Barney vs. Reaganomics and Sean Bielat

It's no secret that I live in Massachusetts. Even worse, I live in Barney Franks district. Let me apologize first for the fact that my district has repeatedly voted for Barney even when he was so obviously wrong on just about every issue.

Now, I know firsthand what Barney Frank's policies have led to. Higher crime, higher poverty, higher government dependency, and a housing crisis he helped cause through government intrusion into the housing market.

"We've got to restore the American dream. No one in the house has done more for that American Dream than Barney Frank." - Bill Clinton

Here's some info on Barney Frank's career history. There's plenty of things I could point out from here but let's just tackle a few.

"However, in 1982, redistricting forced him to run against Republican Margaret Heckler, who represented a district centered on the South Coast, including Fall River and New Bedford. Although the newly configured district retained Frank's district number — the 4th — it was geographically more Heckler's district. Frank focused on Heckler's initial support for President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, and won by twenty percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since, and has been reelected thirteen times."

That's right everybody, he was elected opposing the Reagan tax cuts which led to a boom in the economy. Some liberal Reagan critics say that Reagan actually raised taxes, that is partly true but in typical liberal fashion they leave out many facts.

For example, it's true that Ronald Reagan raised the gasoline tax by 5 cents a gallon in the early 80's. The extra money raised with the gas tax was supposed to go only to rebuilding roads etc.

Another fact the Liberals ignore is that the tax was only supposed to be in effect for 1 year, which is why Reagan supported it. After a year Reagan kept his word and proposed repealing the 5 cent gas tax as agreed to the Democrat controlled congress. The Democrats didn't keep their word and refused to repeal the tax. This has helped fuel the misguided liberal attacks on Reagan as a supporter of tax increases.

Liberal propagandists at media matters paint Reagan as a tax increaser in stories like this in an effort to paint conservatives like me as liars.

Historian Larry Schweikart describes the spending and tax cuts during this period in A Patriots History:

"The tax cuts started to have their effect. Production, employment, job creation, and entrepreneurship all surged, soon achieving near-record levels. And, true to the supply-side promise, government revenues soared, increasing by more than one third during Reagan's eight years.

Yet despite ocean's of new money and Reagan's constant foot on the brake, government continued to spend more than it took in, increasing outlays by 40% in the same period. To restrain spending, Reagan cut a deal with Congress in which the Democrats agreed to hold spending down in return for closing tax loopholes (which really involved raising taxes again, but only in specific industries, such as yachts and pleasure boats). No sooner had Congress closed the deal than it passed new higher spending, generating sizable, but not record, deficits."

Notice the bold print as the left will cleverly leave all of those pesky little details out. Now back to Barney and Bielat.

MoveOn.org is helping Barney Frank by sending out this message from him:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your past support and for fighting for the values we share.

As you may know, I am under attack by a well-financed, right-wing effort to defeat me in November because of my positions on progressive issues. I voted against the war in Iraq; I support bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; I am leading efforts to fight for the civil rights of LGBT Americans; I strongly supported a public option in the health care bill; I am a leader in the fight to cut excessive and wasteful military spending and subsidies for the defense of wealthy allies; and I am opposed to extending tax cuts for multi-millionaires.

The extreme right has focused its anger on me in part because I have dared to stand up to them. Last year, when Senators and Congressmen supporting the health care bill were publicly vilified by anti-health care activists, I stood up for what is right and denounced the particularly outrageous claim that President Obama is in some ways a modern-day Adolf Hitler. My willingness to fight back - in what is now known as the 'dining room table incident' -- inspired others and began to turn the tide.

I take the right-wing attacks very seriously, and I fully expect to see a heavily-financed media blitz in coming weeks that will demonize me just as they have demonized the President. Let us not underestimate the power of these lies - we have learned in the past, from the Willie Horton ads, from the 'swift-boating' of John Kerry, and many other examples that inherently implausible attacks are not self-refuting. When the right tells its lies, we must actively oppose them.

Many of you have already volunteered for or generously donated to my campaign. I deeply appreciate your support. If you have not yet joined the campaign, I welcome both the donation of your financial resources and your time. There is strength in numbers.

If you would like to join me in battling the right-wing and its deep-pocketed supporters, please sign up to help at my web site: www.barney2010.com.

Thank you for joining me in this fight.

BARNEY FRANK
www.barney2010.com

This points out that many of Barney's progressive views are on the opposite side of most Americans. Even my hometown voted overwhelmingly for Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in order to oppose Obamacare. However, Barney Frank still supports it, going even further by claiming, "I strongly supported a public option in the health care bill". This puts him against a majority even here in Mass, (do you remember why Scott Brown won? Obamacare).

Sean Bielat is an ex-Democrat gone Republican, just like Reagan. He's also a Marine. Take a few minutes to see his views for yourself here. His official website is here. I believe this is the best chance we've ever had to finally retire Barney Frank for good.

The key is an informed public though. November will be very telling in my district. One of two things will happen, either the people here will wake up and realize that this is one congressman who deserves to be defeated more than most others...or we'll fall for the Liberal charm of Bill Clinton and stick to the bleeding heart lies about how much Barney Frank cares about the poor and the children.

I for one will continue to speak out, refusing to speak out because of political correctness or fear of critics guarantees that they win. I'll stand up to a tidal wave of liberal opposition, I'm used to it. These issues and both our own and our children's future is too important to stay quiet. I'll be taking on Deval Patrick full force very soon but for now bye bye Barney will have to do.

Read more...

Economics You Can Relate To

I'm going to explain something about tax policy that liberals like Obama don't seem to get. I'm going to use some examples that each of us deal with on a regular basis. Now, liberal Obama supporters may want to read this slowly or at least take notes because it's extremely complicated. Let's begin.

First, keep these complicated math problems in mind because they will make economic sense soon enough.

70 x 1,000 = 70,000

25 x 10,000 = 250,000

Now, everyone should be able to agree that those 2 multiplication problems are correct. I'm sure we all know that 250,000 > 70,000. Keep that in mind as we continue.

Ok, most of us don't work for congress so we don't have the ability to just vote ourselves a pay raise the way they do. When times get tough for most of us there are basically only 2 options. Get a second job, (which many of us can't do, or find for that matter), or cut back our own spending on non-essentials. Our government obviously doesn't even think of the less spending option. In fact many of them think the answer lies in more spending.

Let's use a scenario we all face regularly, like grocery shopping. When you go food shopping there are decisions we have to make regarding our purchases based on the money we have to spend. If you're like most of us you have to stay within a certain budget in order to get the most food for the least money.

How do you do it? Sale items and other specials, coupons, store brand instead of national brand, etc. You have to plan shopping in a way that gives you the most bang for your buck. This can apply to pretty much anything you buy.

This can apply to many other things as well, like back to school shopping. Younger kids will be getting the "hand me downs" from older siblings to limit how much you have to buy. In order to relate these situations to economics the question to be thought of is: What makes more money for a business and at the same time saves the consumer money for the purchase?

Let's use the back to school scenario again for a second. Remember the math problems above from earlier? I will continue to use the numbers 70 and 25 to keep those numbers in the front of your mind for when we tie all of this together.

You go clothes shopping for back to school. You need a new pair of shoes for your child. There is a $70 pair and a $25 pair. There may be a picture of Spongebob or Dora The Explorer on the $70 pair but which one are you most likely to buy?

Let's say the ratio of sales is that for every 1 pair of $70 shoes sold you sell 4 pairs of the $25 shoes, considering the current economic climate I think I'm actually being generous toward the $70 pair but it doesn't matter because the point remains the same.

You sell 1 pair of $70 shoes in the same time frame that sells you 4 pairs of the $25 shoes. That means for every $70 you make with the more expensive shoes you make $100 off the cheaper shoes. Even though each consumer spends less individually, you make more money in the end off the cheaper shoes.

Now let's take the supermarket as I'll bet most of us have to buy food pretty often. Those of us with kids and larger families, have to be even wiser about our shopping than most others.

Well, what do you look for? Sale items, generic brands (as opposed to the national ones), items with coupons etc. Most of us are in there looking for the best deal for our money and that requires paying a little bit of attention to what we are buying.

Supermarket's know this as well. They know that they will sell far more sale and generic items than the other stuff. How do they make any money? The answer again lies in volume. For example (again using the numbers 70 and 25 as a base to make a point): you're buying yogurt, there's a .70 yogurt and a .25 yogurt, which are you going to most likely buy?

The .25 product is going to sell 10 times as much as the .70, it's the entire logic behind having sales in the first place. So the store will make $2.50 with the cheaper for every .70 made with the other products.

Why do you think WalMart is the #1 retailer in the world? How can they make the most money when they tend to have the lower prices? Well, now you understand how. Now for the fun part. Here's where we tie this into tax policy and destroy the logic of the high tax progressive liberals.

Taxes, politicians don't like paying them, but they love raising them. Business owners, especially small business owners, pay the tax rate at the personal income rate the same way you do. For a small business owner to make $200,000 + is really not all that much. If you are too anti-business and go after the businesses they'll just pass the increased costs down in other ways, (like lay-offs). It's that business owners profits that are used to expand the business and keep all of us collecting paychecks when we work for them.

Lower taxes boost revenues and make more money for the government for the same reason that the lower priced items make more money for the retailers. Lower taxes boost revenues because it gives more money to businesses for investment in jobs. Private job growth leads to more tax revenue.

It costs money to create jobs, just look at how much money all of these government jobs from stimulus are costing us. Google "stimulus jobs cost" and you'll see plenty of stories related to what I mean.

25% tax rate causes business revenues to rise, this leads to more expansion and investment and therefore more jobs. A 70% tax rate cuts business revenues to the point where there is far less money left in a business to invest and expand, the result, less jobs.

Less jobs means more people taking money from the government, (unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc.) Less jobs means less revenue for the government, (less people paying taxes from their paychecks). This makes the unemployed a double dip against the revenues of the government.

Government jobs, (which every single stimulus job is), are also a drain on the revenues of the government. The government pays you with money it has to take from the private sector, (or print which in excess just leads to inflation down the road). The private sector keeps shrinking and the government bogus jobs keep growing, why do you think the debt is exploding?

Politicians, who in many cases make as much or more than the business leaders they love to bash, generate no revenue for the government. Workers in this country have to lose money out of every paycheck to create the paychecks for politicians. Also, unlike them, none of us can vote for a pay increase to ourselves. Increased pay is usually a reward for good work, can you think of many in Washington D.C. currently who qualify? Yet they do vote themselves raises while they have the audacity to vote against a social security increase for our seniors.

The increased taxes of Deval Patrick haven't worked out so well for Massachusetts. He inherited a surplus from Mitt Romney and after raising taxes and spending we are now in deep deficit with less jobs. A millionaires tax hasn't worked out so well either.

"The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million" - WSJ

Now, at the state level, it's as simple as millionaires moving out of state to avoid a particular states soak the rich tax policies. The left may try to counter by saying that at the federal level every state's millionaires tax will hit regardless of state. There's more to it than that.

A state millionaires tax affects millionaires as individuals. At the federal level it will affect wealthy business leaders. The end result, no private sector job growth and therefore reduced federal revenues as opposed to increased revenues.

Without job creation you can take 70% away from the wealthy but there won't be enough of them. Lower taxes will spurn more private job growth and less people will have to be paid by the government. Non-government job creation sparked by lower tax rates creates more of a taxpayer base and therefore far more people to tax at the lower rate.

The end result is higher revenues with lower taxes, that is the results of the Laffer Curve. The other aspect is cutting spending, you have to do it during a recession, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO IT AT ALL TIMES, recession or not. Sometimes the key to making more money is simply spending less. If you can't vote yourself a raise and you want to save money the only thing you can do is spend less.

Taking $1.00 from a thousand people makes $1,000. Taking .25 from 10,000 people is $2,500. Therefore, when it comes to tax policy and spending it's true that bigger isn't better. Just as this country's government was founded on the same principle. When it comes to government's role in our lives, bigger isn't better. Don't expect progressive liberals like Obama to understand that though.

Read more...

Extending That Which Does Not Exist

You can't help but laugh as you see Liberals falling all over themselves over the extension of the Bush tax cuts, especially for the middle class. The funniest part of all of this is that these are the same people who spent 8 years trying to convince us that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. Even some Republicans bought into that here in Mass.

How many times did we hear that only the rich got tax cuts? By pushing to extend the tax cuts for people making under $250,000 they are admitting that for 8 years during the Bush administration they lied to us, (big surprise), about the fact that we even got a tax cut in the first place. In more and more cases Democrats are pushing for an extension of all Bush tax cuts including the "tax cuts for the rich".

That's quite a turnaround from the rhetoric we're usually hearing from Liberals. Obama is blaming the Republicans despite the fact that he can't even get enough Democrats to jump on board of his sinking ship.

"Democrats, though, have sought to expropriate Republican concerns about the deficit in their defense of allowing the tax cuts for wealthier Americans to expire. They say an extension would add $700 billion to the federal tab over the next decade."

We'll get into why that's not true in a minute but let's first imagine that to be true. $700 billion over 10 years is only $70 billion a year. That's nothing considering our current deficits and debt. Think about it. Bush's failed stimulus cost about $787 billion. Obama's cost even more, including billions in earmarks, "pork" as it's sometimes called. 50 billion here, 20 billion there, we talk about billions now as if it's nothing and that alone is scary.

Isn't it funny how president's often use timetables that go beyond their presidency. If Obama was to win a second term, (I'll pause while you finish laughing............), if Obama wins a second term he would only be president until Jan. of 2017. Yet he's talking about revenues 10 years in the future. If there's one thing we can see when comparing 2000 to today it's that a lot can change in 10 years. This is the same president who said the stimulus would work and whose economic team said unemployment wouldn't rise over 8% with that stimulus package. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Have you heard Obama's clever catchphrase someone else probably came up with for him?

"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" - President Obama

Well Mr. President it all depends on where you're parked. Your policies have now parked our country on the edge of a cliff. When you're on the edge of a cliff you don't shift into drive and head over the side. To be fair a quick little move in reverse won't necessarily make you safe either. Progressive Republicans can be just as dangerous to our country as progressive Liberals.

I was talking about politics the other day with someone and I was explaining tax policy like the Laffer Curve. I wanted to find a way to describe it that was so simple to understand even a progressive liberal would understand it. I'm going to use something we pretty much all do regularly. You engage in supply side economics and the philosophy of the Laffer Curve far more than you realize. I'll show you how very soon in my next post and it will explain why the government will make far less money than they are expecting. Until then keep enjoying the debate over letting you keep something they said you never had.

Read more...

Remembering 9/11 Nine Years Later

Here we are once again remembering that tragic day 9 years ago. I can't help but think about how much has changed. Not just in terms of what our country is going through but in terms of myself. I was 19 on 9/11/01 and I'll never forget that morning.

I was working the overnight shift at the time and had worked all night on 9/10. I went out to breakfast that morning and had just started to fall asleep when I was awoken by my mother. "A plane just crashed into the World Trade Center!".

I wasn't sure what to make of it at first so I just closed my eyes and tried to fall asleep. A few minutes later my mother burst into the room again, "another plane just crashed again America is under attack!". Needless to say that was the end of my trying to get any sleep that day.

As the tragedy continued to unfold I spent most of the rest of that day just like most everybody else, glued to the news. I remember the mix of emotions racing through me that day. Sadness, anger, helplessness, etc. Yet there are other things I remember from 9/11 that are inspiring.

I remember seeing the firefighters, police, and everyday average people doing all they could to help anyone they could. I remember that American heroes on United 93 made the decision to fight back and denied the terrorists another successful attack.

Then there's perhaps the thing that mattered most about that day. On that day and in the weeks and even months ahead we saw true unity in America. Left and right politics didn't matter. Liberal, Conservative, whatever the case, there was that brief moment where politics was pushed aside as we saw each other only as Americans.

The united attitude of the country was on a level I hadn't seen before 9/11 and haven't seen since. It was telling of the generosity and compassion that you see in America. Between the millions and millions of dollars raised to help the families of victims, to the surge in people enrolling in our military.

Those who didn't directly lose family members or friends in the attacks felt as if they had. The 9/11 victims families became our families, their sorrow was felt in each of our hearts. That is the America our soldiers fight to protect.

As Americans we often take much of what we have for granted. The lifestyle we have for so long known tends to make us forget that we are not in fact invincible. As we take this time to remember the victims and heroes of 9/11 we must also take a moment to think of our soldiers who continue to be heroes and victims in the ongoing struggle we've come to call "The War On Terror".

The years seem to go by faster and faster. It's hard to believe that next year will be a full decade since the attacks. I've grown and learned so much since then, I suspect we all have. Yet as life goes on, we must never forget why we take time to remember this day. We will never forget why we take a minute and pause when we notice the time on the clock reads 9:11. I had to pause a minute before I posted this because I was a little spooked.

By complete chance I finished this post at 9:11.

Read more...

The Aftermath Of The 8/28 Rallies, Racial Politics Once Again

The 8/28 rallies of Glenn Beck and Al Sharpton have now come and gone. I didn't bother to get into the debate before the events as I figured I'd first watch both rallies start to finish. I didn't want to get into the debate based on other people's opinions. I have now watched both of them and offer my thoughts.

If you haven't seen both rallies then I think you should before you finish this post. It's no small task but it's the only way to see for yourself firsthand what the rallies were actually like. Watching the rallies is no small task as combined they cover 6 hours and 8 minutes. Ignore the critics and make a judgement for yourselves.

Here's Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally.

Here's Al Sharpton's Reclaim The Dream rally.

I told myself when I started watching the rallies, especially Sharpton's, that I was going to keep an open mind. There were parts of Sharpton's rally that weren't that bad. I originally planned to provide you with the links to the rallies and pretty much just let you be the judge. You should definitely watch the rallies before you continue but it's up to you.

After 24 minutes of Sharpton's speech I saw something that I just couldn't ignore and it wasn't the campaign signs for some candidates for congress. I began to take some notes as I listened. There are some things that need to be addressed though and it begins to take off when TJ Williams starts talking at the 24 minute mark. In truth I felt bad for this man as well as many others who were there.

Ronald Reagan said it best:

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"When I was at Liberty University I remember being told by the staff of that institution and the staff of the Jessie Helms campaign that the Conservative Party worked against gay rights, is amiss with keeping the African American community distracted with gay marriage and hate crimes so that they can complete their real commission, which is to roll back the civil rights act of 1963. And this is precisely what they mean when they talk about limited government. This 21 century push for an expansion of states rights is a hope to resurrect Jim Crow laws." - TJ Williams

The saddest part of that quote full of lies is the fact that he learned that from a staff of teachers at Liberty University. Teachers should know better, (I suspect they know the truth but it stands against the agenda of the left wing so they choose to promote lies in order to maintain a Liberal base of misinformed students). Read the Reagan quote again.

Here's the voting breakdown for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was the Democrats that stood more unified against the Civil Rights Act, not the Republicans. I'm not going to go too much into the details of this issue since I already took care of it with the blog post I did about history and the black panthers. If you haven't already read that one then you need to.

Before I move on I'd like to point something else out. Have you noticed that throughout the Sharpton rally they seem to talk mostly about uniting blacks? That's not the message of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I thought of something else regarding the Reclaim the Dream rally, the name. To "reclaim the dream" suggests that it's been stolen. That is no doubt the belief of the speakers at the Sharpton rally. You can't steal Martin Luther King's dream. His dream was about equality for ALL people. It is for that reason that it's impossible for the dream to belong exclusively to blacks. It is a message for all of us.

Then we have John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association who said this:

"Dr. King gave us a miracle in 2008, he gave us the first African American president in history and we outta let that be known today, we support our president." - John Boyd

Not much wrong with that quote but there's a question to be asked. When black Americans say we support our president is it because of his policies or simply because he is black? Let me ask you another question.

During the 2008 presidential campaign I heard from some people that if you didn't vote for Obama then you were a racist. It's scary that some people were foolish enough to believe that. If you only voted FOR Obama because he's black is that not also a racist vote?

Launching the racism charges against Republicans and Conservatives is nothing new. Let me share a few things with you once again using one of my favorites, Ronald Reagan. I'm going to show you 2 letters written by Ronald Reagan. Think of what's happening today with racial politics and you tell me what's changed. This is from Reagan: A Life In Letters.

Letter 1 - A response to Leonard Kirk, a black, unemployed Vietnam veteran. He supported Reagan's defense policy but called him "a worse president than tricky Dick Nixon" and "a closet racist and friend of the rich."

March 23, 1983
Dear Mr. Kirk:

I appreciate very much your support of my defense policy. I believe I also can understand why you think me a "closet racist". Certainly there has been a constant drumbeat of propaganda to that effect ever since I took office. Some leaders of black organizations have joined in this whether to enhance their own stature by arousing the membership to anger or not I don't know.

You of course would have no way of knowing the truth about me. May I point out a few things in my own behalf?

I was raised from childhood by my parents who believed bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of. My father once slept in his car during an Illinois blizzard rather than stay in a hotel that wouldn't allow Jews. He was Irish Catholic.

As a sports announcer broadcasting Big League baseball in the middle '30's I campaigned against the rule that prohibited blacks from playing in organized ball. As governor of California I appointed more blacks to executive and policy making positions than all the previous Governors of California put together. I too have a dream, a dream that one day whatever is done to or for someone will be done neither because of or in spite of their race. We are all equal in the sight of God-we should be equal in the sight of man. By the way I was raised in poverty.

Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

I guess some things truly haven't changed, like Republicans and Conservatives being labeled racist through Liberal propaganda. Here's another.

November 23, 1983 - a letter to a man named Freddie Washington

Dear Mr. Washington:

I'm sorry to be so late in answering your letter but it takes a while for mail to get sorted and letters to arrive at my desk. I can't tell you how much your letter means to me. I've been frustrated and angered by the attempts to paint me as a racist and as lacking compassion for the poor. On the one subject I was raised by a mother and father who instilled in me and my brother a hatred for bigotry and prejudice long before there was such a thing as a civil rights movement. As for the poor, we were poor in an era when there were no government programs to turn to. I'm well aware of how lucky I've been since and how good the Lord has been to me.

Forgive me for telling you all this but I want you to know and understand how very moved I was by your kind letter. Again my heartfelt thanks.

Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

It's a well known fact that the economic boom caused by the Reagan economic plan, often called "Reaganomics", lifted ALL income levels, vastly reduced poverty, and created millions of jobs. Unlike Obama, who so far has had the opposite effect. Just think, his tax increases don't really start to effect the economy until next year, I can't wait, how about you?

Obama's tanking poll numbers have nothing to do with his race, they have to do with things like this.

I could go on an on about problems with some of Sharpton's rally but I don't think it was all bad so don't get me wrong. There was a lot of talk about the necessity for education within the black community. However, there's one thing I can't seem to understand about the liberal philosophy.

They claim to support the education of the children etc. They claim to want to help the black communities. Why then is it that when a successful black conservative dares to disagree with the liberals they instantly turn to personal insults like "uncle tom", or "sell out"? The black conservatives are in the meantime thinking: Hey, I'm successful, have strong family values, am pretty well educated, and work hard, isn't that what all of you liberals wanted me to do?

Take this story and these amazing videos from the 8/28 rallies. The left is panicking because America is finally getting curious about it's own history. The Liberals fear that the black community will learn the truth about Liberal history through videos like this.

The problem with the progressive liberal ideology is that it's based on emotions rather than logic. For example, the average liberal, (not the politicians mind you), but the average liberal. The kind you run into at the supermarket etc. honestly believes in helping the poor and the children etc. They just don't seem to realize that the very programs they support keep more people down and in poverty.

The entire debate over illegal immigration, which I've covered in previous posts, is an attempt by the left to hijack and increase the Hispanic vote. Imagine if the left were to lose the 95% vote of the black American community. What if it was 95% for the conservatives, (notice I said conservatives, not republicans, there is a difference in many cases, like John McCain). The liberal left would never win an election again. That is why they use the education system and the teachers unions to teach revisionist history.

Take for example the issue of the death penalty. Liberals typically stand against the death penalty, yet they support abortion. That makes no sense to me. A criminal whose committed a very serious crime, been given a fair trial, and sentenced to the death penalty is given all the compassion and excuses in the world by the left. However, an unborn and unarguably innocent baby who through no fault of their own has been conceived isn't even given half of a thought by the pro-abortion left. That baby deserves a chance, even if that is an inconvenience to the parents, the right to a chance at life should supersede the right for your own convenience.

The pro-abortion, anti-death penalty mentality is just one example of the kind of thinking that Phil Valentine calls, "liberal logic" in his book, The Conservative's Handbook. He has created this music video that speaks to our founding principles and like the rise up video is about the truth behind the purpose of the tea party movement, global warming, and the emotions gripping a majority of concerned Americans at the present time. He describes liberalism and "liberal logic" as this:

"Another reason liberalism is doomed to failure is because it's based largely on emotion instead of facts. It's what I refer to as liberal logic."

"Liberal logic is a purely emotional approach to solving a problem. Liberal logic is, in essence, and oxymoron because it is completely devoid of logic." - Phil Valentine

Racial politics used by the left is a good example of liberal logic. The facts of history don't matter if you can convince enough black Americans that all Conservatives and Republicans are and always were the racists. If enough black Americans believe that then their emotions will lead them to vote for the Democratic party. To the Democrats that's all that matters. They are currently trying to use the immigration debate to stir up the same kinds of emotions with the Hispanics in order to lock in those votes for Democrats.

In closing you have to ask yourself, which movement do you most align with? Which rally would you have attended? Which rally do you believe truly embraced the message of Martin Luther King Jr?

One last little fact about charity. The Restoring Honor rally raised over $5 million for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. While Al Sharpton's National Action Network is giving six, that's 6, $500 scholarships out for a total of $3,000 that you have to win an essay contest in order to get. The SOWF grants full scholarships to the children of our heroes, Al Sharpton might cover your books. That's shameful for the National Action Network, but that's liberal logic.

Read more...

How Can You Teach What You Don't Know?

It's a pretty easy question. I ask this because of Christina Romer, (head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers), and her recent announcement that she's resigning as of September 3. She's going to return to teaching economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

It's not surprising that California is doing so poorly. Imagine walking into economics class on your first day and seeing Mrs. Romer as the teacher. My first question would have to be:

"Excuse me Professor Romer, but while you served as the presidents chief economic advisor we lost millions of jobs and massively increased the federal debt. How can you teach us about responsible economic policies when your advice proved to be such a failure when put to the test in the real world?"

I'm sure her answer would be the typical blame Bush or the Republicans type answer we're all used to hearing by now. If that's not her answer then I'd love to hear what it would be. Meanwhile Obama says:

"Christy Romer has provided extraordinary service to me and our country during a time of economic crisis and recovery." - President Obama

You mean during a time of economic crisis period. More and more Americans are seeing that there is no "recovery summer". Try selling that point to these people.

You see those signs? I know it's hard for progressives to understand: "I want to work". Notice the signs didn't say, "I want more government handouts and welfare". We've had enough of your recovery BS. We're tired of seeing $10,000 signs saying how this project funded by the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

If job growth was actually happening at the local, (instead of just the federal), level then revenue in the towns and states would increase. More workers means more taxpayers, more taxpayers means more revenue, more revenue means more funding for roads, schools, and police. It is done with less government, not more, it's pretty simple.

This brings me to the problem with unemployment benefits. I don't disagree with giving unemployment benefits to people in the short term to help with job loss. However, despite the lefts claims that they are caring for the people while the evil Republicans just want to throw people out into the streets to starve, the case surrounding unemployment benefits is quite different, and in fact simpler.

It's no big surprise that Obama Inc. is either not interested in creating jobs, or honestly doesn't have the slightest idea on how to actually do it. I contend it's a combination of the two.

The future extension of unemployment benefits, if it happens again, should be called the Pacifier Act. It's like the unemployed are a bunch of babies who are hungry and crying, big nanny government comes along and puts a pacifier (unemployment benefits) into the babies mouth. However, after that big nanny government doesn't feed the baby, nanny just keeps popping the pacifier in when it falls out.

The problem isn't being addressed, baby needs food, or in other words, the unemployed need jobs. Increasing unemployment benefits again and again to the point where people are spending well over a year collecting off the nanny government and not paying any revenue to the government, (in the form of payroll taxes), is an excuse for the economically ignorant politicians to try and continue to get away with not creating any jobs. As long as you have your pacifier they can get away with blaming others, rather than leading the way and getting you back to work.

This has been Obama's economy for over a year and a half. His economic advisers are stepping down and running for dear life back to progressive safe havens, (leftist colleges). The typical political excuse keeps being used by advisers and politicians alike. Usually something like this:

"I'd like to spend more time with my family" blah, blah, blah. It's got nothing to do with my 10% approval rating and my lack of any chance of being reelected after 50 years in office. As if we're supposed to believe that Christina Romer didn't realize that Obama would be in office for 4 years. After only a year and a half your supposed to be dumb enough to think that she longs to return home?

As for President Obama he can keep talking about his "Recovery Summer" all he wants but all I see is a recovery bummer.

Read more...

The Message We Should All Take A Few Minutes To Remember

You know, critics of conservatism often try to make fun of and insult those of us who stick so closely to the messages and lessons learned from Ronald Reagan. They use insults because it replaces facts in the hollow falsehoods relied upon so heavily by the progressives.

We have fallen victim to the progressive sneak attack due to our blind following of a party label. We have forgotten, or been lied to, about our own history. I want you to take about 20 minutes to listen to a video. When you link to it I want you to turn off your monitor or keep your eyes closed, (hence you'll be listening to the video, not watching it).

The reason I want you to listen is because the video is from almost 30 years ago, I wasn't even born yet. I want you to listen to what is being said more than who is saying it. I'm going to show you some of the quotes from this video first. Ask yourself if some of this sounds relevant today.

As you listen to this think of what we face in the present. We allowed ourselves to be fooled by political charm, hopeful (but empty) rhetoric. We put our trust in a government full of people that didn't deserve it. They now mock us as stupid, racist, crazy, or whatever else these "elite" individuals decide.

College kids are taught what conservatism is by progressive liberals. It's not that shocking that so many don't understand it. At the same time progressive republicans forgot what conservatism is. This eliminated the balance of knowledge even further.

The letter next to a politicians name isn't what's important. That leads to blind, ignorant decisions such as: I'm going to vote for that person because they're a Democrat, or I'm going to vote for that person because they're a Republican.

Would replacing the progressive left congress with a progressive right congress controlled by progressive Republicans really be much different? They would lead to the same place, Socialist Progressivism, simply travelling at different speeds.

Here are the quotes you will hear in the upcoming video, ask yourself if these sound like a crazy conspiracy given what you see going on in today's America. I've put some in bold print and you'll know why when you read and then hear them.

"Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity"

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future, for the temporary convenience of the present."

"We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule."

Aren't you getting pretty damn tired of being called stupid by a bunch of Hollywood elites whose most famous films usually end up being naked in a sex tape, or in a courtroom facing charges?

"That government by an elite group, is superior to government of, by, and for the people"

Remember the golden rule of the elitist politicians. You're too much of a dumb ass to take care of yourself. Yet they don't even understand their own writing, (you know the multi-thousand page bills they admit to not reading). They're so smart they can't even pay their own taxes despite the fact that they make about 4 times the average family of 4, even more in many cases.

"If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Interesting question...I believe we call them Czars, and they are working out great aren't they? Do you have any idea what they even do? I've lost track of how many there even are, how about you?

"We hear much of special interest groups. Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected....they are in short, we the people"

Special interest groups...if it was a problem 30 years ago, it's an out of control catastrophe now.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

By now maybe you recognize who this is. The relevance of these quotes in today's society seems even more true than it was then. Listen to the speech here.

As for those who would criticize me as someone who clings to the past. Perhaps it's time for you to learn some of it. While you keep calling for change, don't forget that it can be good or bad. It's entirely possible to change for the worse.

Read more...

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...