The Conservative Anthem

One Of The Few Who Understood

2011-05-11T00:34:00.000-04:00

A great, short piece on the veto President, Grover Cleveland.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/folsom0404.pdf

Government Charity

2011-05-11T00:22:00.000-04:00

Federal Spending

2011-04-10T11:50:00.000-04:00

An update on Federal Spending from Mike Wilson, President of the Cincinnati Tea Party:

Lost in the Washington D.C. debate is perspective on federal spending and any context over what the current fight is about. The media won't do this since adding context favors Republicans, so I'm going to try and shed some light on it (warning, math and numbers coming up).

In 2010, the Democrats controlled the presidency and had commanding majorities in both houses of Congress. They failed to pass a 2011 budget. What does this mean?

In a normal year, Congress passes 13 appropriations bills which fund everything from the Department of Energy, to the military, to national parks. These are called the discretionary part of the budget. Notably absent from these bills are what is called "mandatory spending" - these are what are commonly referred to as entitlement programs. Instead of being reauthorized each year, those programs are structured so that they pay benefits according to certain eligibility requirements. Unless Congress passes laws to change these programs, they continue in perpetuity.

***note that all numbers below are approximate and are estimates***

The current fight over "government shutdown" is about 2011 non-military discretionary spending. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other entitlements, and interest on the debt comprise about 3/5 of the nearly $3.5 trillion in federal spending - about $2.1 trillion. The remaining 2/5 is split about equally between defense and other spending. This means that the current fight is over about 19% of federal spending - about $660 billion - and for that, only about half the year remains. The Republicans in their 2010 election campaign promised to cut $100 billion from that number.

The continuing resolution agreed to last night by Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama cuts a total of $38.5 billion from the roughly $317 billion remaining in FY 2011 (25/52 weeks of spending). On the 10-year basis that the media always cites, this represents $780 billion in cuts over 10 years. Some say that Boehner sold out by not holding out for $100 billion. Others are happy with the $38.5 billion. I take the middle ground - I think this a positive first step, but ONLY a first step. While this may be among the largest (non-post war) spending cuts in American history, it amounts to a week and a half of the 2011 deficit. If we stop here, we have accomplished nothing.

The anticipated 2011 deficit is $1.5 trillion - more than twice the $660 billion in spending up for debate right now. The simple truth is that entitlements and defense must be on the table in order to balance the budget. It is simply not possible to do so otherwise. This means the real fight occurs with the 2012 budget and beyond. The House Republican budget, introduced by Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI), is the first serious proposal from either party that attempts to reflect reality.

Understand that while the short term is bad, the long term is worse. Social Security and Medicare spending will begin to shoot up as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicaid spending will greatly increase under Obamacare. These programs are already broken and must be fixed. Ultimately, these three programs and interest on the debt have the ability to destroy our economy if left unchanged.

The Tea Party must continue to pressure the politicians to make the hard, but necessary decisions. We must also work to educate our family, friends and neighbors. The average person understands that spending and deficits are a problem. Unfortunately, they also think that the budget can be balanced by eliminating foreign aid and welfare. Because you know better, you are critically important.

The Democrats didn't pass a budget in 2010 because they wanted the Republicans to take the heat this year. They plan to demagogue this issue and scare people into maintaining the unsustainable status-quo. We have to be the truth squads alerting people to the seriousness of the crisis.

Our work isn't done, we will rally on Tax Day in Glendale, and we will continue to advocate for our core principles - fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. While it isn't easy work, it is the least we can do for our children and grandchildren.

Senate Bill 5 Passes!

2011-03-31T11:44:00.000-04:00

Update from Mike Wilson and the Tea Party

Yesterday, S.B. 5 passed the Ohio House on a mostly party line 55-44 vote. There were a number of changes made in the House passed version that made it better. Since it was changed, the bill went back to the Ohio Senate where it passed on the same 17-16 vote as it did previously. Governor Kasich is expected to sign the bill into law early next week.

The key changes from the original bill are the following:

Clarifies that safety issues can be negotiated by police and fire
Bans "fair share" contract provisions that force those who opt out of
union membership to pay some amount anyways
Requires union members to opt in for automatic deduction of political contributions
Removes penalties associated with illegal strikes
Adds a provision that allows a taxpayer referendum as a final check and balance
if a political jurisdiction agrees to a contract that requires additional
revenue (taxes)

Note that the first 3 provisions were those specifically requested by tea party leadership across the state. We were able to work directly with House leadership to improve the bill.

I see this bill as a huge victory for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the unions and Democratic Party (hard to tell where one ends and the other begins) are planning a petition campaign to put this on the ballot in November. Once Governor Kasich signs this into law, they have 90 days to collect signatures equivalent to 6% of the voters in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

The reason for such strong union and Democratic opposition to the bill has as much to do with politics as it does anything else. Over the last 20 years, organized labor has outstripped nearly all others in their contributions to candidates - losing out only to the Ohio Republican and Democratic Parties themselves! More than 95% of those contributions have benefited Democratic candidates who then support expansion of government.

This bill has the potential to break that cycle as long as we counter the misinformation the Democrats and public unions will spread and win the anticipated November referendum.

I'd like to directly address a few myths.

Myth: This bill reduces collective bargaining rights.

Response: This bill reduces the special privileges granted to public unions. Unions are a special entity under Federal and Ohio law and have much greater powers than if workers just got together and signed a contract
with someone to represent them.

Myth: This bill is an attack on the middle class.

Response: 26 states don't allow public employees to collectively bargain. The federal government does not allow workers to collectively bargain. They still have a middle class. In fact, the real middle class is paying for
generous salaries, benefits, and perks for public workers that are generally unavailable in the private sector world. This bill will help us keep the size of government under control and keep money in the hands of middle class taxpayers.

Myth: This bill is an attack on our first responders.

Response: The tea party supported adding language to allow police and fire unions to negotiate
safety concerns in their contracts and this was included in the final version of the bill.

Myth: This bill will allow cities and municipalities to fire workers prior to fully vesting in pensions to
avoid their pension obligations.

Response: This is more a problem associated with public workers relying on a government promise of
benefits instead of owning their retirement accounts (i.e. 401k or IRA) like those in the private sector. Regardless, existing civil service and age discrimination law protect older workers. Removing seniority provisions are critical to improving productivity and ensuring that workers retain the financial motivation to do their best instead of just marking time until retirement. Cities and municipalities will still value experience and
time on the job as long as that translates into doing the job better and more efficiently.

Thomas Sowell During the Robert Bork Confirmation Hearings

2011-02-13T01:50:00.000-05:00

Welfare: More Harmful Than Slavery

2011-02-12T10:15:00.000-05:00

Last year, I did a 5 part series on the racist observance of Black History Month. Recently, I enjoyed watching a series of videos on YouTube that featured Dr. Walter E. Williams. These videos were done some time ago, however, the information contained therein is exceptional, to say the least. Dr. Williams was explaining the economic tie to the decline of the black family. Through the statistics and economic foresight, Dr. Williams made an intriguing statement. He said that welfare programs have done more harm to the black family than slavery did.

What?! Who dares question something to be worse than the slavery that existed in this country? After all, in today's society, slavery is used as an exploitative device (see my post on Reparations http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-history-month-part-1-reparations.html). But, what would Dr. Williams have in mind about this? I decided to do a little research.

During the time of slavery in America, most slaves married and lived with the same spouse until death. Now, slave marriages were illegal in the South, but marriage is given by God, not the State. To further keep their family ties tight, often children were named with the name of a deceased family member. (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=76)

Despite their circumstances, slave families grew a strong bond.

Allow us to move forward to the 1960s. Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty. (By the way, this war is still being "fought" and is costing more than the anti-war crowd's hobby-horse, the Iraq war). Through this war, Johnson hoped that the Government would supply the answer to poverty. But, as we know, Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government is the problem. A major campaign of this war was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. This Act has provided many social services including Head Start and Job Corps (it's a silent 'p', Obama. Pretend you are saying "core" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNr66HHhMjs&NR=1) This war also saw the institution of Medicaid and Medicare as additions to the Social Security Program. Medicaid and Medicare are nothing more than "I didn't do anything to prepare for my future, so I want the tax payers to subsidize it." This is ultimately a dependency issue. Social programs are designed to create dependency and indirectly give more and more power to the ones who create these programs. However, this dependency is with Government. No longer did black women depend on a husband. In 1965, about 25% of black families were led by the mother. By 1980, it had risen to 40%. 40% of black families were without a father. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1816815). After, who needs a man when the Government is here to take care of you? This death spiral of dependency has torn asunder the black family and black communities. Social programs that are designed to fix poverty just create more of it. As I said, these programs aren't about what they advertise. They are about dependency and power.

I'm not glorifying slavery. But it is interesting that kinship bond during slavery was much stronger than that under the Welfare state.

For more on the Government's interference in the community, watch/listen these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EobK6-zHbyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zAibedU8G4

Is It JUST A Painting?

2010-10-24T01:17:00.000-04:00

Aww, Libs Find It Unfair

2010-10-16T16:21:00.000-04:00

Apparently some folks in Colorado became uptight about a billboard that was depicting Obama in various forms. Here is the billboard:

Democrat, Martelle Daniels, of Colorado, finds the sign "racist" and "homophobic." As we know, she could have just used the word " Republican" to mean the same thing, since that's what we are to them. What's racist about this photo? Is it because it has a black man on it? If that's the reason, then take down any pictures of MLK too! Is it racist because it is showing various types of people? Is it racist because....you fill in the blank. The only thing that's racist about this whole picture is the fact that someone finds it racist. Racism in America is alive and well and it still holds its throne within the Democrat Party.

Paul Snover, the artist behind the billboard, states the billboard will not come down until after the mid-term elections.

Now, where was the Democrat outrage over these??

Research:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39698327/ns/politics-decision_2010/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39686174/ns/politics-decision_2010

James Buchanan and the Civil War, in Brief

2010-09-30T10:41:00.000-04:00

...Spread the wealth is a modern gloss of a complicated economic and political issue. Here is in a nutshell the issue at hand. The federal government was wrestling with how to best generate revenue based on the commerce clause (it was clear at the time that the northern and southern economies were becoming increasingly divergent). The south primarily exported cotton(primarily to England) in exchange for European produced goods (read profit through tariff imbalance). The north was becoming a industrialized giant and they exported to Europe in exchange for hard currency (read profit through hard currency), the question was how to balance the import and export duties so that there was balanced trade that benefited the nation as a whole. Buchanan’s answer was to lower the import duties on imports. This benefited the south as they exported cotton and most of their economy was based on overseas imports in exchange for cotton. Thus, with the export duties held rather high, and Buchanan lowering the import duties to 20%, the economy of the north collapsed into depression, while the south benefited from the high export tariff that artificially inflated the value of their cotton. This was because the north was industrialized and there was very little importing of goods in the north because they produced domestically most of their needs. They in-turn were exporting to Europe and the far east as stated above, for the purpose of generating hard currency. This lowering of the import duties caused a flood of cheap goods to pour into the country which came close to destroying the north’s economy. This led to the depression of 1857.

Many contemporaries believed that Buchanan had pro-southern sympathies and referred to him as a “doughface” (a nineteenth century expletive that meant a northerner who supported southern issues). This came out of such issues which occurred during his presidency including the Dread-Scott decision, The Kansas- Nebraska act that led to a civil war before the civil war, and the tariff act, all of which were perceived to be pro-southern in their results.

As to the cause of the Civil war, every modern writer attempts to put some new spin on the causes. Some who are pro-southern write from the perspective of it being a War of northern aggression, while those in the north, refer to it as a War of rebellion. Modern scholars attempt to create some new cause for the Civil War that tends to denigrate the issue of slavery as being the primary issue. The truth of the matter is, when one looks at Buchanan’s state of the union address of 1860, and one reads the debates between Lincoln and Douglas in 1860, slavery was a central issue that led to the war. This is borne out by the central debating issues between Lincoln and Douglas was the issue of how best to deal with the slavery issue.

When war broke out, Lincoln narrowly and wisely defined the prosecution of the war, not as a war on slavery, but a war of re-unification. Lincoln introduced slavery as a central theme to the war in September of 1862, following the Union victory at Antietam. He did this primarily to keep England out of the War. England was the chief importer of cotton and was very pro- southern. They had funded and built several Confederate privateers (The most famous of which was CSS Shenandoah). It was feared that England would enter the war on the side of the Confederacy, but England was opposed to slavery. When Lincoln turned the war to a war to end slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, England ceased open support of the Confederacy.

Increasingly, the issue of slavery became more and more as the focus of the war. Lincoln introduced all-black regiments in the war, and in April of 1865, ironically, the southern congress introduced a bill to form black regiments with the promise that any slave who fought in defense of the Confederacy would be freed. According to Richard C. Davis, in his book, Nine April Days, a single regiment of slaves was indeed seen marching through Richmond a few days before Richmond fell.

It could be implied that the southern legislature was willing to throw off slavery in exchange for an independent southern confederacy. Ironically, just a year before (an unrelated subject), Confederate General Patrick Cleborne was passed over a commander of the Confederate Army of the Tennessee because he advocated openly the freeing of slaves in exchange for service in the Confederate Army. Jefferson Davis passed over Cleborne, who was an extremely talented general and chose John Bell Hood, who succeeded in wrecking the army around Atlanta, and finally destroyed it at Franklin (where Cleborne was killed). Less than a year later Cleborne’s recommendations were being debated on the floor of the Confederate Congress...

A Historical Look At The Impact Of Christianity On American Politics

2010-09-26T22:43:00.000-04:00

By Chris Dumford:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here…" Patrick Henry

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God…” Romans 13:1

“Whatever America once was, we are no longer just a Christian nation…” Barack Obama

One of the most disconcerting things that I have recently noted in modern revisionist history, is the open denial by most secular writers of the impact of Christianity on American politics. This is mostly because secular writers do not understand theology and the underlying impact of theology on ideas and philosophies that drove past generations.

The root theology that has driven the foundation of America is the escatological view that came out of the Reformation. This eschatological view was Post Millennialism.

I. Tenets of Post Millennialism.

Post Millennialism is based on a concept of Preterism. Preterism teaches that the events of the 70th week of Daniel were fulfilled during the New Testament period. Notice Daniel 9:24-27,

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate…”

According to the Preterist view, the seventieth week constituted a 7-year period fulfilled between 66 and 73AD during the Jewish revolt. The abomination of desolation occurred in 70 AD when General Titus captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. According to the Preterist view, The Kingdom of God was both inaugurated and consummated when Jesus entered Jerusalem in His triumphal entry. Post Millennialism is largely a view based on allegorical interpretation of the Bible. According to this method of interpretation, Biblical phraseology is not literal but is representative of broader truths. Post millennialism teaches the following tenets:

1. The 1000 year millennial reign is representative of a long period of time that began in 33 AD and extends to today.

2. The promises of the Kingdom were removed from Israel and were transported to the Gentiles.

3. The church will usher in the return of Christ by evangelizing the entire world thus bringing in a spiritual utopia.

These tenets were the predominate view of the reformation church and the preachers of the Great Awakening that occurred in America in the 1740’s.

II. Post Millennialism and Its Impact on The American Revolution.

“Prior to the founding of the U.S., English Puritans believed that England was to be a ‘new Israel.’ They practiced a form of post-millennialism that caused them to be optimistic about England’s role as a force for righteousness in the world…” Major Brian L. Stuckert, US Army

A. In the 1740’s, a great revival broke out in the American Colonies. This revival was in reaction to what was perceived as dead spirituality in the Church of England. Men such as Jonathan Edwards, who preached to literally thousands taught that the Church of England was dead and that Christ desired to evangelize the world through a new nation of believers in order to usher in His earthly kingdom. Notice what Jonathan Edwards preached:

“ We may observe who they are that shall be united in thus seeking the Lord of hosts: the inhabitants of many cities, and of many countries, yea, many people, and strong nations, great multitudes in different parts of the world shall conspire in this business. From the representation made in the prophecy, it appears rational to suppose, that it will be fulfilled something after this manner:-There shall be given much of a spirit of prayer to God’s people, in many places, disposing them to come into an express agreement, unitedly to pray to God in an extraordinary manner, that he would appear for the help of his church, and in mercy to mankind, and pour out his Spirit, revive his work, and advance his spiritual kingdom in the world, as he promised. This disposition to prayer, and union in it, will gradually spread more and more, and increase to greater degrees; with which at length will gradually be introduced a revival of religion, and a disposition to greater engagedness in the worship and service of God, amongst his professing people. This being observed, will be the means of awakening others, making them sensible of the wants of their souls, and exciting in them a great concern for their spiritual and everlasting good, and putting them upon earnestly crying to God for spiritual mercies, and disposing them to join in that extraordinary seeking and serving of God…”

“In this manner religion shall be propagated, till the awakening reaches those that are in the highest stations, and till whole nations be awakened, and there be at length an accession of many of the chief nations of the world to the church of God. Thus after the inhabitants of many cities of Israel, or of God’s professing people, have taken up and pursued a joint resolution, to go and pray before the Lord, and seek the Lord of hosts, others shall be drawn to worship and serve him with them; till at length many people and strong nations shall join themselves to them; and there shall, in process of time, be a vast accession to the church, so that it shall be ten times as large as it was before; yea, at length, all nations shall be converted unto God. Thus (Zechariah 8:23.) “ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” (in the sense of the apostle, Romans 2:28, 29.) “saying, We will go with you; for we have heard, that God is with you.” And thus shall be fulfilled…”

Edwards did not believe that America should rebel against England, he rather saw post millennialism as a view toward all nations, in that a revival in America would spread to England. The New England ministers took his views and narrowed them to America being the nation that would establish the evangelic light to the rest of the world. This theonomy led to the American Revolution being as much an evangelistic crusade as a fight for a new nation.

In a paper titled, “Uncertain Dawn: Millennialism and Revolutionary Ideology in the Critical Period, 1783-1792” by Stephen Marini of Wellesley College, Marini writes about the usurping of Edward’s Post Millennialism by New England Preachers that fomented the American Revolution,

“Up to 1775, Edwardsean postmillennialism sustained a moderate, gradualist political stance. Emphatically colonial, the Edwardsean strand continued to voice John Winthrop’s Puritan hope that New England, and by extension America, would complete Britain’s political perfection, not challenge it. With the outbreak of revolutionary war in 1775, however, millennial categories took another form, pressed into service as eschatological justifications for a rebellion judged "unnatural" only months before.

Samuel Sherwood’s now-famous sermon identifying the woman in the wilderness of Revelation 13 as the saved American remnant overshadowed by God’s righteous power has become, by Nathan Hatch’s analysis, the classic exposition of Patriot identification with millennial imagery. While such millennial enthusiasm undoubtedly propelled the Patriot cause, it is important to note that Sherwood consistently named the church, and not the rebels, as the object of God’s providential protection. In this ecclesial definition of the millennial kingdom, Sherwood followed Edwards, who quite deliberately refused to secularize his millennial vision.

For Edwards and his followers of the Revolutionary generation, preeminently Samuel Hopkins, the millennial reign was exclusively an ecclesiastical affair and not to be confused with American national aspirations. In this Edwardsean tradition, from which most alleged examples of political millennialism have been drawn, God saved the church, not the state, from the perfidious threats of Satan. Given the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms linking an elect church with a theonomous commonwealth, it was natural enough for New England ministers to conflate God’s church and the American cause, as they regularly did in Thanksgiving and Fast sermons during the war. But it is worth noting that this move secularized and contradicted Edwards’s own teaching, which insisted that God’s salvific action in history was directed solely to the elect saints…”

B. Post Millennial expressions in the writings of the early patriots:

1. Congressional Resolution October 1780: “It is therefore recommended to the several states to set apart Thursday, the seventh day of December next, to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer; that all the people may assemble on that day to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor; to confess our unworthiness of the least of his favors, and to offer our fervent supplications to the God of all grace; that it may please him to pardon our heinous transgressions and incline our hearts for the future to keep all his laws that it may please him still to afford us the blessing of health; to comfort and relieve our brethren who are any wise afflicted or distressed; to smile upon our husbandry and trade and establish the work of our hands; to direct our public councils, and lead our forces, by land and sea, to victory; to take our illustrious ally under his special protection, and favor our joint councils and exertions for the establishment of speedy and permanent peace; to cherish all schools and seminaries of education, build up his churches in their most holy faith and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth..”

2. Ezra Stiles, President of Yale College preached the following before Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, on May 8th, 1783.

“I shall enlarge no further upon the primary sense and Eternal accomplishment of this and numerous other prophecies respecting both Jews and Gentiles, in the latter day glory of the church. For I have assumed the text, only as introductory to a discourse upon the political welfare of God’s American Israel; and as allusively prophetic of the future prosperity and splendor of the United States. We may then consider.What reason we have to expect that, by the blessing of God, these States may prosper and flourish into a great American Republic; and ascend into high and distinguished honor among the nations of the earth. To make thee high above all nations, which he hath made in praise, and in name, and in honor…”

III. Post Millennialism and The View of Christians Toward Politics.

"We have reason to hope that the time is at hand when the kingdom of God shall come with power, and all the people of this poor heathen land shall know Him, from the least unto the greatest…” John Wesley

A. 21st century American Christians fall into three camps regarding politics. The first camp believes that Christians should stay out of politics altogether. This is the view of the Amish. The second camp believes that America should be changed from an evangelistic point of view by measured involvement within society and the political realm. This is the view of the fundamentalist churches. The third view believes that America should be changed from a largely political and social point of view. This view stretches across the fundamentalist churches and includes many denominations. This tension between groups has at its root the collapse of postmillennialism and its impact on American politics.

B. Progressive Post Millennialism was the belief system of Woodrow Wilson who founded the league of nations. Woodrow Wilson’s views on government mark a turn in which postmillennialism marched toward progressivism. Wilson believed that the Constitution of the United States and its system of checks and balances hindered the march toward the transformation of society. He wrote regarding the forefather’s ideas that the Constitution should be viewed as a structured document, and applied a Darwinian framework of evolution to government in which government must be free to change without the constraints of archaic documents:

“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice…”

Woodrow Wilson represented a new kind of Postmillennialism which embodied ideas borrowed from philosophers such as Georg Hegel, a German philosopher in the early 19th century who taught that governments evolved for the purpose of improving society. This evolutionary process could only come about by being freed from the constraints of traditional views of governmental structure. Thus, governing documents need not be embraced if the constraints of the documents prevent the evolution of the government into a higher form.

IV. Collapse of Post Millennialism and the Rise of Progressivism.

A. With the end of World War I, postmillennialism gave way to pre-millennialism. Pre-millennialism is much more pessimistic in its eschatology and emphasizes evangelism over social order. The tenets of postmillennialism survived as secular progressivism and communism/socialism. This was the utopian views of postmillennialism freed from the shackles of religion and tied to the philosophical ideas of the advancement of mankind on a social economic order freed from classes. Much of the tenets of Marxist socialism can be found within the views of early 20th century postmillennial theologians.

B. The collapse of postmillennialism and the rise of premillennialism resulted in large groups of Christian denominations retreating from the political realm. Their view is that the world will regress until Christ’s coming inaugurates the kingdom. Thus, the role of the church is not the improvement of society with a view of the church ushering in the earthly reign of Christ, but rather that of the church evangelizing the world with a view of rescuing the lost from the coming tribulational cataclysm which is soon to come. Since the world is only going to regress, and Satan will assume the role of world leader in the form of the Anti-Christ, then government by and large is destined to usher in the one world government of Satan. Therefore the church cannot influence God’s eschatological plan for the world through government.

Thus, the church is not responsible for the ushering in of the kingdom, but rather is responsible for fulfilling the great commission.

V. Modern Fundementalism, Progressivism and Christian Reconstructionism.

A. Christian Reconstructionism: There is a modern trend which has developed in Christianity known as Christian reconstructionism. This form of theology is a throwback to traditional postmillennialism in which reconstructionists believe that Christians and government should be intimately linked together in the establishment of a Theonomy. Their view is that world governments are under the dominion of God and therefore should be subject to God’s laws (i.e. a Theonomy). This view sees the concept of separation of church and state being non-existent. Thus, they view the role of Christians being one of direct involvement in all levels of government. This is manifested in such organizations as the Moral Majority and writers such as Gary North and in some forms by the late Jerry Falwell. This is a sort of proactive theology to the rise of progressivism. An example of this kind of thinking is found in the writings of Christian economist Gary North:

“The concept of the rule of law was Mosaic, not Greek (Ex. 12:49). The concept of private property is supported in the Decalogue's laws against theft and covetousness. The Mosaic economic law as a whole was pro-market, pro-private ownership, pro-foreign trade, pro-money-lending (Deut. 28:12). The New Testament did not break with most of these laws, and the few that it did break with, such as slavery and the jubilee land law, made the resulting position even more market favorable…” Gary North, Authentic Libertarianism

B. Progressivism: Progressivism believes that Christians should not be involved at all in Government. Their view is one of pure humanism and relativism freed from the constraints of traditional Biblical values. Their overarching ideology is the so-called improvement of human society through forced economic redistribution, removal of sociological class, removal of private rights and private property ownership, all for the good of the state and with all power concentrated within the state to enforce this end. Progressivism is a psudo-postmillennialism without the constraints of Biblical law.

C. Fundementalism: Fundementalism by and large tends to de-emphasize the role of the church in relation to society on a governmental level. The trend of fundamentalism is to change society one soul at a time. Fundementalism sees government as being secular in its views and practices and in essence as an enemy of the church. Most Fundementalists tend to participate in politics from a reactionary position. That is, instead of being pro-active, they tend to react to laws and policies that effect them and then either privately or publicly lobby against those policies.

John McArthur writes from the fundamentalist perspective when he states:

“One of the worst fallouts of the new preoccupation with political issues is that ultimately the ministry of the church is prostituted. People are selling themselves for something short of what the church is called to do. It cannot afford to become a flag-waving, protest voice for governmental change. That's not its calling. I am appalled to see that many pastors have turned from an emphasis on the gospel to an emphasis on politics--from an emphasis on teaching the Bible to an emphasis on coalitions that support particular kinds of legislation. Worst of all, their emphasis is based on the ridiculous premise that the growth and impact of Christianity is somehow related to government policy in America… “ John McArthur, The Christian and Government.

Conclusion: Our involvement in politics and the level of our involvement depends on our understanding of the role of government and our view as to what result we hope to gain.

A Lot Can Be Said In One Minute

2010-08-28T23:23:00.000-04:00

Here is the winner from the Sean Hannity video contest...well deserved:

http://www.hannity.com/pages/great-american-video-contest-winner

Democrats Still Running Against Bush

2010-08-22T23:57:00.000-04:00

In the midst of this summery of recovery and as Obama enjoys yet another vacation from his tough job of communizing the country, the DNC has put out an ad. Is the ad featuring the accomplishments of the past few years? No - because if they ran on their "accomplishments" it would guarantee a landslide for the GOP and/or all Tea Partiers. It is an ad that shows America, fruitful and back to work. Then, the ad ends with a message of a choice between the Democrats and the GOP. But, it isn't just the GOP, it is the GOP as associated with George W. Bush. Yes, 2 years after Bush, the Democrats must reach back into the archives and try push the country towards the democrats because they believe that America hated Bush. Remember, the media hated Bush and Bush's approval numbers dropped when he starting pushing an agenda that wasn't conservative. (i.e. not securing the boarder, etc.)

This is the same old playbook - they can't run on their accomplishments so attack Bush. But, in the spirit of fairness, perhaps it would be good to design an ad that portrays Democrat's accomplishments.

"Hello, I'm Nancy Pelosi. Ever since I became Speaker of the House, I've been hard at work to help change America. We've destroyed the health care industry. Now, not only will have you have to wait an extra hour in the waiting room, but you'll also have to draw straws to see who actually gets to see the doctor. We've brutally punished the financial industry for simply doing what we forced them to do. Rest assured they will no longer be able to ruin our economy - we'll keep doing that for them. Hey, and how about that unemployment number?! The problem is that silly Americans don't need to worry about work. By the time we're done with this country, everyone will rely on the Government. In fact, we are taking measures right now to take the words Freedom and Liberty out of the American vocabulary. Remember us this November, because together, we can make even Europe look conservative." (paid for by you, the American taxpayer)

Research:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/20/dnc-deploys-george-w-bush-in-new-ad/

The No-Disaster Disaster

2010-08-11T23:00:00.000-04:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1301002/BP-oil-spill-Why-claims-Gulf-Mexico-historys-worst-oil-spill-cynical-spin-campaign-ever.html

The destruction of the local economy fell to the hands of one, President Obama. Then, in a move to help out the local tourism economy, Moochelle goes to Spain. The arrogance of this administration is over the top. Not only do they want to rape the economies of our children, but then rub it in our faces with many vacations and golf outings this year so far.

Tea Party's "Commitment to America"

2010-08-11T13:40:00.002-04:00

1. Stop the massive spending that is bankrupting America. Start with no new bailouts. Roll back federal spending to 2007 levels and cap annual spending growth at the rate of inflation plus population growth.

2. Vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that also requires a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes.

3. Repeal or defund the government takeover of our health care. Start over with health care reform that is patient centered and reduces - not raises - our health care costs.

4. Repeal the automatic tax increases scheduled for 2011. Vote against increased taxation, including energy taxes and value added taxes.

5. Require "sunset" provisions for every spending program passed and every agency created by Congress.

6. Legislate limits on excessive agency rule making by requiring that Congress vote to approve all major new rules.

7. Demonstrate legislative transparency. Five days in advance of a vote, post online all bills, resolutions and conference reports. Require roll call votes on all measures that spend money.

8. Hold no votes in a "lame duck" session that would increase spending, taxes or regulation. This would include, for example, cap and trade, card check and immigration.

9. Abide by the principle that any law that does not apply to Congress or its staff does not apply to the American people.

10. Provide specific citations from the Constitution for any legislation introduced.

What A Shock

2010-07-23T22:09:00.001-04:00

According to the New York Times, our modern day Communist Manifesto, days after Iraq took over, there was a prison break of top Islamo-fascists. The operative question is why where they alive to escape? But, there is a deeper issue with this. The Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom and then will within themselves to establish a democratic nation. Their freedom has handed to them and "democracy" was handed to them. You can't hand someone freedom without accompanying it with responsibility. And, you can't hand someone democracy. The idea that we are spreading democracy is a farce. We don't even have democracy here! How can we spread it?!

But, I maintain that democracy is something that not be passed along - it has to be bought and preserved. I've often said that no country in the world will last as a democracy unless it has our Constitution. Why? Our Constitution is the only governing document that tells the Government what it can and cannot do. It isn't for the Government to tell the people what to do. The freedom to vote and speak and live will fall by the way side if there is nothing there to under gird it. The Iraqi people need to find that common spark that unites them and buy democracy and sell it not. This would ultimately mean divorcing their religion from their government...which we know they will not do. Therefore, to stay there to "build democracy" is pointless.

Research

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html?_r=1

Sweeping Reform Attacks Capitalism

2010-07-22T15:27:00.000-04:00

The Obama Administration is championing their "sweeping financial reform" as a win for consumers. Don't be fooled by this. The very reasons our financial system is shakey is because Government has put their hands in it in the first place.

Here's the assumption this bill makes: that corporations (Capitalism) is the enemy of the consumer and that without these "protections" the consumers are left at the mercy of the corporations (Capitalism). This attitude neglects to see that the consumers are vital to Capitalism. With competion being allowed to take place, companies are battling for your dollar. But, they also know that you will spend your dollar and more of them if the service you receive is top notch. Companies do not prey on the consumers, as our Government wants you to believe. The idea of companies preying on consumers is counter-productive. The fact of the matter is that Government has been preying on it citizens and then blaming it on Capitalism.

We need sweeping Governmental reform - reform that protects us from the Government. Oh wait, we have that, it's called the Constitution. (Also known as a viable toilet paper alternative to Obama)

Research:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/21/borger.obama.finance/index.html

How It Is

2010-06-29T12:42:00.000-04:00

President Obama swung into view, riding a tidal wave of garbage wrapped in shiny paper. The extent of his Administration reaches no further than the "What's Wrong?" page in Highlight's Magazine. However, people loved him. Like never before, people came out and voted for Obama. People were tired of having to work or find work and Obama provided such an outlet for the Government to be the all-powerful genie. The experience he brings to the White House is now being made manifest in the hard work he is doing to help in the Gulf. His Communist rhetoric vomits from his mouth like Old Faithful with the American people there to catch it on their faces. So, what is a President with no experience to do? Exactly what anyone in that situation would do - appoint someone else with no experience to the Supreme Court. Obama was the worst President in history, even before he was elected. But now, he is cementing this for the history books. The Jimmy Carter of our lifetime is moving this nation, not towards a beacon of hope for the world, but to the dung heap.

When he was sworn in, he was under oath when he said, "I...swear to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Has he preserved, protected, or defended the Constitution? No - he's taken occasion to shred it and ignore it at every turn. So, he has essentially lied under oath. Lying under oath is a felony. Article 2, sec. 4 of the US Constitution states that a President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Is a felony a greater offense than a misdemeanor? Yes! I think you know where I'm headed with this. Let's hope when both houses are retaken for Conservatism this November and, if we can't impeach him, we can stop his legislator tornado on the spot.

The End Result Of Democrat Compassion

2010-06-24T11:13:00.002-04:00

Remember this kid? Good thing Janet Reno sent him back to Cuba so he could get a *good* education

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/elian-gonzalez-joins-communist-union/c44d2bef8c5ffd6abd2bc44d2bef8c5ffd6abd2b-61720298222?form=msnlfa

Washington's Failure To The Gulf

2010-06-20T00:32:00.000-04:00

Great information chronicaling the great incompetence of President Obama. I make a motion for a vote of no confidence.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128429927189353

More Predictions Coming True

2010-06-16T23:35:00.000-04:00

I posted back in January that 1 of my 5 predictions had actually come true:

Just days after my 2010 predictions hit the blog, we have some fulfillment. Here is a brief recap of the 5 predictions made:

1. Universal Health Care will finally be agreed upon in both houses of Congress and will be sent to the President's desk by the summer.

2. Republicans will take back both houses of Congress in November.

3. We will sustain more terrorist attack plots like we did in 2009. With some happening while the terrorism trials take place in NYC.

4. Obama will further his plans to develop his own Waffen SS

5. If Health Care passes, these grass roots tea parties will put heavier pressure on the Government, in so much as we may see skirmishes break out.

#4 is our winner today! See my post on the Federalization of the National Guard (http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-chains-from-obama.html)

Concerning #2, don't expect the media to report on the attitude of the country. They will report what they want you to believe in hopes of swaying your vote. This country is angry! This Congress isn't off the hook yet!

So, now it is June and we have more predictions that have either come true or will come true.

#1 came to pass must sooner than I expected - health care passed, America lost

#5 We haven't seen the Tea Parties behaving disorderly, but we have had Democrats attempt to insight disorderly behavior by the Tea Partiers. In fact, we've even had Democrats make up lies about racial slurs shouted by the Tea Partiers.

#2 We are still a ways out from November, but we already are getting a glimpse as more and more primaries happen

#3 I'm going to make a prediction that the BP Oil explosion was an attack foisted internally and the reason Obama isn't doing anything about it is because he needs this disaster to shut down oil drilling in this country and push further legislation down our throats.

Once #2 comes true, I'll have a few new predictions to offer.

Assumed Speeding Is Now Worth A Ticket

2010-06-05T14:46:00.000-04:00

So, now the Ohio Supreme Court has decided that Due Process is just a misnomer. This week, they upheld a cop's testimony that he observed the assailant speeding. What was used to determine this massive break of the law? Was it radar? No. Was it the cop speeding without his lights on and this guy blew by him? No. Did the driver drive by the cop and yell out his speed? No. The cop simply just "witnessed" him speeding. The just eye-balled it. So, the Court decided that was enough to convict this menace to society. So, now a cop doesn't have to prove anything about speeding.

Once again, the Court is over stepping its bounds to forward an agenda.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15044-Truck-Industry-Examiner~y2010m6d5-No-Radar-needed-in-Ohio--For-Speeding-Tickets

Wal-Mart Fires Employees That Display American Intuition

2010-06-05T00:46:00.000-04:00

When has America turned into a nation that is afraid of self-defense? Wal-Mart is leading the charge. Here are a few stories that might interest you, nay, infuriate you.

1. An elderly Wal-Mart greeter is fired for defending himself

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/walmart_greeter_ed_bauman_fire.php

2. Wal-Mart employee apprehends a shop lifter only to lose her job

http://blogs.kansas.com/haveyouheard/2010/05/24/wal-mart-employee-foils-a-shoplifter-and-loses-her-job/

3. Wal-Mart employee chases after a shop lifter

http://www.ocala.com/article/20091021/ARTICLES/910211015

I guess we can suffice to say that if Wal-Mart was in charge back then, America would still be under the British Throne.

Obama Goose-Steps To Arizona

2010-06-03T09:17:00.000-04:00

In yet another attempt to force Arizona to forsake its sovereignty, Obama is going to meet with Governor Jan Brewer. The amazing thing about this whole ordeal is that Arizona passed a law that the Feds already have on the books and just won't enforce it. Obama, because he absolutely detests anyone circumventing his absolute authority, is going to try to persuade the good Governor that she is out of touch with reality. See, reality to democrats is a world of make-believe. Obama is going try to convince her that these people she's keeping out of her state have rights. But, they may have human rights, but they do not have Constitutional Rights and they are not protected under United States law. Now, CNN is making it seem like there is this massive onslaught against Arizona's new law. They want you to think America is against this law. However, according to a Rasmussen Poll, 70% of Americans favor this law. So, taste it Libs.

Research

1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/03/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?hpt=C1
2. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65340
3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/26/napolitano-takes-aim-at-arizona-immigration-law/?iref=obnetwork&fbid=DnipZkBs8ze
4. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/29/thousands-descend-on-phoenix-to-protest-immigration-law/?iref=obnetwork&fbid=DnipZkBs8ze
5.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration

America Will Rise Again

2010-06-01T23:50:00.000-04:00

Countries do not attract immigrants based on the amount of Socialism or Communism it has. In fact, Communistic countries have to use military forces to keep their people in - hence the former Berlin Wall. Ronald Reagan said that America was the shining city on a hill. A hill makes the city rise above the rest. The light that shines from it reaches far and wide. What shines about America? Is it a Government that subsidizes its citizens? Is it the amount of "intellectuals" it has? Is it the amount of tolerance and racial diversity? No. It never was about that nor will it ever be.

America shines because its citizens realize that they must look to themselves and exhibit innovation. Progress in America isn't measured by how many minorities gain favorable status by the State. Progress is how the American economy and spirit thrive on the fuel of freedom and liberty. Progress is America, not only being the best country on Earth, but marching forward to lead the world.

Hopefully this November, America will drop the cargo cars it has been pulling these past few years and just motor full steam ahead to restoring the exception country, that is America.

Obama Takes Attention Off Of Arizona

2010-05-27T10:58:00.000-04:00

Recently, President Obama announced that he was going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to help protect the borders. I'm not sure how 1,200 will make any different, but he's going to do it. Why? Because he loves America? Hardly. Because he wants to secure the border? No - he's lose more voting base. Because he cares for the lives of Americans? You're nuts if you believe that! The only reason he's doing this is because he's angry that Arizona is showing Washington what to do.

At the beginning, Obama was upset with Arizona, but in an odd move, he seems to be listening to the people and the people like what Arizona is doing. Obama, the spoiled brat that he is, can't be shown up by a measly little state, so he thinks of a solution. "Why not send some troops to the border?" "Oh man, they are going to love me again! I can't wait to share...what was that honey? Oh...ok...I'll get back to the vacuuming."

Don't let this fool you, he is trying to steal the attention away from Arizona and get it back to himself. He can't survive but in the limelight. But, we can feel confident when 1,200 troops show up to help protect the border from the invasion of illegals. I'd say send another 1,200 to Washington to prevent the invasion of Democrats.

Obama's 100 Million Spending Cut Amounts To Nothing

2010-05-10T22:54:00.002-04:00

This is great. Obama's budget slashing is nothing more than a nail clipping

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

The Fed Ignores State Sovereignty

2010-05-09T11:47:00.001-04:00

I knew it wouldn't take long. Arizona recently passed an immigration law that basically enforces what the Federal Government has failed to enforce. Now, the Federal Government is entertaining the idea of suing Arizona. Obama and his Cabinet of Hitmen want nothing more than for this country to fall off of the pages of history. You think that's extreme? Look at his policies - look at what they are doing to America and then you tell me if that is extreme. So, why is the Fed so upset with Arizona? Because Arizona will stem the tide of votes Liberals in Congress will get. According to CNN.com, Attorney General, Eric Holder said that the Justice Department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona. There are concerns that this law may violate civil rights.

Rights of the citizenry are not universal-global rights. These are rights of American citizens. Civil Rights are nothing more than what are spelled out in the Constitution, in my opinion. Not that the Constitution grants these rights, but that it reminds the Government to back off. Constitutional rights are only available to Americans. People from other countries that come into our country illegally are breaking the law (hence "illegally.") One of the basic duties of the Federal Government is to protect our borders. If a nation's borders cannot be maintained, what's the point of a nation? If someone cannot respect the most basic law of sovereignty, what makes you think they will obey any other laws of our country? Now, you might argue that this position isn't fair to those people. OK, well, the next time someone breaks into your house (doesn't respect the sovereignty of your property) I expect you to not call the police; to not attack the intruder; I expect you to welcome him, allow him to take what he chooses (representative of our tax dollars paying for their health care, etc.) and ultimately accept him into your home as a family member (citizen). You probably think that is crazy. But that is exactly what happens to our country.

So, Arizona, amidst more colloidal failure from the Federal Government, decided that they would enforce the sovereignty of their State. Yes, States have sovereignty as well. Remember when George Bush was criticized for his "delayed" response to Katrina? The Governor of Louisiana wouldn't let the Federal help come into the State until 3 or 4 days after the fact. The President cannot just send troops/help into a State without the State's permission. Arizona is tired of illegals flooding and devaluing their economy and blatantly ignoring their sovereignty that they did something about it. In fact, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives them this authority. Each State has the right to protect and defend themselves. Except, when Obama's President, no State is safe. All must bow before the image of Obama.

I think this is going to be an answer to the Obama regime. I know we need desperate turnover in Congress but if the States would stand up to Obama, we could really shut down his agenda. I would love to see a Governor tell Obama that as long as National Health Care is law, you won't be seeing any Federal Income taxes sent from my State. Furthermore, if the IRS has an office in my State, I will shut it down. And, if you want to do something about it, I'll have the National Guard waiting for you.

Let's tell the Fed that they have no power except what is given them by the States. If they think they can just walk over the States, then it is time for the States to rise up and enforce what the Fed should be doing anyway.

Research:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.immigration/index.html?hpt=T2

Precept Without Penalty Is Only Advice

2010-05-08T10:29:00.000-04:00

In this age of sensitivity and tolerance - which is just an excuse to castrate masculinity - we wish to find the reasons why people commit crimes rather than simply punishing the action. Murderers are not at fault anymore, it is the fault of the influence from their alcoholic parents. Rapists aren't at fault, it is because they were abused as a child. The parents of the murderers aren't at fault because alcoholism is a disease. Where does this line of thinking come from? Obviously, there is a general apathy towards personal responsibility and this attitude is being ingrained into the minds of our children.

Instead of dealing with a child's rambunctious ways, we want to drug them under false diagnoses, with false medical conditions (ADD, ADHD, etc.). What child doesn't have a problem, at one time or another, giving undivided attention to their teacher?! We want to say they aren't at fault for their behavior - so children get drugs. Teacher's aren't allow to command control of their classrooms anymore because liberal parents do not recognize them in loco parentis which means "in place of the parent." For many years, teachers were viewed as the authority over of the children while they were at school. This authority was viewed with as much importance as the parent's authority. This even extended to the area of discipline. Teachers had the authority and the responsibility to discipline their students. This even meant spanking. Teachers had paddles and would use them to warm the cheeks of the unruly bunch. Now, spanking if far out of the question. Furthermore, as reported in the Boston Globe, red ink for grading is just "[too] frightening" for the students.

Schools have been strangled by liberal parents and now we are raising generations of men with lace on their britches and generations of women that places more importance on a career rather than children and a family. But alas, perhaps Texas will lead the way in restoring spanking back into schools. What reason does a kid or an adult have to obey the law if there are no repercussions? The penalty of misbehaving must out-weight the joy of misbehaving. Until we get back to this principle, in our homes and in our schools, don't expect future generations to fair any better.

Research

http://www.fightforkids.org/facts.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+loco+parentis

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/06/dnt.tx.bring.back.paddling.wfaa?hpt=T2

http://www.bringbacklicks.com/

Obama's Katrina: It Must Be Bush's Fault

2010-05-01T11:10:00.000-04:00

Well, now it isn't a hurricane that is threatening the Louisiana coast, it is an oil spill. I wonder how long it will be before Louis Farrakhan blames Bush for this as well. In the spirit of fairness, let's examine the timeline, thus far, for this disaster.

April 20th, the oil rig Deepwater Horizon explodes.

April 21st, BP moves into action to contain the oil

April 22nd, a second explosion, rig sinks

April 23rd, Coast Guard says no oil is leaking

April 24th, Oil is found to be leaking at a rate of 1,000 barrels/day

April 25th, a 600 sqmi oil slick is heading North in the Gulf of Mexico towards the coast

April 26th, oil slick is now 80 miles wide, provisions are being put into place to catch the oil

April 27th, setting fire to the slick is considered. Homeland Security Minister, Janet Napolitano, is beefing up efforts to investigate the cause of the explosion

April 28th, BP says a controlled test burn was successful

April 29th, Federal assistance is mobilized

Why list all of this? It is interesting that President Bush had given miserable failure, Ray Nagin, a phone call days before Katrina would hit - he called and encouraged him to get his people out of the city. Nagin, a true compassionate, did nothing. Before the aftermath of Katrina could be observed, Bush was in action. The oil rig exploded on April 20th and President Obama doesn't go into action until April 29th. 9 days afterwards! Now, I'm not saying that a hurricane and an oil rig explosion are of equal magnitude. But, Bush was responding to the hurricane before it hit and was ridiculed he didn't respond fast enough. Obama, with this disaster, responds 9 days later and do you think he'll be criticized? Absolutely not! Where's the media outcry against Obama? But to be fair, it is difficult to be President and respond in a timely manner when you're stuck in the sand trap on hole 13.

Research

http://deepseanews.com/2010/04/the-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-a-timeline/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina

Lincoln vs Reagan

2010-04-18T00:23:00.003-04:00

After a recent mini email debate, I want to fully expound upon the debate topic. I took the position that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in US History and, until I'm elected, he will be the only one in that status ;) The other position said that Abraham Lincoln was a better President than Ronald Reagan. The post today will evaluate the Lincoln presidency and the Reagan presidency.

The Lincoln presidency is highlighted by the Civil War. The Civil War saw the potential division of the nation resolved to maintain a Union of all states. So, what did Lincoln bring to the table?

One could argue that the Civil War was a result of Lincoln's election. He was hated in the South because of his opposition to slavery. South Carolina seceded first after the election. In 1863, Lincoln gave his famous Emancipation Proclamation which was supposed to be the freedom the slaves were longing for. In actuality, this did very little to free the slaves. It didn't apply to any southern areas that were already controlled by the Union and didn't apply to the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware. The Proclamation stated, "all persons held as slaves...are, and henceforward shall be free." In return, the South gave the illustrious one-finger salute. In my opinion, the Emancipation Proclamation was the single event to prove that Lincoln had no control over the entire country nor had the ability to maintain it. Remember, Lincoln didn't win the war, Grant did. Now, you might argue that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the view of black men. They were allowed to join the Union Armies and Navies. What?! They were finally allowed to join the UNION military?! How does that discrimination of the North differ from any of the South? Now, before we go on, it would be good to read http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/search/label/Slavery to study the full, historical account of slavery in the US.

What other accomplishments of the Lincoln presidency are often overlooked because of the Civil War?

1. The Homestead Act of 1861 - a Federal subsidy program for land

2. The Morril Act of 1862 - a Federal subsidy program for education

3. Revenue Act of 1861 - Hello Federal Income Tax

4. 1862 - Hello IRS!

5. 1862 - Lincoln suspends Habeas Corpus without Congress' approval - later deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

6. 1863 - Lincoln institutes the draft

Contrast this to Reagan's time in office. The election of Lincoln fueled the South to secede from the Union. The election of Reagan - the very day he took office - saw the end to the Iranian hostage situation. Reagan defeated a formidable military force in the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. Lincoln defeats his own countrymen after 600k Union soldiers give their lives. Reagan takes top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% and the economy roars. The Federal Treasury's intake doubles from 450 billion to 900 billion because of the tax breaks. Reagan stands in Berlin and gives an "Emancipation Proclamation" of his own to free those enslaved by Communism, but again, without requiring 2 more years of bloodshed, Reagan ends the Cold War and brings freedom and liberty to eastern Europe.

If Lincoln fails, we have a divided America. If Regan fails, we have no America. To me, the choice is obvious - Reagan wins, hands down. Unfortunately, if Obama keeps rolling back the Reagan Revolution, those in the future won't be honored to realize its benefits.

In There Own Words: Nancy Pelosi and Obama

2010-04-17T23:08:00.000-04:00

Nancy Pelosi has no idea what's in the health bill. Well, yes she does - she knows what's in it will kill this country. The details are irrelevant to her. Glad to hear we are in good hands!

Obama thanks the wonderful people of Sunshine, Florida. Sunshine, Florida is inland from the Cape Coral area (South-West Florida). However, when he thanks Sunshine, he is doing it from Sunrise, Florida which is near Ft. Lauderdale (South-East Florida). Oh to be so smart!

Here's one of my favorites from the Originator of Optimal Oration

Obama admits he has no experience and has no place in the White House. All this just 4 years prior to getting into the White House. "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing" That's garbage! I'm a believer in doing what's right! A murderer knows exactly what he's doing, but it isn't right.

This is a horrible rendition of the National Anthem, but a fitting demonstration of Obama's true "respect" for this country.

From The Tea Party

2010-04-17T13:15:00.000-04:00

What Happened with Hannity

Dear Fellow Citizens and Taxpayers,

I hate to write this email, because this controversy detracts from the message and the purpose of our rallies. Our goal with everything we do is to spread our message of our shared values - free markets, fiscal responsibilty, and limited government. Regardless, Chris and I have been getting bombarded with questions and I want to share with you what we know.

First, a bit of history. We were already underway with planning for this event when we learned that Hannity was coming to Cincinnati for his book tour on Tax Day and was planning a separate event. We were ready to sign a contract with UC for the arena and we paused because of the risk of competing events. We were concerned with our ability to cover costs for the event if Hannity drew people away.

Chris made contact with Fox producers and we agreed to work together. He would cover our event for Fox and would broadcast his show from Cincinnati. It worked out for everyone. We got a media spotlight on our message, they got a great backdrop for them to do a show.

We executed our contract with UC and then Fox did the same. While we coordinated schedules for the event, they had no contract with us, nor any financial interest in what went on. At no point was money exchanged between Fox and the Cincinnati Tea Party or Hannity and the Cincinnati Tea Party.

This was the root of the controversy. Earlier today, George Soros-funded Media Matters jumped on the fact that we sold tickets to cover the cost of the event as evidence that we and Fox were "profiting" on the event.

Despite knowing clearly that this was not true, Fox caved and pulled Hannity back to New York.

About 4:30 tonight, I was standing talking to people in line for the book signing when I heard people start saying that Hannity was not coming. I tried to find the source and I found out that local media was reporting that Hannity had been deverted while in route and was heading to Lunken Airport. I went downstairs to find Chris and we found that the Fox producers had locked themselves in their "green room" and that we were not allowed in.

Eventually we were allowed into the room where we spoke with two Fox producers. The senior producer explained that Hannity had gone back to New York for an emergency and that he couldn't tell us anything more than that. He was very apologetic and strongly hinted that it was a personal emergency. He even said they had a guest host on standby for his program tonight.

Given the explanation, we believed them. We asked about getting some of his show guests to speak and Joe the Plumber was added to our lineup. Even if we were skeptical, we didn't have time to wait - UC Police were insisting we announce information to the restless crowd in the concourse. We then made the announcement to the crowd with the information we had and moved forward with the show.

We continued to work to gain information while the show was on as we were hearing more rumors that Fox had pulled him because of the controversy above. Eventually, Chris spoke to a Fox VP who took responsibility for pulling him because we charged for tickets.

The Fox staff we worked with planning the event knew exactly how it was structured and it was no surprise to anyone that we charged for tickets. In fact, Hannity was well aware as he plugged the event and reminded people to get tickets multiple times on his shows.

I want to point out a couple of things in response.

First, Hannity promotes conservative causes/organizations/groups/events all the time - this is nothing new.

Second, I reject the accusations of "profiteering" from the event. Cincinnati Tea Party is a non-profit, political organization, and 100% volunteer. Not a single person has ever personally profited from anything we do. In fact, we each donate hundreds of hours of our time trying to build this movement and spread our message.

This event cost (numbers aren't final - we will get billed by UC for security, cleanup and other costs) over $50,000 and took thousands of man-hours to get done.

None of us are event organizers or promoters. We are ordinary citizens with jobs and families who do this in our spare time because we love our country and passionately believe in our values.

I've already recevied angry emails from some who are disappointed that Hannity did not come. We will honor all refund requests. We will have a process setup within the next 48 hours to get that done. In the meantime, I need to get some sleep and prepare for my day job.

I understand the frustration - I really do. Keep in mind that this is what the left wants. This is why Media Matters attacked us and Hannity and started the chain of events that led to Fox pulling him out - it's because they fear the power of our message.

Instead of talking about what a wonderful event it was, I'm talking about a completely manufactured controversy. And it was a great event. We had almost 10,000 people show up and listen to a great lineup of speakers and music. We sang our national anthem and ended with God Bless America.

I know I speak for the 300+ people who volunteered their time to help make this Tax Day Tea Party a success when I say that we will not be intimidated, silenced, or bullied. The fact that we were the targets of a leftist attack today or that Fox stupidly gave into pressure just adds to my resolve to fight onward.

Our message is too important and too powerful to do anything less. Our freedom and our country are worth fighting for.

Sincerely,

Mike Wilson

Founder, Cincinnati Tea Party

http://www.cincinnatiteaparty.org/

This Guy Gets It!

2010-04-17T00:00:00.002-04:00

A reporter approached this gentleman and was curious as to how he exactly fit into the tea party movement. The reporter must have this idea that "black people" aren't conservatives. So, she wishes to patronize him by asking him if he feels uncomfortable - insinuating that he's out of place without his brothers. Listen to his response. Taste it!

For further reading, read http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-history-month-part-3-cultural.html

National Health Care Reeks Of Compassion

2010-04-13T01:43:00.001-04:00

A woman in California had been undergoing cancer treatments and was in remission. She was on a list to receive an organ from a donor. During this time, the Government sent paperwork to her telling her that she is eligible to receive Social Security benefits for her three year old son. She decided to take advantage of this and signed up. This was in March. Well, come April, Medicaid told her that she was no longer entitled to her universal health care because the disability benefits caused her income to rise above the allowable level for Medicaid.

Let this be a lesson to all - the long arm of Liberalism appears to be benevolent, but beware; the other arm of Liberalism is primed and ready to pick your pocket. The promises of government will ultimately be your demise. Health care is the responsibility of each of us, not collectively, but individually. I wonder how many could afford health care for their families if they weren't spending their health care money on cable or on a brand new car which depreciates by roughly 50% over the first 4 years it is off of the lot (with 20% of that coming in the first year). See, we spend money on the things we really want to spend money on. We have left the principles of deferred gratification in favor of instant gratification by financing our lives through debt. Then, when we have no money (because of our own choices) we expect the government to come in and save the day. It's not fair that someone who has worked all their lives are enjoying the fruits of their labor and I'm not - unfortunately, that's the attitude of many in America. Don't try keeping up with the Jones' -- in reality, the Jones' are probably broke anyway.

Research:

http://cbs4.com/health/Diana.Smith.Woman.2.1623788.html
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/news/column/lowdown/newcar_free/chart.500.jpg

Medicare Income Requirements for California:

Medi-Cal Programs – Qualification at a Glance (Asset limits are the same for all programs: Single: $2,000; Couple: $3,000)

Program / Requirements Your Monthly Income

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $845/month

Couple: up to $1,407.20/month

Note: Higher income levels apply for individuals who are blind.

Aged & Disabled Federal Poverty Level (A&D FPL) Program

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $1,133/month

Couple: up to $1,525/month

Medi-Cal with a Share of Cost (SOC)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: over $1,133/month

Couple: over $1,525/month

250% California Working Disabled (CWD)

•Have work

•Meet Social Security’s definition of disability

•Pay small monthly premium

Single: up to $2,257/month

Couple: up to $3,036/month Note: Income excludes disability benefits

http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/low-income/medi-cal.html#qualify

MSNBC Out Of Touch

2010-04-11T05:33:00.000-04:00

MSNBC is running a piece about the Obama Economy. Just as they are delusional to their own readership, they seem to be delusional on everything else. The story says to ignore the polls because the markets indicate the economics that Obama is using is working. On Friday, the DOW did reach 11k again and the S&P 500 is up 74% since the recession began. But, what are the markets really a factor of?

When we speak of markets, there are the stock/securities markets (DOWJIA, S&P 500, etc.) There are also markets in the retail world and in the corporate world. The "market" is an invisible entity that houses the transactions of business. Through these transactions, the markets thrive or shrivel. When it comes to the securities markets, it is a little different. The securities markets make their transactions, not based solely on the transaction of goods and services, but based on speculations. When disastrous things happen in society, the securities markets do what? They tank! When the tide of these events is stemmed, what do the securities markets do? Just like the spouse that was cheated on, they try to slowly regain trust in the other. The securities markets slowly try to regain trust in the economy. So, they "readjust" themselves and basically march forward with the notion of "this is the way it is now, let's just hold out and see what happens." So, the market moves on down the road, moving up and down in value.

So, the DOW just hit 11k again. All is well, right? Last week, on April 6th, the jobless claim came out and it was a big surprise to the economists. It rose by 18,000! It was no surprise to the rest of us who actually have a clue. Unemployment still at 10% (arguably higher since after so much time, this number doesn't include people who are unemployed). Obama claims he will have laser-like focus on jobs and the economy. The only laser he is using is a destructive one. Not only this, the Federal Government is spending money like there's no tomorrow and charging it to future generations. There was a story from the Tax Policy Center that reports the amount of people not paying any Federal Income Tax is now at 47%. So, just about half of Americans pay no income tax - thanks to all of the deductions, credits, etc. Now, I'm all in favor of getting my money back from the government and I'll take it when I can get it. But, 47% pay no federal income tax. Why? Well, I have a theory:

Why do we find crime to be higher in poorer neighborhoods? I know there are all kinds of studies on this, but the main reason is desperation. When you've lost all hope but still have the need to survive, what do you do? Do you regard the law? No. Do you regard others? No. You do what you need to do to survive, regardless of the lives of others; regardless of this country. People who are told every day by their government that their poverty is a direct result of mean, capitalistic rich people and that their only hope is government, begin to actually believe it. For the most part, who is easier to control, form a Government standpoint? Those that have the least amount of money. Therefore, to make their poverty more comfortable, they offer tax credits, etc. so that they do no have to pay Federal income tax. This isn't done out of benevolence, but of sinicism.

Now, don't walk away from this saying that I'm against tax breaks because I'm not. However, to get a tax break you have to pay taxes! If someone is going to loss weight, they have to have that weight to begin with - you can't lose weight you don't have and you can get a tax break on that which you don't pay.

So, unemployment is still high; almost half of America is subliminally being encouraged to remain poor and we have a Government who takes no regard for the people - whom they work for! That's why they passed Health Care. That's why Obama rolled-back the Regan Revolution by signing an Arms reduction, not with Russia, but with ourselves. We will reduce our Arms, but you think Russia will? But, in typical liberal fashion, we don't care about the facts, we just want Russia to like us again :)

The economy is improving? Hardly.

Research for this post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322393/ns/business-businessweekcom/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/04/new_jobless_claims_make_surpri.html

Pre-Existing Conditions Important For Insurance

2010-03-18T21:33:00.001-04:00

What is the definition of insurance? Insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to another. Usually, one party is willing to accept the risk of the other party by virtue of a premium. For example, if the insured is wanting to insure his boat from natural disaster, the insurer will offer such protection (from property/monetary loss) at a rate deemed comfortable by the insurer. A boat in the middle of New York is being insured and a boat on the Florida coast is being insured. Which boat insurance policy is more expensive in our example? Well, the boat that brings the most risk to the insurer will be the boat that maintains the most expensive policy. So, the insurer is willing to accept both risks - but, if he is charging $300/annually (for a 50k damage policy) for the boat in New York and $300/annually (same 50k policy) for the boat in Florida, where is the insurer most likely to have to pay a claim?--Obviously in Florida. Now, if insurer charged the same $300/annually for both New York and Florida, the insurer will take a very large hit once the next hurricane blows through Florida. To which the Left would shout with joy that the insurance company is taking a hit - remember wise-guy, if they take a hit, all of the other policies they insure will take a hit as well.

Anyway, so, for our example, the insurer must charge more for the same 50k policy in Florida than he would in New York. Why? Because the risk being transferred is greater in Florida than in New York. Now, let's turn our attention to health.

(Let's assume health care operates as a lump sum benefit based on diagnoses.) The policy sought after is the same 50k policy, but it is for health and not for boats. Person A has Type II Diabetes. Person B has Type I Diabetes, had a stroke 3 years ago and is about to go on dialysis. Which person brings more known risk to the table?--Person B, obviously. So, again, the insurer will charge more for higher risk. Is this wrong? No, absolutely not! The only way an insurance company is able to pay its claims is by taking the premiums and investing them to make money. So, if an insurance company is going to consider a high risk individual (a person they will more likely pay a claim on sooner) they need to be able to cover that loss.

Now, are there people with so great a risk that insurance companies are not comfortable with covering them? Sure. Is that wrong? No! It is a private company and it can set its own standards of risk tolerance. So, what does Obama's plan do to this scenario?

Obama wants to eliminate pre-existing conditions. By doing this, the risk transfer is 100% on the insurance provider. Therefore, it is no more insurance, but simply reimbursement coverage. Now, if an insurance company is required to pay claims for any and every thing, what do you think will happen to premiums? Again, the company is trying to protect against loss. Well, we would have our Florida example to the 10th power. Insurance companies would raise premiums; possibly hundreds or even thousands of percents higher. By the way, who pays these premiums? We buy the policies, so we do! If your premium jumps 1000%, what would you do? Well, you'd still keep your cable, but you'd get rid of the insurance. Taste it - because you know its true. So, insurance policies are being dropped at a rapid pace. With no client's paying premiums, the insurance companies do not make money. Businesses that don't make money, fail. Obama's plan is to destroy the insurance industry thereby leaving no other alternative but to rely on the sugar mama of Government. However, the Government cannot pay for this without help from your taxes. So, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, you will pay higher taxes to cover this massive intrustion into capitalism.

Call your Congressman and demand a "no" vote on healthcare!

Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

More Government Waste

2010-03-16T09:44:00.000-04:00

There were a bunch of stories on the front page of CNN.com this morning so I felt I would take a minute and give a quick comment about a couple.

Story 1: FCC To Upgrade Citizen's Internet http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/16/life.without.broadband/index.html?hpt=C1

The FCC is planning to get 9 out of every 10 Americans on a broadband connection. The FCC says that 2/3 of the American people do not have high-speed internet in their homes. They base this one a sample population of 5,005 people. There are 300,000,000 people in the United States (as of 2000 Census). Assuming the family of 4 is the norm, that would leave 75,000,000 households in the US. (I know, these are crude numbers.) So, how can 5,005 represent 50 million people (2/3 of 75k)? Furthermore, is it the government's job to spend our tax dollars to give someone else faster internet? This is internet welfare! However, there is an underlying reason for this. The faster the connection, the quicker the Government can get to your personal information. Remember the Cash for Clunkers deal?! The website stated that by proceeding through it, your computer became property of the Federal Government.

Story 2: Toyota Disputing Runaway Car

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/03/15/cb.rowlands.toyota.prius.cnn?hpt=C2

I've felt this since the beginning. This Toyota accusation of hybrid malfunctions doesn't seem to add up. Remember when SUVs were the evil killers on the earth? Remember news stories that portrayed SUVs as actually thinking beings, capable of search and destroy?! (Note this story http://wcbstv.com/local/fatal.van.accident.2.1543802.html) Now, the wonderful hybrid car, the one that the Government needs to have towards a "cleaner earth" is now the subject of much scrutiny, much like the SUV. However, cars do not accelerate on their own. It requires input from the driver - either directly on the gas pedal or by pressing the increase speed button on the cruise control. This whole circus is just another way that irresponsible people are trying to get something for nothing. However, since it costs half of your estate to buy one of these things, perhaps the tree huggers have programmed these cars to fight back against the evil rich people. Just goes to prove that Capitalism and Environmentalism do not mix. The only logical conclusion? Give Environmentalism a lethal injection and get it out of our way for good!

Reform, A Brief Thought

2010-03-15T22:21:00.000-04:00

Obama is screaming for health care reform and reform of the health care industry. Chris Dodd, one who paved the way for our financial crisis, is now demanding that we reform Wall Street. Allow me to translate this for you. Being tri-lingual (English, German, and Liberal) I'm able to translate these campaign slogans into every day English. "Health care reform" = Government runs health care. "Wall Street reform" = Government runs Wall Street. So, these evil, big capitalistic companies that give evil large bonuses to their CEOs will now be ran by benevolent big Government; who votes on their own pay raises and spends your money, not because you bought a good or service from them, but because they stole it through your taxes. Yes, reform is what we need! (maniacally giggling like Gargamel).

Here's a thought. In this era of reform, how about we reform the real gluttonous beast called Government? Government wouldn't be so confusing nor expensive if we just let the Constitution determine what it does. Amendment 10 to the US Constitution says that powers not granted within the Constitution to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. Period. I'm sure I'll miss a few (since there are so many), but let's list some of this Federal "cellulitis".

1. Department of Education (63.7 Billion (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=ln)

2. Department of Agriculture (133 pages of PMS bloating http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/agr.pdf)

3. Department of Transportation (73.25 Billion http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm)

4. Department of Homeland Security (55.1 Billion http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1241715252729.shtm)

You can read the full list of Federal Departments and Agencies here: http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I'm not saying that everything on this list needs to go (obviously Military and Defense items, etc. need to stay).

Where is the outrage over the Government's out-of-control lifestyle? Where is the demand for reform? Well, I believe come November, we will see some immediate reform in the seats of Congress. But, just because they have an R by their name doesn't mean anything (thank you Newt Gingrich). We must hold them to Conservative principles of limited government and maximizing of personal freedoms and liberties. Obama wants the Iron Curtain to rule over this country. Let's be sure to stop that come November!

Health Care At Any Cost

2010-03-09T08:25:00.001-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html

This is unbelievable. Read the article for a quick temper boost.

Obama was upset because private health insurers have recently raised their rates. Guess what, Obama - it's none of your concern; they are PRIVATE health insurers. If people don't want to pay their rates, then they go down the street to the next guy. But, perhaps this is just a strategic move by the health insurers knowing that once pre-existing conditions are gone, they will have to insure any and all, and thereby, requiring to raise rates to be able to pay for all of it. Therefore, to recoup this cost, they must raise rates...which is what I've been saying all along (http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/08/fundamental-problem-with-national.html, http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2008/11/be-it-resolved.html). Obama thinks his policies will have no ramifications on private business. But, we clearly see it is beginning to happen.

So, Obama opens his speech with another sob-story. I doubt the validity of this and question how much she was paid to lie to the crowd. But, this woman is purportedly a diabetic and was just informed by the evil health insurance company she has that her rates would "more than double." First of all, the trade off of what she is paying verses what the insurance is paying is still working in her favor. Secondly, what are the details of such a rate increase? Are there specifications in her policy that would allow for rate increases if certain criteria are met? Is this another case of someone not reading their policy before agreeing to it?! Lastly, Obama is using typical Liberal tactics by avoiding objective, analytical facts and going straight for the "emotional jugular."

Obama goes on to say (quoted from the article) "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government," Obama said. "The insurance companies continue to ration health care. ... That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable"

What?! The price of health care is a punishing cost to the government? And he wants the government to run it?! Who funds the government anyway? WE DO with our taxes! So, if health care is a punishing cost to the government, then Obama will have to RAISE TAXES to ease the pain of this so-called punishment. Don't be fooled. Obama is "concerned" about the rising cost of health care, but he isn't concerned about the rising taxes since he took office; he isn't concerned about the rising deficit. What makes you think he is all concerned about the costs of health care?

Furthermore, "The insurance companies continue to ration health care." Two things about this: is it possible for a company to "ration" its services because they only have a certain amount of money? But, Obama here is committing fraud to the American people. He is giving the idea that companies are turning away people left and right and that's not what America is about. Obama - you run Medicare. You run Medicaid. You run Social Security. How many are turned down for Medicare and Medicaid benefits?! How many that file for Social Security disability are turned down - and they actually have a viable disability?! Notice how Obama never tries to explain how government-run health care will be different than these three behemoths of waste.

I'll end with this: Obama responds to GOP criticisms that this plan (nearly $1 trillion) doesn't have any breaks on spending. Obama's response: "You had 10 years. What were you doing?" Ok, 57-states, 1994 to 2006 isn't 10 years, it's 12. What were they doing?! They were passing tax-cuts for Americans - that's right, giving us our money back. They were fighting off the destruction of the Clinton Administration. They had 9/11 to deal with. They passed Welfare Reform that limits the amount of time a citizen can be on the program. So, Obama, like the little brat in the store who doesn't get candy, stands up and says, "Fine. Since you didn't take any initiative to do this, I will. Screw you, America! I'm going to cost your children and grandchildren trillions of dollars because the GOP did nothing for health care. Yeah, how do you like me now? What choice do you think I had?"

In an unrelated story, Scoliosis claims have risen in the US due to added weight and pressure of Hope and Change.

So-Called Science Is At It Again

2010-03-06T20:32:00.002-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35712419/?GT1=43001

This is a very interesting article about laying to rest any debate over the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs. A group of scientists have closed the case and the verdict is in: dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago.

Combining all available data from different science disciplines led us to conclude that a large asteroid impact 65 million years ago in modern day Mexico was the major cause of the mass extinctions.

Are we happy? Well, I'm not. First, notice the language of the above quote from the article. "Combining all available data"... In other words, there is still data that is not available. The data that is available is a known known. The data that is unavailable is an unknown unknown. Therefore, to draw an emphatic conclusion is a blatant disregard to any existing data that may have not been uncovered yet.

Not only this, as I addressed in my blog post http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-couldnt-be-wrong.html , what observations/testing was done millions of years ago to give us documented evidence that we can compare to? To take a bone and tell me it is 65 million years old, based on faulty radiometric dating methods, isn't very scientific.

So, what about these dating methods? Here's a little bit that "science" doesn't want you to know. There are 3 major assumptions that are being made in order for these dating methods to seem valid. Every rock has elements within the rock. Based on the elements present determines which dating method is used. (Potassium-Argon, Uranium Lead, etc.). The dating method basically makes a mathematical calculation based on the amount of each element in the rock. Now, before we go on, it would behoove us to not assume any level of intelligence and explain a few things. This will get a little technical, but hopefully it is understandable. Thank you college Chemistry for the following explanations.

Elements contain Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. For example, if you look at Carbon on the Periodic Table, it is Atomic Number 6. Atomic Numbers designate how many Protons are in the nucleus of the atom. It would be easy if Carbon was just Carbon, but there are actually varying occurrences of Carbon. For lack of a better term, under "normal" circumstances, an element's number of Protons is equal to the number of its Neutrons. The number of Protons never changes otherwise the element would change. However, if an element gains Neutrons, it's Atomic Mass can change. The Atomic Mass number or nucleon number is the total number of Protons and Neutrons. So, the Atomic Number never changes (# of Protons) but the Atomic Mass (# of Protons + Neutrons) can. When an element gains Neutrons, the element is no longer known by its title, but rather it's Isotope title and number. An Isotope is a base element that has gained more neutrons. For example, Carbon may be Carbon-12 (C-12), Carbon-13 (C-13), or Carbon-14 (C-14). (Simply subtract the Atomic Number from the Isotope number to find the number of Neutrons).

Now, there are Isotopes that are stable (C-12, C-13); and there are Isotopes that are unstable (radioactive) (C-14). When an Isotope is radioactive, it desperately wants to become stable (non-radioactive). However, it just can't shed Neutrons by jumping on the treadmill. Isotopes must undergo a process known as Radioactive Decay. Through this decay, the element works its way down to stable element. However, sometimes, the Radioactive Decay not only sheds Neutrons, but also sheds Protons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay for further insight into Radioactive Decay, including types of radiation that occurs). Uranium-238 (U-238), through this decay process, transforming into many other elements and eventually ends up as Lead-206 (Pb-206), which is finally a stable element. Lead's Atomic Number is 82, so PB-206 contains 82 Protons and 124 Neutrons. Uranimum, in this case, is known as the Parent Element and all those it decays into are known as Daughter Elements. The time it takes for half identical Parent radioisotopes to decay into their Daughter Elements is known as a Half-Life.

Many of these Half-Lives are said to be hundreds of millions of years--which brings us to our first major assumption. Since no one has every lived for hundreds of millions of years to test and observe such decay, it is impossible to say, with any level of certainty, that the actual Half Life is xxx million years. So, assumption #1 is that they know the time of these Half Lives.

Assumption #2 is that they know the original ratio of Parent to Daughter elements. For radiometric dating to work, you have to know where you started from to where you are now and then measure that span by factoring in "known" Half Lives and thereby deriving an age. If you don't know where you started from, then you must assume. Therefore, the radiometric dating methods do not being with viable, provable observation.

Assumption #3 is that they know, for certain, that radio active decay rates have remained constant. Again, without being around to observe such decay rates, we can only assume they have remained constant.

Unless these assumptions are made, radiometric dating is nothing more than faulty at best. If we make these assumptions, then we are leaving the world of the testable and the observable and therefore, we leave the world of science.

With this, I can't accept the notion that the death of the dinosaurs was caused by something we can't prove.

Reagan on the 50?

2010-03-04T22:01:00.002-05:00

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.) Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03) Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us. As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?! Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's. Oh really?! Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge. Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won. So, the Civil War ends and what are the results? We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th). The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military. See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half. We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists. The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves. And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration. We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute. The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money. In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!

2010-03-04T21:24:00.001-05:00

Obama Urges Taunting Of Talk Radio On Health Care

2010-02-28T23:07:00.004-05:00

The Obama Reich can't get enough of health care. After telling the Republicans at the summit meeting that if the American people don't want it, we'll just push it through anyway, Obama is now deploying a new tactic. He is afraid that the message isn't getting heard because of talk radio. (When, it is quite the opposite: the message is being heard.) So, Obama has created a webpage that encourages health care supporters to call these talk radio shows and be armed with talking points. These talking points are designed to hit the talk radio audience in a spot they are perceived as not having - their emotions. Let's take a brief minute and examine these talking points. (Go to http://radio.barackobama.com/ for the list)

1. For most Americans, their health care plan covers too little and costs too much. Far too many people delay or even skip the care they need because they simply can’t afford it.

Covers too little? Costs too much? According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/ 60% of Americans get their health insurance through work. These people are not buying their coverage. Their company is buying the coverage and the employees are able to take advantage of the coverage through small deductions from their pay checks. So, this "most Americans" is whom?!

Allow me to translate "covers too little" - if you don't get EVERY service, visit, test, etc. covered, then you don't have the right coverage. Allow me to translate "costs too much" - if you have to pay for your health care, then it costs too much. These Democrats are once again just trying to get the federal government into the driver's seat of the American society.

The notion of "too many people skip care" because they "can't afford it" only seems to exist in these talking points/tv ads. Many ILLEGAL immigrants are getting the health care they need, free of charge. Well, not free of charge, it came out of my pay check!

2. The plan the President laid out includes the largest health care tax cut for middle class families in history and makes coverage more affordable for tens of millions of families and small business owners and expands coverage to over 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Federalizing 1/6 of our economy is not a tax cut for the middle class! Health care costs are high because we are in desperate need of TORT reform. Frivolous lawsuits against doctors cause doctors to have more mal-practice insurance. To pay these premiums, they need to have more income. Therefore, health care costs MUST increase. If you want health care to be more affordable - bring us TORT reform! Nationalizing health care only deals with the symptom (and very poorly at that).

Secondly, it is said that over 31 million Americans who are uninsured would now have coverage expanded to them. This is prime territory to cause a Lib to jump ship and go to another point. Here is the poignant question: What is the reason for being uninsured? Is it because when the poll was taken, many were in between insurance plans and have since gotten insurance? Is it because those who used to have work coverage lost their benefits due to tax increases and increased federal regulations on businesses?! According to http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/38/12/1.2.full about half of this number are just in and out of coverage - shopping for lower rates, changing jobs, etc. So, that takes our number to 15 million uninsured. What is interesting is that unemployment has been at 10%. 10% unemployment equals out to be about 15 million people. (http://cbs11tv.com/national/unemployment.10.percent.2.1299266.html) So, it would seem to reason that if we fix unemployment, we fix the number without insurance. Companies, however, are afraid to hire because any profits gained are in the cross-hairs of Obama. What's the point of making profit just to have it taken away?! Exactly, there is no point - therefore, there is no point in hiring any new workers.

3. This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

This is the most asinine group of words I've ever read. Pre-existing conditions exists as a way to KEEP COSTS LOW! I sell life insurance. We can offer term plans for pennies on the dollar per thousand because of requiring great health. If an insurance company is forced to take on ALL risks, premiums will go UP!! How else is the insurance company going to pay for the claims that will be hobbling in day after day?! Secondly, this puts the power in the consumer's hand?? The power is already there! If you don't like the health coverage you have, then go down the street and buy from someone else! You decide where your dollar is spent, not the insurance companies. And, thirdly, this will reduce our national deficit?! How does government spending reduce our deficit? Obama has already taken our deficit, sorry libs, well past your coveted Bush deficit. You honestly think Obama is worried about the national deficit?!

4. Reform couldn’t be more urgent – just this month consumers in California were told their premiums could go up as much as 39 percent.

Then go buy from someone else! What about tax rates that just went up because you let the Bush tax cuts expire? Don't patronize us about reform because rates are increasing. IF WE HAD MORE OF OUR MONEY, WE'D HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE!

5. Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action

Americans do NOT want this bill! Even Obama at the health care summit said he would just ram it through if he didn't get the cooperation he wanted. Too many in Washington are out of touch with their voting base and come November, they will be out of touch with Congress.

Don't back down from these guys! Hold their feet to the fire!

Black History Month Part 6: The Good Part

2010-02-26T00:08:00.001-05:00

I’d like to close out Black History Month on a positive note - in a few short days, it will be over! Come Monday, we will get back to normal history and end a month of celebrating segregated information and racism. The best part of Black History Month is March 1st.

We are Americans. Let’s truly live Dr. King’s dream where the content of our character stands center stage rather than what color our skin is. By the way, that is what a Conservative sees. We see the character of a person. Liberals are focused on the “minority groups” – groups they’ve created.

Now, Black by popular demand, here are a few quotes from Dr. Walter E. Williams

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are in fact equal. Our attempt to make people equal in fact by rigging law to produce equal results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another.

Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.

No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong

If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help

President Obama could rise several notches in my book if he refused the Nobel Peace Prize, with a nice letter to the Nobel Committee that might read: Since you did not see fit to award Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president who did the most for world peace in this century, by peaceably shutting down the Soviet Union, I respectfully decline your offer

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs

Jobs Bill Misses The Mark

2010-02-23T09:22:00.008-05:00

Yesterday, the Senate was giddy about passing a "jobs creation bill." The media has been proclaiming how even Republicans are jumping on board with this bill. They are making a big deal out of Scott Brown, R-MA, voting yes since he just got to Congress. But, let's slow down. What is this bill about?

This bill is supposed to be a $15 Billion job creation package. First, let's remind our good friends in Washington that the only jobs Congress can create are Government jobs. Congress cannot create jobs in the private sector. Their policies can hinder or encourage job growth in the private sector, but they are not the ones responsible for any new jobs. Now, Congress wants the credit for jobs creation because then Obama can take credit for it as well.

One of the focal points of this bill is that it frees any company that hires the unemployed from paying their 6.2% social security tax for 2010. If the company retains the employee for at least a year, they get a $1,000 tax break.

So, with less money going into Social Security, Congress will have to go after it somewhere else. And, that somewhere else will be from those who are already employed. Secondly, a $1,000 tax break?! Is that per new hire? And, by the way, companies don't pay taxes anyway - we pay them through their prices they set for their goods and/or services. So, giving a company a "tax break" would actually be giving us a tax break. But, a $1,000 tax break isn't a tax break. That's like letting the couch cushions fund your kid's allowance. If you want to encourage more corporate participation in the hiring game, then do something big. How about eliminate a lot of the taxes and regulations that are imposed upon them and that stifle their ability to be able to afford to hire additional help. Why not suspend and even eliminate the federal income tax - give people more of their money to spend in the economy. This is the real issue, folks. Giving companies "tax breaks" is only a symptom of the problem.

Jobs are created based on two simple things: Supply and Demand. If demand is higher than supply, then companies need to hire more workers to get supply back even with demand. If we had more of our own money to spend, demand would start to increase, companies would begin to hire more to meet the demand with more supply and two things ultimately happen: the economy is back on its feet and unemployment falls. Companies do not just arbitrarily decrease their work force. This bill suggests they do by virtue of it focusing on the corporations and their hiring practices. Jobs exist for one reason - a company needs to make money and they need workers to make supply to meet demand. If the demand isn't there, then the need for employees decreases. Companies are not going to keep an employee on the books at 20k/year or 30k/year just to get a 1k tax break. That's like the common practice of hanging on to a mortgage because of the tax write off. So, you send 10k to the bank in interest so you don't have to send 3k to the IRS in taxes?! (By the way, if your CPA suggests that you do that, then fire their sorry carcass and get one that can actually do math.) Frankly, this bill is insulting to private business.

The Government that has given us this economy and this deficit are now the ones who are going to fix it?! The Government that hates the private sector now are seen as their savior? Don't fall for it - these people want one thing only and that is full government control over business industry - and you take that to the bank...well, don't take it to the bank because they will be taxed more for the TARP money they've already paid back.

Middle Class Tax Cuts? You Lie!

2010-02-20T23:56:00.007-05:00

I think this needs to be revisited. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Obama's budget was full of back-door tax INCREASES for the middle class. The White House promptly grabbed Reuters by the crotch and demanded they pull the story. (So much for freedom of the Press). Reuters, with a backbone the consistancy of jello, pulled the story. But, what do you expect from the State-run media?! So, the story is only found on blogs at this point. (i.e http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/02/reuters-does-story-on-obamas-backdoor-tax-increases-then-withdraws-it/). The portion I want to focus on is the actual tax increases for the middle class. Now, on Feb. 11th, 2010, Obama said he was going to be "agnostic" on tax increases. He was going to establish a "bi-partisan" group to investigate debt reduction proposals. This "bi-partisan" group is 60% Democrat and they are going to demand tax increases to fix the debt problem. Obama is going to play dumb and say "Well, uh, we've made progress, and un, the commission has worked hard, uh, and, they've determined, that uh, we need to increase taxes to pay for this debt." THE VERY DEBT YOU'VE CREATED! This way, he can say he didn't flipflop on his no taxes for the middle class promise. Come on, folks - his promises are about as pointless as Russian Roulet with a semi-automatic pistol. So, without further delay, here, again, is some insight to what will be coming down the pike to us middle class folk. Here is the story that wasn't protected under freedom of the press.

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Reuter's pulled this story and promised a new story to run in its place a week later. No such story ever was ran.

Black History Month Part 5: The "Party of Minorities"

2010-02-18T10:20:00.004-05:00

It is often proclaimed that Democrats favor minorities and Republicans are racists. However, is this true history or just another lie by the Left to try to steal more votes? History once again will shed light on this ignorant position. What preceeds below was taken from http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html so, all the research credit belongs to them. This is great information. Feel free to research it for yourself.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.

Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in "promoting traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd's Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.

In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist diatribe "It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union" and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm" of West Virginia.

Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting "(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds" (Source).

Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.

In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as their party's central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the "Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.

Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat" is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat" has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!

Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are "neanderthals," as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur "cracker" to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article's text, but he even included it in the piece's title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines' article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn't seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.

The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's heroes and leaders:

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment - Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group - Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television - Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs - Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City - Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups - Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters - Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent. - Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast - Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis.

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of "bigotry" at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.

Also check out these references:
http://nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401
http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/democratic-racism/2008/02/25/id/323000

You'll enjoy this one. Note at the end the poor attempt to recover from this statement.

Local Misery Indices Are Out: No Suprises Here!

2010-02-18T08:39:00.006-05:00

Top 20 Miserable Cities in Americahttp://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/americas-most-miserable-cities-business-beltway-miserable-cities.html

Check it out for yourselfhttp://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

And, what do you know! The top 20 most miserable cities in America reside in Democrat controlled counties. The Misery Index was introduced by Economist, Robert Barro in the 1970s. It basically measures unemployment rates and inflation rates. It can be measured on a national level or local level. Forbes has put together the latest for us. I’m sure glad the democrats are for the little guy. These places sure could use them right now!

1. Cleveland, Ohio – Cuyahoga Co, Democrat
2. Stockton, CA – San Joaquin Co, Democrat
3. Memphis, TN – Shelby Co, Democrat
4. Detroit, MI – Wayne Co, Democrat
5. Flint, MI – Genesee Co, Democrat
6. Miami, FL – Miami-Dade Co, Democrat
7. St. Louis, MO – St. Louis City Co, Democrat
8. Buffalo, NY – Erie Co, Democrat
9. Canton, OH – Stark Co, Democrat
10. Chicago, IL – Cook Co, Democrat
11. Modesto, CA – Stanislaus Co, Democrat
12. Akron, Ohio – Summit Co, Democrat
13. Kansas City, Mo – Jackson Co, Democrat
14. Rockford, IL – Winnebago Co, Democrat
15. Toledo, Ohio – Lucas Co, Democrat
16. New York City, NY – Brooklyn, Democrat
17. Sacramento, CA – Sacramento Co, Democrat
18. Youngstown, Ohio – Mahoning Co, Democrat
19. Gary, IN (former murder capital of the world) – Lake Co, Democrat
20. Philadelphia, PA – Philadelphia Co, Democrat

Israel: The Unsettled Battleground

2010-02-18T00:46:00.005-05:00

This was posted on the Jewish Internet Defense Force (a blog I follow).

http://www.thejidf.org/2010/02/more-jew-hatred-on-facebook-80000.html

I think it is natural for people to try to make light of terrible events in our history. Yes, there are some that make light of it because they have no compassionate or loving bone in their body, but I think the majority that do such things do so because it is better than the alternative - just dwelling on the negative. That being said, I also think there is a fine line between levity and callousness. If you go to this page on facebook, you'll see even Jews cashing in on this opportunity-which goes to show that being a Jew isn't all inclusive anymore. So, this got me thinking. What kind of Jew would I be if I were Jewish?

There are basically 3 different types of Jews: Liberal, National, and Zionistic. Liberal Jews, much like Liberal Americans, couldn't care less what happens to their country. That's why Liberal Jews are in favor of turning over their land to the Palestinians and why Liberal Americans are in favor of turning our country over to the EU or the UN. National Jews believe that the land of Israel belongs to them because it is a land that is historically theirs. Many of these may ascribe to the first Aliyah from 1882 to 1903. This was the act of Jews fleeing anti-Semitic cultures of Europe and Muslim (go figure) controlled countries and settling back in Israel.

Ever wonder why Jews and Muslims are always fighting each other? Well, this is where the Zionist's have an answer. I wrote this a few years ago and published it on my MySpace blog at the time. But, once I realized that MySpace was nothing more than an online Hot Topic Store and once I quickly realized I wasn't a 14 year old girl, I dropped MySpace. However, here is the post:

In 2007, the tension bubble burst in the Middle East. Israel, a sovereign nation, was taunted by Hezbollah (Lebanese terrorist group) when they captured two Israeli soldiers. Well, Israel had enough and decided to get nasty with them. However, Hezbollah's cheerleaders (US Democrats and the UN) have taken the opportunity to either blame Israel for Hezbollah's actions or to tell Israel, basically, they have no right to defend themselves. The Jews are being told by countries that felt Hitler's wrath, not to defend themselves. In light of all of this, whose side should we be on? Should we, collectively as a nation and as individuals, support Israel; or should we support Hezbollah and their Palestinian liberation? Perhaps a little history lesson will help clear the air on why this fighting is happening and who we should support.

Jews and Arabs have the same ancestry. Both groups go all the way back to Abraham of the book of Genesis in the Bible. In Genesis chapter 12, God is going to institute a Covenant with Abraham called the Abrahamic Covenant. In chapter 12, verses 1-3, God says, "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee..." God promised Abraham that out of him would be a great nation. Furthermore, in chapter 13, God told Abraham this, "....Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth..." In Genesis 15, God promises children to Abraham because up to that point, Abraham was childless. God says that Abraham's seed would now be as the stars of heaven. To keep this promise, God caused a great sleep to fall upon Abraham and while he was sleeping, God conditioned the covenant upon himself. To make a covenant in those days, two people would cut animals in half, lay them down to make a pathway. Then both would walk the path while interlocking arms. It was a blood contract and the split animals represented that if one of the parties failed to keep his end of the deal, he'd be split in half like the animals. But God, in an act of sheer grace towards Abraham, walks down the path himself -- there's nothing Abraham can do to hinder this covenant, because God made it.

So, we see a land, and a people promised to Abraham. Now, Abraham was already in possession of the land, but it was time for the children. Abraham had a wife named Sara. Sara had an Egyptian maidservant named Ha'-gar. Abraham had a child with Ha'-gar. The child's name was Ish'-ma-el and therefore because of his mother, was not full Jew. God tells Ha'-gar that Ish'-ma-el "will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." (Genesis 16:12) God gives a prophetical look at Ish'-ma-el. He (his descendents) will be a wild man. He (his descendents) will be at war, continually. He (his descendents) will live all over the earth. 5,000 years later, and we see that exact thing happening. When God makes a promise, you can expect it to happen. Now, when we get to Genesis 17, Abraham is repentant of his actions (being unfaithful to Sara, his wife) and prayed to God on behalf of Ish'-ma-el. God heard his prayers and promised to make Ish'-ma-el a great nation, but that the Covenant, that which was made between God and Abraham, would pass through Isaac. Isaac was the first real son of Abraham, born of Sara. Isaac was full Jew. Isaac was the propagator of the Jewish people, while Ish'-ma-el was the propagator of the Arabic people.

Therefore, since the Covenant (of a LAND and to be a GREAT NATION) was given through Isaac, a Jew, and not through Ish'-ma-el, an Arab, the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. You might ask, where did the term "Israel" come from? Well, Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob, as his name means, was a trickster. He, with collaboration of his mother, tricked Isaac into giving him the family blessing (the passing of the Covenant) that was intended to go to Esau. Jacob, later in life, actually wrestled with the Lord and at that point, God changed his name to Israel. But before his name was changed, God promised this to Jacob (Israel) in Genesis 28:13-14, "And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed: And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north, and to the south: and I thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

The choice is clear. Israel belongs to the Jewish people. This whole conflict is just a long history of family feud. The descendents of one brother are fighting the descendents of another, but only one brother, Jacob/Israel, will be victorious. But, you don't have to take my word for it. Let God be true and every man a liar...

Black History Month Part 4: The Conservatives!

2010-02-14T23:41:00.005-05:00

Black History month likes to promote a very tunnel visioned view of black people. They celebrate the struggles of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Nine, etc. and generally anyone who escribes to liberal thought (i.e. Maya Angelou, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). However, if Black History month is to be fair, let's consider a few in society that are definately worth mentioning.

Our journey begins with the Dean of Economics at George Mason University. Since 1990, Walter E. Williams has been a professor of economics at the university. Williams' takes a firm stand on Free Market Capitalism as well as showing the positivies of the so-called US Trade Deficit. Williams makes regular stand-in appearances on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Walter Williams is a Conservative. http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/wew/

One of Williams good friends is Thomas Sowell. Thomas is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover institute and also heavily involved in Economics. In fact, he has written a book Basic Economics that has become a standard text on the subject. Sowell is a Conservative.

Going away from the University, our next stop is the US Capitol. This is where we will find Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas. Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall as the second black jurist on the Supreme Court. Thomas prides himself as being a judge that puts the Constitution before him. Thomas is a Conservative.

Remaining in D. C. gives us the rememberance of the former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She has since returned to Standford University as a Political Science professor. She also is a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institute. A very interesting tidbit of information came to light at the 2000 Republican Naitonal Convention when she said, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did." Condoleeza Rice is a Conservative.

As Chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association, Frances Rice champions the Republican Party platform and desires to see it fulfilled in the lives and homes of the "black community." Frances Rice is a Conservative.

Here is a list of others that you can research on your own.

1. Star Parker

2. Angela McGlowan

3. Alfonso Rachel

4. Joseph C. Phillips

5. Ken Blackwell

6. Homer Plessy

These are just a few of many black conservatives in the country. Black History month just wouldn't be the same without these mentions.

Bawney Fwank, In His Own Words

2010-02-11T00:15:00.006-05:00

The Banking Queen, Bawney Fwank, is going to discuss the "need" to tax the wealthy and hold CEOs accountable. This is Socialism at its best, folks! If you tax the wealthy, the wealthy won't spend their money, you won't get hired at any new jobs, and the economy remains in the toilet. The last clip is just a prime example of Bawney Fwank's elitist attitude and his, like all liberals, inability to answer a simple question. Watch that clip first, then watch the following clip by Ronald Reagan.

Non-Conservative Thought

2010-02-10T11:34:00.003-05:00

I'm a little fired up today, boys! My nephews had rolled some big snow balls in their back yard only to witness a neighbor coming over and taking them for a snowman for his own yard. This morning, my nephews went to reclaim their snow balls only to be confronted by his wife claiming it was "community snow." Well, Mrs. Stalin, if it is community snow, then my nephews have every right to take it back! Furthermore, your husband was trespassing on private property to obtain these frozen materials.

I know Obi-wan Kenobi was referring to Mos Eisley in the movie, but one could easily say, "Communism. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Black History Month, Part 3: Cultural Diversity

2010-02-09T08:37:00.004-05:00

Just a quick thought today --

As the age of political correctness continues its path of destruction through each new generation, I’d like for us to stop and consider something – something that has become mainstream in society but yet, society doesn’t realize its harm. Often, in an attempt to avoid so-called “racial” terminology in describing a person, we are forced into using a more acceptable method. This method seemingly demands us to use ethnic heritage. Therefore, we give terms like Asian-American or African-American to “non-white Americans” so we can have an appeasing way to categorize them.

Thus, the problem festers. By thinking we are being “culturally sensitive”, we are actually destroying our culture. The American culture is simply this: it is the many people from over the years that have populated our land and have sought out their dreams under the bountiful protection of freedom. When I say that I’m an American – what factors determine such a statement? Is it my social status? Is it my racial status? No. Being an American isn’t defined by those terms. Being an American is defined by capturing freedom and holding on for dear life. Being an American is defined by letting my abilities take me as far as I want to go. Being an American is looking around at every other American and realizing that we all are equal under the Law and we all have the same right to succeed.

The problem is, we have become far too ingrained into thinking that the American culture is a culture of ethnic diversity – a living UN if you will. The very reason we have different countries in the world is because different cultures do not mix. We do not need a plurality of cultural influences invading American thought and legislation; which serves nothing more than the give favor to “minorities” and take favor from the “majority” because they’ve had it long enough. America will only survive if we stand firm on the American culture (as defined above.) The idea of an African-American cannot exist in the American culture. It is oxymoronic! You are either African or you are American! If you want to see an end to racism, then quit masquerading race under the guise of pseudo-ethnicity! –just be an American! And, I say “pseudo-ethnicity” because those that claim the title “African-American” weren’t born in African and then migrated to America. They were born in America – which makes them an American.

This way of thinking has even infested our politicians. As an American, I’m not worried about the “black vote” or the “Hispanic vote;” I’m worried about the American vote. It wasn’t diversity that gave us our country. It was uniformity. Yes Libs, it is “One Nation, under God, Indivisible!” It was the urge to press on and defeat the British that gave us the greatest nation in history. It wasn’t the urge for cultural diversity. We pressed forward as one people and only as one people will we survive.

Black History Month, Part 2: The Issue of Slavery

2010-02-06T11:21:00.005-05:00

For more entertaining drivel on Reparations, check out one of the leading groups for Reparations.

“We want our just inheritance: the trillions of dollars due us for the labor of our ancestors who worked for hundreds of years without pay. We demand the resources required removing all badges and indicia of slavery”

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in American (N’COBRA)

http://www.ncobra.com/ncobra_info.htm

This week, we'll look at the institution of slavery and some things you probably won't hear in history class. It is not my goal to glorify slavery nor to condone it, but merely to show that the slanted view we get in class doesn't stand up to objective, historical analysis.

"N'COBRA, is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the economic, cultural, intellectual, political, social, and spiritual empowerment of black people in the USA. We are the descendants, and thus the heirs, of Africans kidnapped, transported, and enslaved in the Americas"

They claim that they are descendants of kidnapped Africans. It is worth noting that many slaves were slaves before they were sold to Europeans. In fact, many families and tribes betrayed their own people to make a quick buck. African Kingdoms such as the Ashanti, Benin, Oyo, Dahomey, and Kongo played their role in selling their people. But, let's not confine ourselves to a few examples. Let's dig deeper!

In about 1000 A.D., the Songhai state emerged in western Africa. This became one of the largest Empires in West Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, this empire didn't exist forever and many of the people of this empire were enslaved by other West African empires. Hmmm...African slaves and the slave owners were African! Many of the African nations that had a large dependence on trade were also heavily involved in capturing and selling other Africans. (i.e. the Ashanti people of Ghana and the Yoruba people of Nigeria) Later, these sales would be made to the Europeans that were in a triangular trade route between the Americans, the West Indies, and Africa. Thus, many of the slaves that came to America were slaves already - now they just got to enjoy the benefits of life in America rather than what some desert offered in Africa.

Yes, I said benefits. The fact of the matter is, many slave owners in America, nay, the majority of slave owners in America only had 7 to 10 slaves. The slave owners worked in the fields with their slaves and they were treated very well by their "masters." Think about it. A slave, at the time, was a purchased possession. They weren't free. To deliberately torture and beat a slave would be economic suicide for the slave owners. Now, I'm not suggesting that that sort of thing didn't go on. However, history shows us it was far more scarce then we are led to believe.

To summarize, to claim that you are a descendant of such slaves, one is impossible to prove, and two would mean that you might be a descendant of an African who sold out their own people. So, dig in your own wallet and pay your neighbor this "deserved" reparation!

Now, here's the fun part. Without a little censorship from Dixie you'd never know about this. During the Civil War, there were black slave owners in America! Any why not? It happened in Africa, why not here as well! I found a great essay on this issue. Click the link and read more http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm. If you further want to get riled up, read this http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635175667,00.html.

I'm sorry if this doesn't flow with your PC idea of history, but it is the truth. The issue of slavery is important in our history. But, as history has shown, it isn't someone else's job to try to make me feel guilty for it.

Open Your Wallets! It's The State Of The Union!

2010-02-03T00:03:00.002-05:00

Strap yourselves in folks. We are about to ride the Liberal express and the only hopes to stop it is a barricade of truth and Conservatism. I'm going to comment on the opening of his speech, but if I were to go line by line, this would be an extremely long post. The major part of his speech was centered around his wonderful economy. I'll spend the balance of my post dealing with this issue.

Obama began his speech by boasting a Constitutional truth about the timing of the speech. He can't even get a full minute into his speech and he is already demonstrating his apparent grasp on hypocracy. Show me were the Constitution requires giving the rights it speaks of to terrorist?! Show me in the Constitution where it is ok to favor tax breaks for some in society and deny them to others - all the while touting that we are all "equal" under the law.

He goes on to say, "But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt." What?! When the Union was defeated at Bull Run it ignited a feeling of revenge and resolve to preserve the Union and defeat the Confederacy. Secondly, do you think our boys who stormed the beaches of Normandy had defeat on their mind? What kind of military leader are you?! Victory was the goal! Typical Liberal here - always gloom and doom and victory is only achieved when America lays down at the feet of the world.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." A year later the worst storm has passed? The storm has just begun! First, note all of the indirect blame on Bush (which is made clearer later in the speech). Secondly, our unemployment is now 10% and climbing. The national debt has grown well beyond where the Bush Administration had taken it. You blamed the financial sector for poor decisions - decisions Democrats forced them into by their legislation - decisions that ACORN forced them into. Now, after the banks receive your bailout money and they've paid it back, with interest, you want to nail them again with taxes. The only aggressive action that was taken was to further place our economy into the hands of the crypt keeper. This isn't that difficult, Obama - aggressive action would be a tax cut, across the board, by 50%. Aggressive action would be to eliminate Capital Gains taxes to encourage more investing. Aggressive action would be to put pressure on states that have an income tax and a sales tax to end one or the other. Aggressive action would be to admit you have no business making these decisions. The storm hasn't passed, folks, it has just begun.

He goes on to start with the economy. "Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal." Again, WHAT?! The banks "helped" to cause this crisis through federal coercion. What steps did you take to shore up the damaging policies of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?! And, you admit we all hated the bailouts...then why did you do it?! Now, you say it was "necessary" because unemployment may have "doubled" what it is today without it and we could have lost more houses than we did and had more business close than we did. So, your party's leadership in Congress forced banks to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back and now you want to come and rescue them while saying the banks are at fault. You can't create problems and then come to the rescue because all you will do is set yourself up to create a new problem, thus needing a new rescue. It is a government death spiral that just leads to more regulation of the market and less freedom for you and me.

He claims that this action has stabilized the markets and that most of the money given to banks has been returned. Hmmm...10% unemployment...hmmmm...a DJIA that is struggling to remain at 10k...hmmm...tax increases are coming to all. The markets have NOT been stabilized! Again, the banks which borrowed the money have paid it back, with interest by the way, and now you are proposing a tax on banks because their CEOs got bonuses. The financial meltdown was not because of CEOs getting bonuses! IT WAS YOUR PARTY ENGAGING IN COERCIVE ACTS, LED BY ACORN, THAT FORCED THESE BANKS INTO MAKING BAD DEALS! The only stability in the market that Obama will approve of is if it is totally under the strangling grip of the government.

He claims that this was helped by the 25 different tax cuts he proposed. Keep in mind, these "tax breaks" didn't go to the "rich." And, last time I checked, I never got a job from a poor person. But, you're right, Obama, tax cuts for the "rich" would be foolish. And, the credits these tax breaks offered were paltry in measure. One time tax credits are not tax breaks! Here's a tax break for you: pass federal legislation to ban the federal income tax and go to a national sales tax (no higher than 15%). "Oh, but you don't understand, so manyneeded government programs wouldn't have any more funding." EXACTLY! It's time to close the doors on these unconstitutional programs and departments! And we start with one of the biggest sucklers of the people's money, the Department of Education.

"Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families." As Ronald Reagan once said, "There is a non-Soviet word for that kind of talk. And extremely useful, time tested, original American word, one with deep roots in our rich agricultural and farming tradition." Turning over a couch cushion and giving me the proceeds isn't a tax cut. The very fact I am getting back a refund this year is because I OVER PAID IN TAXES. And, sorry for you unlucky 5% that didn't receive the tax cuts. What's the matter with you? Why would you want to be successful?! If you want to get angry, read this lovely piece from the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14319271). Furthermore, get what's coming for taxes in 2011 according to the President's new budget proposal - charitable deduction will be gone, mortgage interest deductions for the 250k earners and higher will be gone. However, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the top tier tax bracket will go from 35% to 38%. The 25% bracket will go to 28%. The 28% will go back to 31% and the 33% bracket will go back to 36% (all pre-Bush tax cut rates). The 10% tax bracket will BE ELIMINATED. So, those making enough to be taxed at 10% will now be taxed at 15%. THAT'S A TAX INCREASE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!

Investors will also pay more - tax on dividends will jump to 39.6% from 15%. Does the middle class own stock? YES! The capital gains will go from 15% to 20%. For 2010, the estate tax is eliminated, but just for this year. So, make sure you die this year. But, some democrats are ready to have the estate tax come back prior to 2011. Something else that is curious: The Alternative Minimum Tax was never adjusted for inflation, so now it also is affecting the middle class. And, this year, the first $2,400 of unemployment wages are taxable and you can verify this with your payroll department. All of this, and we have a 1 trillion dollar annual deficit. Yes, Obama, the economy is doing fantastic! You can't spend your way out of a bad economy. You grow your way out of a bad economy by massive tax cuts to give us more of OUR MONEY to infuse back into the economy.

http://www.nodeathtax.org/article/legislative-alert-death-tax-in-the-2009-budget-proposal

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519783

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/79161-presidents-budget-seeks-an-end-to-tax-break-for-the-middle-class

I'm telling you folks and have been for a while - Obama will drive this economy in the ground that all we have left is to rely upon the government. The evidence would show this is reality, not conspiracy.

"People are out of work. People are hurting. They need our help...and I want a job bill on my desk without delay." I'm not going to keep going line-by-line through this part because he just keeps heaping it on. GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR! The private sector will create jobs based on the money it has to do so. Massive taxes and regulations limit the private sector's ability to create jobs. Again, to fix this simply cut taxes!

The 2010 Congressional election may be one of the biggest of our time. Let's hope we can get Conservative leadership back into the Capitol and stop this train wreck of an administration from destroying America for good.

Black History Month, Part 1: Reparations

2010-02-02T00:40:00.006-05:00

Alright, don't get your laced-britches in a knot, the State of the Union analysis is still in the works. Normally I can go topic by topic and highlight a few things that were said specifically - but with this guy, it is line by line! I don't want to short-shrift the Address, so be patient!

Now, on to more pressing matters. Today begins a 28 day journey into Black History Month. This is a month where racism is cherished and even demanded. How else am I to view a month that is dedicated to a people and the defining attribute (hence the title of the month) is based on skin color?! If we had a white history month, the ACLU would throw a tantrum. Al Sharpton would be beating down the doors of the network news outlets so he could get on TV. And, Jessie Jackson would still go on speaking his racial hate with a diction that rivals Sloth from the Goonies. Therefore, to begin our celebration of Black History Month, let's tackle some issues of the so-called "African-American community."

One of most absurd ideas to come along in this age of political correctness is the idea of paying reparations to African-American families in order to compensate them for losses incurred as a result of the institution of slavery. Aside from the fact that there is not one African-American alive today that lived under the institution of slavery, the truth is, the federal Government has spent more in money and lives directly related to the African-American population, than any other ethnic group.

Though many may argue that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery, the roots of the war were indeed embedded over the slavery question. Almost every major bill introduced in Congress in the years leading up to the Civil War related in some way to slavery. The earliest law regarding this issue was found in the Constitution, ratified In 1789. The Constitution was ratified with a provision called the 3/5ths Slave Act that allowed for determination of the population of slave holding states to be modified in the following manner. For every 5 slaves that existed in the pro-slavery states, the number of the population of the state was to be increased by 3 persons during Census years. This allowed for additional Southern Representatives to be added to Congress.

This compromise was added in order to pacify the Southern states who felt that due to the Northern States having greater populations, they would in-turn dominate the Congress and could by virtue of their superior number of representatives make slavery an outlawed institution.

Further laws included the Kansas-Nebraska Act (A disastrous piece of legislation), The Missouri Compromise and other laws, all designed to placate the southern states. Yet each law that was passed only seemed to require further legislation in order to bring the Southern states satisfaction. Thus, the split in the Democratic party that occurred in 1859 along geographical lines largely as a result of the issue of slavery, allowed Lincoln to win the Presidency and set the stage for secession.

When the Civil War began, Lincoln saw the war as necessary to reunite the nation. Yet by September of 1862, Lincoln saw the aims of the war as expanding and changing. Since slavery was the issue that led to the War, the slavery issue must be ultimately addressed. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation. This changed the entire scope of the war not only to that of re-uniting the nation, but also ending the evil institution of slavery. What then were the costs incurred to end slavery?

First, there was the cost in human lives. The Union army lost 330,000 dead and an additional 285,000 were wounded. All of the casualties incurred by the United States in every other war fought in our 200+ years of history, when added together, do not equate to the cost incurred by the our nation in lives to end slavery.

In addition, it cost the federal Government approximately 2.5 million dollars a day in 1860’s dollars ($59,222,494/day in today's dollars) to prosecute the war. The interest on the foreign debt incurred during the war was still being paid into Grant’s administration in the 1870’s.

The Freedman’s Bureau was established in 1866 to provide free education and medical care to former slaves and to arbitrate disputes between whites and blacks. Approximately 16,000,000 dollars a year were spent to provide for transition of former slaves into white society (at a time when the average monthly salary for unskilled labor was $30.00 a month, this was a significant sum of money). In addition, millions of dollars were spent to provide occupation forces to enforce the 13^th , 14^th and 15^thAmendments that freed slaves and provided them the right to vote. Through the process of reconstruction, many black families were granted 40-acre plots of ground by the Federal Government to allow them to farm and become self-sufficient.

By the 1960’s, the government was spending millions to provide for desegregation and to fund Johnson’s (not so) Great Society. These expenditures were directed largely toward the African-American population.

In more recent legislature, the Government has a minority preference policy for contract bidding. Minority owned companies are granted preference when it comes to awarding government contracts especially in the construction field. Thus, the government may award contracts to less qualified companies, not based on the low bid, or the level of experience, but whether they have minority ownership and a specific percentage of minority employees. Most colleges and public employers today have affirmative action policies that provide preference toward minorities regardless of qualifications when it comes to admission to the schools and/or hiring practices.

The issue goes far beyond the costs involved. By 1865, the Union army had organized some 160 Black regiments. Several of these regiments fought with great distinction. Along with the famous 54^thMassachusetts Regiment in it’s assault on Battery Wagner on July 18,1863, several other regiments incurred huge losses in their zeal to fight for freedom. These included 292 Soldiers at Fort Pillow in which all but 62 were killed by forces under Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) on April 12, 1864 in a controversial battle later described as a massacre. The Black regiments of Grant’s 18^th Corps charged Lee’s positions at New Market Heights on September 29^th, 1864 and also suffered tremendous casualties.

The interesting thing about these regiments in that they were only paid $10.00 per-month in comparison to the $13.00 per-month paid to white regiments. The government then deducted three dollars from the pay of black regiments for clothing. As a result of the pay disparity, many black soldiers protested by refusing to accept pay at all for their services. They never asked for one dollar from the Government in return for their sacrifice and service. They only asked for the same opportunities as whites.¹

After the War, many black soldiers suffered the indignity of being denied their pensions. Only 75% of the Black veterans were granted pensions while almost 96% of White veterans were granted pensions.²

During the Indian Wars, several black regiments served on the frontier. Two of the most famous served on into the Spanish-American War. These were the 9^th and 10^th Regiments. These regiments served with distinction and not one of the veterans of these regiments asked for reparations for their families. They received the standard pensions paid to their white brethren.

In addition to pensions, many blacks were lynched during the Post Civil War years and into the Jim Crow era. None asked any more from their Government than equal opportunity to vote and function in society. They asked for the right to be educated and to earn a decent living. They had to overcome lynching, prejudice and ill treatment in their attempts to gain equal access to society.

Much of this struggle was successful. In the Post War years, with the help of the Freedmans' Bureau, several Black Colleges were established. Tuskegee University in Alabama became one of the most famous. As of today, there exists more than 100 Colleges that has their roots in Post War Black education.

Today, there has been a marked shift in the mentality of black leaders in contrast to those that existed in the Post Civil War years. Those of the Post War years took pride in the sacrifices they had made for freedom. They saw their struggle not requiring, nor demanding to be coddled by the Federal Government, nor spoiled by living off of Government handouts, but rather they struggled to prove that they could be as successful as Whites in society. Not only did they accomplish this in the extraordinary sacrifices of the Black soldiers on the battlefield, whose heroism in the face of prejudice proved that they could fight to the equal of Whites. This was also proven by the Black veteran’s organizations that successfully petitioned the Government for the right to vote. It was also proven by the willingness to protest ill treatment by such heroes as Rosa Parks, and by the senseless slaying of such Black leaders as M. L. King, all of whom would never have countenanced Government handouts, but only the chance to be viewed equally.

In the end, this sense of pride and self-accomplishment in the face of extreme odds has been largely negated by leaders demanding free money and land from the Government due to some contrived injustice to them that dates back over 130-years, when not one of them has had to live under the bonds of slavery that their forebears fought to overcome. It is as if they are spitting on the graves of those who gave their lives to instill freedom and pride in their African-American brethren.

¹ The last surviving Black Veteran of the Civil War was Joseph Clovese who died in 1951.

² Donald R. Shaffer. After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004, page 119.

State of the Union Eve

2010-01-26T22:01:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow will be Obama's first State of the Union Address. As I stated on Facebook, this address will be nothing more than a report of pending Government crime. We'll have a full report and analysis of the address. However, I'm going to put on my psychic hat and predict a speech full of more Government involvement in our lives. Just a guess, though.

Conservatism: The Choice Is Obvious

2010-01-21T00:20:00.002-05:00

Throughout life, we as humans try to align ourselves with philosophies and ideologies that will identify us or at least help to mold what we really believe. Often religion and political/social views are the key factors in self-identification. Many grow up believing what they do because of the influence of their parents. Others’ beliefs stem from personal conviction or from the fear of being unpopular. Concerning the political aspects of our lives, why is it important to establish who you are and what you believe in? Do you find it interesting that Conservatives are incorrectly branded as hate-mongers but yet still stand up for what they believe in; and yet, Liberals, when shown for who they are and what they believe in, run from the title and try to hide under the auspices of “moderate” or “progressive.” Like cockroaches in a sudden burst of light, Liberals scamper off to find some dark corner to hide in while Conservative plant the flag of liberty firmly in the ground. Why is it great to be a Conservative? Allow me to illuminate who we are and what we believe in.

There are some clear reasons why people, even such as I, choose to be a Conservative. Certain fundamental items are important to every Conservative. These items are his foundation, his boundaries, and his freedom. When building a political/social foundation upon which to stand, Conservatives want a firm foundation. Conservatism is grounded in truth and facts. Truth is absolute. Facts remain unchanged throughout time. If truth is not absolute, then it is not possible to take a defendable stand on anything. Conservatives have no problem exclaiming who they are because when you’ve got the facts on your side, and you are reasonably well-armed with them, you have nothing to fear. Situational relativism is at the heart of Liberalism. Other than the typical Socialism that is offered by Liberalism, we often have no idea where Liberalism stands on anything. And, since the media has granted immunity to the Left, they are never held accountable for their “changing” positions. Don’t be fooled, however. These position changes are nothing more than twisting the facts based on the scenario they are facing in an all out effort to secure more votes. To be a Conservative is to know that truth stands when feelings betray us.

The second fundamental item of Conservatives is that they believe in self-reliance and personal accountability. Many today believe that the influence of other people forces them to behave, or not. All the influence the world has to offer can be placed upon each and every one of us, but we ultimately make the final choice of action. We are responsible for our actions, not society. Liberalism blames someone or something else for their problems. For example, McDonald’s is responsible for obesity and hot coffee spills (because coffee is usually cold); guns are responsible for murders; video games are responsible for violence; Capitalism is responsible for greed; Big Tobacco is responsible for teen smoking…and so on. Blaming everyone and everything else for our problems, breeds irresponsibility—and let’s set the record straight. It’s irresponsibility with food causes obesity; irresponsibility with human life causes murders; irresponsibility to self-control causes violence; irresponsibility with the desire for money that causes greed; irresponsibility of the individual to engage in smoking prior to the legal age. Liberalism believes in a victimhood driven society. Conservatism believes in the individual. Self-reliance and accountability, when we subject ourselves to them, they keep us in check legally, morally, politically, and socially.

Furthermore, self-reliance allows us to take our abilities and talents and see how far we can succeed in life. The Left portrays success as an evil hoarding of money by the few in society that have it. By the way, as of the numbers available from 2007, 7 of the top 10 richest senators pledge their allegiance to the Left. (http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=001580). In reality, the policies of the Left stifle success and create more poverty than promoting people use their talents to achieve as much success as life will grant. Conservatives champion the individual and what the individual brings to the table.

The first fundamental is a firm foundation. The second fundamental is a set of boundaries. Finally, the third fundamental is the catalyst, freedom. One of the most precious things to any human is freedom. Without freedom, humans are bound and enslaved to the wishes and desires of the few elite that rule them (as we are experiencing more and more under das Obama Reich.) Liberalism constricts freedom and stifles achievement, thereby putting the power in the few elite—like Nazism. Conservatives treasure personal individual freedoms. Through this freedom, one can achieve anything as far as one’s imagination and capabilities can take them. I am a Conservative because I am free to be as successful as I want to be. I do not have to worry about being told what to do, or having my hand held through life. Conservatism ensures such freedom and that it will prevail because the iron bars and heavy chains of liberalism are no match for the soul that is set ablaze by the spark of freedom.

I’m a Conservative for the three fundamentals I’ve written about. Nobody in their right mind wishes to be babysat their entire life by Liberalism. Conservatism opens the door to humans yearning to reach their potential, while Liberalism hands you a tax bill then slams the door shut. History has proven it: Conservatism is responsible for the better life that America offers.

Another Victory For The Americans

2010-01-19T21:23:00.006-05:00

Victory in Massachusetts! Scott Brown-R will take the Senate seat recently vacated by Ted "I'm surprised I still have a liver" Kennedy. This senate seat has been in the stocks for close to 60 years now but today freedom is granted and the seat is liberated. However, don't think this puts us on easy street. The attitude from the White House is to "double down" and work harder to "get things done."

Here's what we can expect in the coming days:

1. The Senate will try to push health care through without seating Scott Brown - which is against Senate rules and the Constitution.

2. Obama will expect political suicide in exchange for ultimate loyalty in him. Many of these Democrats know they want to get elected again this November and would normally start to move toward the "center" of the political spectrum. However, Obama, like many other dictators, will demand allegiance to him, even if it means losing their seat in Congress.

3. Obama is progressively getting angrier and will, like with the banks and the insurance companies, begin to take out his anger on the private sector yet again in attempts to render them obsolete.

4. Maybe not now, but don't be surprised if more democrats jump ship and join the republican party - although, I hope the republicans will not allow them to join without platform adherence.

But, let's just enjoy the moment - tyranny is now one fewer seat strong.

Check In On His Progress

2010-01-19T10:29:00.005-05:00

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Here is a great resource that chronicles the promises of Obama and their status. Did he keep the promises? Has he failed to keep his promises? What were the promises to begin with? It is amazing how many of these promises were nothing more than Socialism wrapped in the empty suit of Obama - and the American people voted it in.

This Thursday will mark the one year anniversary of the Obama Administration. We should have a full report by the end of the week on Obama's Victories and Failures for America.