ku6Eszx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Laura, Daniel, Ilyse and the rest of the team

"But if we don't expose them—their lies will stick. Remember health care?" I find that interesting. Do you mean the lies like Obamacare will increase health care costs? Whose the liar here?

Dick Morris had a pretty good analysis of what financial regulation is really about here.

"Republicans complain, correctly, about the power the secretary of the Treasury is given under the bill to seize any financial institution he deems too big to fail and thinks is at risk of insolvency. They rightly worry about the constraint this provision imposes on business growth and the dictatorial powers it gives the administration to fire management, replace directors, liquidate stock value and sell off parts of the companies they seize."

So far the Dem's haven't been able to get the votes in the Senate. They haven't even gotten every Democrat on board. It's interesting also to see how after health care passed against the will of the American people some Liberals are deciding not to run for re-election since they know they'll lose.

Take Chris Dodd (D - Conn.), for example. Here's some of Ronald Reagan's opinion's of Dodd:

April 28, 1983

"Today named Dick Stone, former Dem. Senator as personal envoy to Central America. Sen. Dodd & other far out liberals & left wingers are all over the tube screaming foul. Dodd calls me ignorant. His claims to expertise on Central America is 2 years as a peace corps volunteer many years ago in Dominica."

This ones even better:

July 18, 1983

"Announced today in Florida that Henry Kissinger will be chairman of the Commission on Central America. One of the press yelled a question at me that Sen. Dodd says commission is a ploy to get around Congress. I wonder which side Dodd is on. He comes down against the U.S. on almost every issue."

Source: The Reagan Diaries

How can we trust corrupt politicians to regulate corrupt businesses? Think about that for a second. The left, like MoveOn.org etc. are trying to paint a picture that the Republican's are all corrupt liar's in Washington and that the Liberals are these perfect player's looking out for all of us. I think a majority of Americans see through that for the BS that it is.

There's plenty of corruption to go around in Washington. That is the secret to the Tea Party movement. It's not a party issue, it's the expanding government, ridiculous spending, special interest frat party going on in Washington that we're so sick of.

It's a message more tied to our founding than any serious movement in recent American history. If the best shot you have against it is that it's supporter's are "tea-baggers" or racist extremist then I don't think we have anything to worry about. A message that weak has no chance of success, much less a chance of swaying an election.

Read more...

Obama's Inheritance And The Key To An Economy Based On Spending

I often wonder how far whining about inheriting a recession will get President Obama. Even some Liberals I know say that if things don't turn around in a big way in the next year then even they will have to turn on Obama.

It's no secret that we are an economy based largely on spending. You spend money on businesses and services, the businesses make money to pay employees and expand to create jobs. There's a profound difference in what kind of spending is healthy for out economy and it is a major difference between Liberals and Conservatives.

Liberals of the Obama mold think that it's government spending that can help a sick economy, Bush felt the same way. Obama can claim that he inherited a recession, fine. Bush's government spending didn't seem to help though so it doesn't make much sense that Obama expects spending far more money will.

The argument about a healthy economy as far as most everyday folks comes down to rests on pretty much one issue, jobs. If you have a job the only other issue becomes whether you make enough money to provide for your family.

Taxes need to be as low as possible so that you take home as much as possible. The more of your money you get to take home, the more you'll be able to spend. Conservatives understand that if you get more of the people's money into the people's own hands then they can spend more which helps our economy.

It's not government spending that helps our economy as progressives believe. If that were true then all of the past bailouts and stimulus packages would have the economy roaring back to life by now. The reason it hasn't is because even though the government has kept right on spending, we have all had to cut back our spending.

If you can't get a job then you have to rely on government assistance to spend any money. If you lose your job you need unemployment, welfare etc. That money has to come from taxes paid by people who do work.

It's pretty simple, if you don't create private sector jobs, (you know, the kind where you don't work for the government, remember those?), then you don't create tax payers that aren't also being paid by those same taxes. The creation of private sector jobs will increase the tax payer base, while not paying those workers with that same tax revenue. The result...INCREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUES.

Look it up, it's historically accurate, that's why so many liberal teachers refuse to stress the positive result of lower taxes despite so much evidence that proves it. Look at the Great Depression. FDR spent more money than ever before and made taxes astronomically high. After 2 terms unemployment had gone up and we were still enduring the Great Depression. That's 8 years of failure and it took a World War to turn unemployed into soldiers and unite the country behind a common cause, winning.

The New Deal gave us social security etc. and now we the back of our country is breaking due to some of those very same programs. Even some of FDR's own "brain trust", FDR's top advisers, began to turn on his spending after several years. The problem is that so many have been given this distorted view of how wonderful the New Deal was, (forgetting that even the supreme court declared much of it, like the NRA, unconstitutional in time).

Obama and modern day progressives stick to these stimulus and other spending programs because they have the belief that it will have the same effect as the New Deal. Well.....IT IS!!! The reason all of these wonderful programs aren't working is because they are cut from the same cloth as the New Deal and the New Deal didn't work.

Cut spending, cut taxes, encourage businesses (rather than vilify them), and create lasting private sector jobs and we will defeat this recession. Do the opposite and we will most likely see a depression that will one day be called The Greater Depression, far more people hurt, far more money spent, far more disastrous economic effect of a far more disastrous government than ever before.

Notice I said "disastrous government" not disastrous president, there's plenty of blame to go around from both parties and recent presidents. I'd like to close with some quotes from some other president's and government officials you may or may not have heard of.

"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need to be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good" - Benjamin Franklin

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional" - Sam Adams

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson

"Fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance." - Ronald Reagan

"Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors because they are a burden on production and are paid through production. If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain." - FDR on the campaign trail in 1932

"I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business." - also FDR in 1932"

FDR spent more money than all previous presidents combined! It's funny how candidate FDR seemed to know what president FDR forgot, remind you of anyone?

"The suggestion that the voter must cast his ballot for Democratic candidates if he is to be permitted to share fairly in the future distribution of federal money's is an interesting but brazen attempt to corrupt the voters of the nation through the use of their own money." - John Hamilton - former Republican national chairman

His charge is a description of how FDR was disproportionately using New Deal money to influence votes in favor of Democrats.

"Politicians of whatever party seem unable to rise above the temptation of using government expenditures as reasons for persuading voters" - Henry Wallace - FDR's secretary of agriculture

4 months before the '36 election FDR hired 300,000 men through the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In the month after the election 300,000 were fired. Talk about buying votes.

"No depression can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury, and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding at every pore." - Thomas Gore, I know what you're thinking....who? He's a former Oklahoma Senator during the New Deal.

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy." - FDR

What the hell happened to this FDR?!! How come you don't hear enough about candidate FDR and only get sold a falsehood of how great President FDR was. He may have been a great wartime president, (he was since he fought to win and we won), but he was an economic disaster for this country.

"To be on relief for a few months was a boon to be extended by a great government to a patient people. But to be told that you are to be on relief for the rest of your days is to destroy the hope and, therefore, the morale of the people." - Joseph Ely, former governor of MA during the New Deal

Good old Massachusetts. Key word being "old" Scott Brown is a plus but modern day Massachusetts usually sucks. At least we had the tea party today though.

"Federal aid, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." - Grover Cleveland

Ignore everything you just read though because President Obama is a genius and went to Harvard, so did Bush by the way. As you can see they are both much smarter than all of these old fashioned former politicians just look at the results of their programs.

Read more...

Excuses Already?!!

During the week of the health care votes many companies announced layoffs etc. Even the company I work for lay-ed off several hundred workers. The layoffs were announced 2 days after the health care vote. Many companies have done so. I find it fascinating that there are so many liberals trying to make excuses even in victory.

I mentioned in my last post that in time when this health care plan doesn't work it will be blamed on Republicans. I was astounded that the other day I heard this, "this health care bill probably won't help because Obama didn't get everything he wanted."....Well then, if it won't help then why sign it? This is the beginning of blaming Republicans for this bill not being the great fix to health care that the Dem's are promising.

With regards to the layoffs announced right after the bill passed the left here are trying to claim that it has nothing to do with the bill passing. Even though in the weeks prior to the bill passing people were being cut back in hours etc. to "prevent layoffs". As soon as the bill passed it became cut backs and layoffs.

I asked what was so great about the bill and the reply I got from a die hard liberal was that, "26 year old's can stay on their parents insurance since they can't find jobs". My reply was, "I thought Obama's stimulus was working, why can't they find jobs?" He had little to say after that.

The reason is simple, he's a big stimulus and health care supporting liberal. However after that question it left him with a choice to make. Either the stimulus package is working and people are finding jobs, or the 26 year old insurance stipulation is a good thing because they can't find jobs.

"U.S. private employers cut 23,000 jobs in March, missing expectations for an increase in jobs although fewer than the adjusted 24,000 jobs lost in February, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday."

By the way, many of the layoffs gave workers a few weeks so they won't be reflected in March's numbers. They will show up in the April new claims for unemployment. Many of the new jobs are related to the census. There's a good analysis with a mix of the good and bad at the Wall Street Journal here.

"However, the 2010 decennial Census accounted for 48,000 of the employment boost last month. As those jobs will be lost in the second half of the year, economists cautioned not to read too much into the headline figure. Another 40,000 of the increase came in other temporary jobs."

Do you remember when unemployment was going down in the earlier Bush 43 years? I can't even begin to count how many times I heard unhappy liberals claiming that whenever unemployment went down under G. Bush the only jobs being created were "s**t jobs". Essentially liberals were saying that the only jobs being created were fast food etc. Well then, what do they make of this from the WSJ report?

"The so-called underemployment rate--which includes everyone in the official rate plus those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently -- rose to 16.9% in March from 16.8% the previous month. In January, the underemployment rate stood at 16.5%."

So...while there was some job creation in March, this report shows that Census and "underemployment" are a big factor in that job creation. It reminds me of a line from the movie Fun With Dick and Jane starring Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni which if you haven't seen yet, you should. The line is: "vice presidents are working at Burger King". That line sums up much of Obama's so called job creation, though perhaps not to that extreme. Where are the Bush bashing Obama supporters? Why aren't they calling the job listings at Taco Bell and Lowe's crap jobs?

The answer is simple, everything that Obama fails at is Bush's fault. That will be the excuse straight into 2012. Why do you think the health care bill doesn't take full effect until 2013 or '14? It's because they know this bill will be horrible for the economy and health care. The negative effects won't be in full effect in 2012 so Obama will be able to claim that all of the people who were against Obamacare were wrong about the negative effects this bill would have. He's already started this in a way. Watch.

"2 months from now, 6 months from now you can check it out, we'll look around and we'll see."

Actually Obama that can't be true. Since everyone knows the bill doesn't go fully in effect for a few years it will take a few years to check it out. Perhaps, then we'll indeed see. If it doesn't turn out to be as wonderful as he hopes for, which I of course suspect, who can be blamed? They will claim it isn't working because of all the concession's he had to make for it to pass. They will try to put the public option back in the bill in some sneaky way because they will claim it's got to be used to help fix and improve the bill.

The most common excuse you get when you ask why these kind of big government programs don't work in other areas of the world is that they "didn't do it right". It is believed by many of these people, like the admitted socialist's in this country, that America will be able to get socialism etc. right. To them it's not that the universal health care in other countries can't work, it's that those countries haven't implemented the programs in the right way. They think we can do it right and that's why it will work. I feel bad for those who believe such nonsense.

Many Conservatives bailed on Bush during term 2. Republicans do share the blame for opening the door to big government. Now it's time for the Democrats to do the same. I believe the Reagan Democrats are still here. They are the type you find at the Tea Parties.

Ronald Reagan gave a good answer at a press conference in 1982. Conservatives share the blame for the rise of progressive Republicanism during Bush's 2nd term. Yet we saw the rise of bailout's, deficits, and stimulus programs and turned away from such nonsense. Obama's falling poll numbers indicate that many Democrats have taken a second look at progressive liberalism and decided it isn't quite what they had in mind.

That is a part of why Obama has gone from a 65% approval rating to a %46 according to Rasmussen. That kind of drop in approval after only 15 months takes more than just partisan critics. It doesn't matter how many excuses your supporters come up with.

Read more...

The Day After

So the health care bill has now passed. My wife watched the vote with me and as soon as it passed she gave a nice loud "DAMN IT!!". After a minute she looked at me a little surprised to see my lack of emotion. It was due to a lack of surprise. I figured this would happen.

Being a Massachusetts conservative, I'm used to overwhelming opposition to my views. Today, I feel motivated. As an American I feel like I'm in a boxing match with Congress. Last night Congress hit America with one hell of a left hook. It feels like we have been knocked down for an 8 count.

However, this fight is far from over. For anyone who may feel down about last night's vote. Look at the bright side. Liberals have practically handed control of Congress to Republicans in November. Let's make sure it's Conservatives more than just Republicans. Also, Obama has most likely guaranteed himself to be a one term president.

If you need more inspiration, make sure you let everyone hear this. Reagan's speech back in 1961 seems pretty relevant to today's health care situation. Many on the left honestly don't think they stand for socialism, but that's only because those same people don't seem to understand socialism. Liberals don't understand Conservatism either of course. Well, how can you understand Conservatism if the only people who've ever explained it to you are Liberals?

Liberals trust good intentions rather than actual results. Then they blame the bad results of their own programs on Conservatives, or Republicans. When this health care turns out to be a disaster make no mistake that they will say it's because it didn't go far enough. Then when they want to add more to it, like the inevitable "public option" that is designed to shut private insurance down, they will try to paint the opposition as unreasonable extremist who are in bed with insurance companies.

Just as they say Conservatives who want to reform food stamps or welfare hate the poor and want to starve people. What I want is to stop welfare from being a lifestyle. I want to assist people who need help without killing people's will to help themselves. It's that simple.

I remember what a Conservative America was like. I know why I'm a Reagan Conservative even though I was 6 when he left office. I have studied enough of our past, (even though I'm always still learning), to understand what must be done in our present to preserve a bright future for my kids.

Perhaps this video will help re inspire you. Now dry the tears that may be in your eyes after that video, (I'm certainly not too ashamed to admit mine), and get back in the fight. If I can stand against a tidal wave of Liberal opposition here in Mass then you can surely stand as well.

Read more...