Rick's Page

LEFTISTS are Hypocrites!

2011-08-06T07:25:00.000-07:00

This Pro-America Tea Party Patriot is sick and tired of the hypocrisy on the left side of our political spectrum!

At every opportunity President Obama, and the leadership on the left attack those earning over $250,000. Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi call on Congress to raise the Tax Rate on the Rich because this is the “FAIR” thing to do! They go on to criticize the Fat Cat Tax Loop Holes and Tax Credits that got this country into our present financial situation.

Both President Obama and Vice President Biden took advantage of Fat Cat tax loopholes and tax-credits to reduce their tax burden! Obama paid $453,770 in taxes on an adjusted gross income of $1,728,096; a tax rat of 26 percent. Biden, not to be outdone paid $86,626 on his adjusted gross income of $379,178 for a tax rate of 23 percent.

So while Obama is out campaigning for higher tax rates on the evil rich his zombie groupies in Main Stream Media and his voting base give Obama a pass on his use of FAT CAT Tax Loopholes to reduce his annual tax bill.

News Flash for you Leftists; There is no law requiring the use of the Fat Cat Tax Loopholes!

Obama loves to point fingers at the “Corporate Jet Tax”, saying it is another reason we are in economic crisis!

Elimination of the corporate jet tax would put $3 billion into the treasury over a 10 year period; which wouldn’t even cover one day of Obama’s $4.1 Billion in deficit spending!

“Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus act, in February 2009. In September 2010, Obama signed H.R. 5927, the Small Business Lending Fund Act. Both pieces of legislation included tax breaks to help businesses buy their own planes.”, Fred Lucas, CNCNews.com.

The corporate jet tax is just another leftist boogie-man created to stir-up class warfare between Americans!
Raising the Nations Debt Limit:
Senator Obama said in 2006, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”.

Harry Reid too was against raising the Debt Limit in 2006; see video http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/07/19/flashback-video-harry-reid-in-06-raising-debt-limit-last-thing-we-should-do-will-weaken-country-hurt-economy/

The Left, lead by Alarmist Al Gore spreads the myth of Man-Made Global Warming like a pack of starving hyena’s gnawing on the carcass of a water buffalo. They chastise Big Bad Oil, the Auto Industry, the Coal Industry, and they call on ALL American’s to reduce their Carbon Footprints at any cost because the very existence of life on earth depends on personal sacrifice!

So while the Hollywood Elites, Al Gore and the rest of the Fat Cat leftists call upon the great citizens of this country to sacrifice to save the planet how do they lead? Al Gore purchases a $8.875M luxury getaway in Montecito, CA; a swanky zip code that has attracted big name residents like Oprah Winfrey, Steve Martin, and Kirk Douglas. Records show that the approximately 6,500 sq. foot home boasts 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a large pool house, 6 fireplaces, wood framed french doors, and carved stone detailing throughout. Al jets all over the world on a private jet! The Hollywood elite’s daily drivers are gas guzzling Hummers, Bentleys, and other large expensive exotic automobiles. Yes, many of these elites own a hybrid or electric car; but these are all for show because none of these hypocrites drive them on a daily basis.

Where is the outrage on the left? Shouldn’t your Gods and Goddesses lead by example? Demand Al Gore and the Hollywood Fakes sell their mansions and move into small energy efficient homes, demand they fly commercial, demand they drive their small fuel efficient clown cars daily and sell their gas guzzling expensive show cars.

Another war-cry we routinely hear from the left is; “The Outsourcing of Good American paying Jobs must stop”.

Funny; Obama lead the Takeover of General Motors. During the restructuring of Government Motors 18 percent of production was outsourced to Mexico and China. Not a word from the left regarding the outsourcing of HIGH PAYING UNION JOBS!

Yet; these same fools go to war against Boeing because they want to expand production in Charleston, South Carolina! Instead of following Government Motors lead of outsourcing to foreign workers Boeing does the patriotic thing and expands here in the USA!

Again the Left shows their hypocrisy; they turn a blind-eye to the outsourcing of UNION jobs to Mexico by Obama Motors, yet file lawsuit after lawsuit against Boeing when Boeing provides NON-UNION jobs to Americans.

LEFTISTS are Hypocrites! So until they lead by example this Tea Party Patriot will dismiss their rhetoric as pure BS!

Iraq; Wasn't Just Just Bush's War (Democrat Quotes)

2010-10-16T05:27:00.001-07:00

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

Associated Press
February 13, 1999

Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.

Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.

The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball"
October 13, 2003

The Guardian
February 6, 1999

Saddam link to Bin Laden

By Julian Borger

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."

Dan Rather, anchorman for CBS News, appears on The David Letterman Show shortly after 9-11. The show had been off the air for a week.

Below are transcript excerpts.
RATHER: President Bush made what I think is his strongest statement yet when he went to the Pentagon this afternoon. He was Giuliani-esque -- I don't think he would mind me saying that, no. He looked the camera straight in the eye -- unblinking -- and said "Osama Dead or Alive."

[Audience applause]
RATHER: And with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man [Bin Laden], it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries around the world. Now granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
RATHER: They hate America. They hate us. This is one thing that makes this war different. They don't want territory, they don't want what we got -- they want to kill us and destroy us. It's a heavy statement, but it's true -- they seek to accomplish our death. Death as a people, as a society, and a culture.
LETTERMAN: Why?
RATHER: Who can explain madmen, and who can explain evil.
RATHER: Saddam Hussein, if he isn't connect to this, he's connected to any other things. He's part of this 'Hate America' thing. You have to understand, Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye.
LETTERMAN: The other day, Dick Cheney -- who to me seemed like the real deal -- Dick Cheney was talking about how counter-intelligence and espionage is dirty business, and maybe now we were going to have to get down in the mud with these people, and I thought well Holy God wasn't that the way it was supposed to be?
RATHER: This [war] will be long, the casualties will be greater. Let's face it, we've already had more casualties, I mean five thousand of our fellow Americans have been killed already. When we talk about casualties, we've suffered casualties, but there will be more. When we send out sons and daughters into this kind of war, into this Twilight Zone that they're going, there will be great casualties. Now, it remains to be seen whether we have the staying power, that's basically up to you, and me, and everybody in the audience, and every American, whether we have the staying power, whether we have the will to stay with it, is the big question. But you say 'Will it do anything?' I certainly think it can, but what would we think of ourselves if we didn't try.
RATHER: This will take years, this may very well take another four, eight, ten years. The world's view of us, in many places with many people, is we just don't have the stomach to stick anything out. Well, we were great during World War II, but this is a new generation, they're all spoiled.

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
Interview on "The David Letterman Show"
September 17, 2001

Newsweek
January 11, 1999

Saddam + Bin Laden? America's two enemies are courting.

By Christopher Dickey, Gregory Vistica, and Russell Watson

In the no-fly zones of northern and southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's gunners blindly fired surface-to-air missiles at patrolling American and British warplanes. In Yemen, terrorists seized a group of British Commonwealth and American tourists, and four of the hostages died in a shootout. In Tel Aviv, the US Embassy abruptly closed down after receiving a terrorist threat. Perhaps it was just a typical week in the Middle East. But in a region where no one puts much faith in blind coincidence, last week's conjunction of Iraqi antiaircraft fire and terrorism aimed at the countries that had just bombed Iraq convinced some that a new conspiracy was afoot.

Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He says "any American who pays taxes to his government" is a legitimate target.

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17

BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.
BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
During an interview with Bill Moyers
February 28, 2003

The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden

By Vernon Loeb

Richard A. Clarke, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official, provided new information in defense of President Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for Osama bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003

Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003

John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:
BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?
GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003

We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002

"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.

Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.

"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."

The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

Robert C. Byrd
Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001

CNN
October 10, 2002

House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq

The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.

CNN
October 11, 2002

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush
State of the Union address
January 28, 2003

"We are finding people even as we speak. Yet we know that there is a very grim task ahead to do everything we can to find every person, to account for every single person who went to work. That is all they did: they went to work, on a beautiful September day in New York.

We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America's resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not.

We also stand united behind our resolve -- as this resolution so clearly states -- to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of these tragic acts. You know, New York was not an accidental choice for these madmen, these terrorists, these instruments of evil."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2001

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:

CNN
November 5, 1998

U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq

The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991 resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002

US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN) McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)

US Congressional Representatives who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

US State Department
November 4, 1998

Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings

New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.

Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.

Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.

According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.

Measure Number: H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )

Measure Title: A bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Akaka, Daniel (D-HI)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Byrd, Robert (D-WV)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Corzine, Jon (D-NJ)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM) Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Graham, Bob (D-FL)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Inouye, Daniel (D-HI)
Jeffords, Jim (I-VT)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN) McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Wellstone, Paul (D-MN)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

Measure Number: H.R. 3199 (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005)

Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Cornyn, Jon (R-TX)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
Martinez, Mel (R-FL)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Salazar, Ken (D-CO)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympi (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Sununu, John (R-NH)
Talent, Jim (R-MO)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)

This entry is not related to Iraq specifically, but contains some very interesting information. In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002

Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

2010-09-08T07:38:00.001-07:00

Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened
By M. Jay Wells
Obama's economic narrative of the mortgage crisis ignores the facts. He has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in that market.

On September 15, with banking giant Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection, Obama was given the opening to begin weaving his anti-capitalist storyline. And that he did. Artfully blurring the mortgage industry crisis with generalized tax policy, Obama declared,

"I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

The words were carefully chosen. That day in Colorado marked his return to the teleprompter and a strictly refocused campaign message intent on surreptitiously fusing the mortgage industry woes and free-market capitalism in general. Confident the American people are primed for his socialist brand of "change," Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme, "What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."

His chat with a Toledo, Ohio, plumber showcases his socialist, redistributionist ideology:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

He had already said as much at an April debate where he said his plan was to "look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness" (after having just admitted that raising the tax would reduce revenues!). For Obama, increased federal revenue be damned, tax increases are nonetheless necessary for redistributionist "fairness."

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.

The Growing Government Hand

1933-1938

President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of "New Deal" reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.

1968

As part of President Johnson's Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a private owned yet government chartered company, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) providing authority to issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys home mortgages in order to preserve liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the Federal government.

1970

President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae. Designed to help grow the secondary mortgage market, Freddie Mac purchases mortgages from lending institutions to either be securitized as MBS and sold in the secondary market or held by Freddie Mac. At this time the secondary market for conventional mortgages was small.

1977

Sen. Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) introduced a "creeping socialism" community reinvestment Senate bill. Opponents argued the bill would allocate credit without regard for merits of loan applications, thereby threatening depository institutions. Proponents countered that it was only to ensure that lenders did not ignore good borrowing prospects in their communities. The bill's sponsor stressed it would neither force high-risk lending nor substitute the views of regulators or those of banks.

President Carter, pressed by grassroots organizations -- though opposed by the banking industry, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In the years following the Act has undergone several revisions.

To boost community development laws, CRA was a provision designed to stem bank "redlining," the practice of drawing a red line around low-income communities and denying lending in these areas. The original intent of CRA was to encourage banks to foster homeownership opportunities in these underserved communities in which the lending institutions are chartered.

According to Section 801 of title VIII, "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs [i.e., credit and deposit services] of the communities in which they are chartered to do business." Accordingly, "regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation" to meet these needs. Moreover, the title required each "appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions."

1980s

With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what "affirmative obligation" might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the "discrimination" provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.

August 1989

To deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like ACORN to further influence bank lending practices.

1990s

With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.

The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.

Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became "a feeding trough," in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.

The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.

In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.

February 1990

Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, who responded that they were being bullied into irresponsible "affirmative-action lending policy."

1991

ACORN interfered with a House Banking Committee meeting for two days protesting a move to bring CRA reform.

1992

Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants." Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because "community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities."

According to the Times, however, "the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against."

Frank Quaratiello, writing in the Boston Herald, cites Stan Liebowitz, "My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result." Said Liebowitz, "Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it."

According to Quaratiello, Syron became Freddie Mac CEO and chairman in 2003 and "faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed's guide had, in effect, served to legitimize." Regarding Syron's total compensation in 2007 of $18.3 million, Liebowitz reportedly quipped, "Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending."

September 1992

The Chicago Tribune described the ACORN agenda as "affirmative action lending." And, writes Kurtz, "ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities."

October 1992

Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to "amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development." The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to "ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely." It also "established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas."

Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was "hamstringing" the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a "weak regulator." Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."

September 1993

The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN's Talbott with five area lenders "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.

July 1994

Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had "intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction," calling their action "racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices."

November 1994

President Clinton addresses homeownership: "I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."

June 1995

Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.

As Kurtz notes,"ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond." What resulted was the broadening of the "acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis."

The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed "to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000." The plan was "to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership" which was "amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities."

Kurtz concludes, "Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system -- far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness' -- and the contagion spread."

Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, "We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears." With the new policy in full force, "No loan is exempt; no bank is immune." "For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement," reiterated Reno.

1997

HUD Secretary Cuomo said "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas . . ."

1998

By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.

April 1998

HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, "discrimination isn't always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that's hidden behind a smiling face."

Before the camera, Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to "affirmative action" lending that would result in a "higher default rate." The institution would "take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes; to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, yes; they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes. It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes. . . . With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio."

May 1999

The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing the growth to breathing "the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act." This breath of "life" mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income ratios which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.

By now all pretense had disappeared, lending practices were based upon concerns of discrimination in the banking system regardless the consequences. The administration threatened to veto a bill passed by the Senate which had "shortsightedly voted to retrench" CRA, as the advocative Times put it.

Under pressure, Fannie Mae was resisting increased targeting, arguing that the result would be more loan defaults. Barry Zigas, heading Fannie Mae's low-income efforts, argued, "There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can't push [the banks] to produce," the Times reported.

Fall of 1999

Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly."

September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.

September 1999

A study by Freddie Mac, confirming earlier Federal Reserve and FDIC studies, contradicts race discrimination arguments for CRA. The study found that African-Americans with annual incomes of $65-$75,000 have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000, showing that the difficulty in qualifying was not because of race but because of bad credit records. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas accordingly entitled a paper "Red Lining or Red Herring?"

2000

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition instructed on how to exploit the new CRA regulations, "Timely comments can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating." NCRC asserted, "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." That is, the mere threat to intervene in the CRA review process had equipped the ACORN groups for the massive shakedown.

Moreover, ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers.

Winter 2000

City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.

March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler testified in favor of GSE regulation. He argued that the bill would promote private market discipline, increase transparency and preserve market competition, reducing the potential for subsidized competitors to distort financial markets.

Fannie Mae spokesmen responded by calling the testimony "inept," "irresponsible," and "unprofessional."

Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute testified to the subcommittee that the bill was "a milestone in Congressional efforts to gain control of the Government Sponsored Enterprises." He added that the "political courage and stamina that was required to introduce this bill and to continue to press it forward cannot be overstated." He emphasized that the bill was only an "interim step in the necessary process of dismantling the GSEs and eliminating both their threat to the taxpayers and to the private financial sector of our economy."

Wallison explained why Fannie and Freddie "pose a serious problem for both the public and private sectors." First, they contain an inherent contradiction. "It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits."

He sounded an alarm on a "vicious and dangerous cycle." "Fannie and Freddie must grow in order to maintain their profitability and hence their high stock prices, but there is no countervailing check on their growth - no effective competition, no required government approvals, and no fear in the financial markets that there is any risk associated with financing this growth. Moreover, their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders require them to exploit their subsidy to the fullest extent possible. These are agencies that are - in the fullest sense of the phrase - out of control."

Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives vigorously attacked any such criticism. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets," rebuffed Sharon McHale, Freddie Mac spokeswoman. Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives prevailed.

June 2000

Fred L. Smith Jr., writing in Investor's Business Daily, recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE "special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy." He warned that these GSEs were "strange organizations, neither private-sector fish nor political-sector fowl" and that "as a result, no one is quite sure how these entities should be evaluated or held accountable." These new debt portfolios "will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania): "Mr. Smith, that is almost a fallacious argument," adding that rapid growth of GSE debt holdings was nothing to worry about as it simply reflected "inflation and the growth of population. "Everything, proportionately, is that much larger."

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.

April 2001

Fiscal Year 2002 Budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity," says a White House release.

July 2001

Subcommittee hearing on a bill proposed by Rep. Baker to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and abolish the OFHEO.

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) responded: "This bill would dramatically restructure the current regulatory system for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my opinion, it also represents a solution in search of a problem. Nearly a decade ago, Congress created a rational, reasonable, and responsive system for supervising GSE activities, and that system with two regulators is operating increasingly effectively. H.R. 1409 would unfortunately interrupt this continual progress."

March 2002

Business Week interview with Fannie Mae Vice-Chairman Jamie Gorelick about the prospects for the coming year:

Gorelick: "we are expecting a very, very strong 2002."

Gorelick: "We believe we are managed safely. . . . Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions. . . . . And we have consistently exceeded every standard that the examiners have set for us."

May 2002

In an OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, the President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.

2003

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with GSE oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was informed by OFHEO "on the salaries paid to executives at both companies," according to the Washington Post. Reportedly, "Fannie Mae threatened to sue Baker if he released it, he recalled. Fearing the expense of a court battle, he kept the data secret for a year." "The political arrogance exhibited in their heyday, there has never been before or since a private entity that exerted that kind of political power," he said.

June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.

July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

The New York Times reports that the Administration recommended "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," calling for new supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury Department. Reportedly, Congressional Democrats "fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements, says a White House release.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. . . . I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina): "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.

Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE," says a White House release.

February 2004

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator," reports a White House release.

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

June 2004

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System," the White House reports.

September 2004

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up." Again, GSE pressure prevailed.

October 2004

Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: "Then there's the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it."

Baker adds, "Although their bonds bear the disclaimer ‘not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,' the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies' risk strategies to the taxpayers' pockets."

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): "It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure. . . . The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "And as well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "What would make you, why should I have confidence? Why should anyone have confidence, and uh, in, in you as a regulator at this point?"

Armando Falcon, OFHEO Director: "Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the ‘34 act, they weren't under the ‘33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I'm tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can't hire them."

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): "So the concern that I have is you're making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You've imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a 48-hour ultimatum on them without having any specific regulatory authority to put that kind of ultimatum on ‘em. Uh, that sounds like some kind of an invisible line has been crossed."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. And for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum not the maximum."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "I find this to be inconsistent and a and a rush to judgment. I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae as OFHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "Because banks don't, there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans."

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."

January 2005-July 2006

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."

April 2005

Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system," from a White House release.

May 2005

At AEI Online, Wallison warned that "allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

January 2006

Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators." He stated, ". . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie's and Freddie's investment portfolios."

March 2006

Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.

May 2006

After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

May 2006

Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. . . . OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."

McCain stressed, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

April 2007

Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.

April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."

September 2007

President Bush: "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."

2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Today 2008

The narrative is of another socialist experiment failed, this time a massive federal effort, imperiling the whole US banking industry. Facing this economic disaster, will an informed American people put their trust Obama's socialist ideology to bring remedy? To do so is to trust in an acetylene torch to put out the fire.

The Truth: White Supremacist Groups Behind Arizona Immigration Law

2010-06-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., told a Democratic Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups are influencing lawmakers to adopt laws that will lead to discrimination. (including the AZ Immigration Law).

I spoke with Representative Sanchez’s office on 3 June, 4 June, and again on 9 June demanding that she supply her references to the allegations of white supremacist groups being involved in lawmaking actions. Spokesperson for Rep. Sanchez finally said on 9 June, the Congresswoman was referencing an article written by Southern Poverty Law Center 28 April, 2010 during her white supremacist remarks.

In the article Mary Bauer of Southern Poverty Law Center accuses Pioneer Fund of funneling $1.2 Million to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and went on to accuse FAIR lawyers for drafting the AZ legislation.

Spoke with Zach at Federation for American Immigration Reform today (10 June, 2010) and asked if FAIR received any funds in any amount from Pioneer Fund? And, did FAIR lawyers draft Arizona’s Immigration Bill?

Zach said, the last time FAIR received funds from Pioneer was back in the 1990’s and yes, FAIR provided technical support to Arizona Lawmakers but did not write the law.

The Article, Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling, By Mary Bauer, SPLC Legal Director, published on Southern Poverty Law Center’s website is misleading, and inaccurate. Federation for American Immigration Reform has had no involvement with Pioneer Fund since the 1990’s and FAIR did not write the Arizona Legislation as accused.

Bauer states in her article, “The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters.” Show me someone that hasn’t emailed controversial articles to people. This doesn’t demonstrate that Senator Pearce supports anti-Semitic, all it means is that Pearce emailed an article he found offensive and he wanted to share this disgusting material with his supporters with comments.

Bottom Line; Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center took half truths and twisted them to fit her Progressive Agenda. Federation for American Immigration Reform is not a White Supremacist Group; they may have differing opinions from Bauer and her progressive friends but that in itself doesn’t make an organization a hate group. She owes her readers and the American People an apology for deceiving the public.

Conclusion; Representative Sanchez was less than honest when making her outlandish remarks. In my opinion she made the comments and when challenged her staff had to come up with a source for her radical comments.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/congresswoman-says-white-supremacist-groups-inspired-arizonas-immigration-law/

THE TRUTH ABOUT PROGRESSIVE MARGARET SANGER

2010-02-09T06:06:00.000-08:00

Margaret Sanger, a Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, or whatever name the Democrat Party is using at the moment was an evil woman who along with her operatives believed in and supported a strong eugenics program here in America.

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."

Blaming Families

Sanger's obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that "I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families." Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, "free-thinking" views of her father, whose "anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity" in a predominantly Irish community.

The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the "ordeals of motherhood" had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother's life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was "agonizing," the mere memory of which Sanger described as "mental torture" more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor "to be reckoned with" in her zealous campaign for birth control.

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the "unfit." Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual's search for self-fulfillment. "Instead of laying down hard and fast rules of sexual conduct," Sanger wrote in her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, "sex can be rendered effective and valuable only as it meets and satisfies the interests and demands of the pupil himself." Her attitude is appropriately described as libertinism, but sex knowledge was not the same as individual liberty, as her writings on procreation emphasized.

The second edition of Sanger's life story, An Autobiography, appeared in 1938. There Sanger described her first cross-country lecture tour in 1916. Her standard speech asserted seven conditions of life that "mandated" the use of birth control: the third was "when parents, though normal, had subnormal children"; the fourth, "when husband and wife were adolescent"; the fifth, "when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate." No right existed to exercise sex knowledge to advance procreation. Sanger described the fact that "anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent."

Religious Bigotry

In the 1910's and 1920's, the entire social order–religion, law, politics, medicine, and the media–was arrayed against the idea and practice of birth control. This opposition began in 1873 when an overwhelmingly Protestant Congress passed, and a Protestant president signed into law, a bill that became known as the Comstock Law, named after its main proponent, Anthony Comstock. The U.S. Congress classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.

Sanger set out to have such legislation abolished or amended. Her initial efforts were directed at the Congress with the opening of a Washington, D.C., office of her American Birth Control League in 1926. Sanger wanted to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow the interstate shipment and mailing of contraceptives among physicians, druggists and drug manufacturers.

During January and February of 1926, Sanger and her co-workers personally interviewed 40 senators and 14 representatives. None agreed to introduce a bill to amend the Comstock Act. Fresh from this unanimous rejection, Sanger issued an update to her followers: Everywhere there is general acceptance of the idea, except in religious circles. . .The National Catholic Welfare Council [sic] (NCWC) has a special legislative committee organized to block and defeat our legislation. They frankly state that they intend to legislate for non-Catholics according to the dictates of the church.

There was no such committee. But 20 non-Catholic lay or religious organizations joined NCWC in opposition to amending the Comstock Act. This was not the first time, nor was it to be the last, that Sanger sought to stir up sectarian strife by blaming Catholics for her legislative failures. Catholic-bashing was a standard tactic (one that Planned Parenthood still finds useful to this day), although other Christian groups now also come in for criticism.

Eight years later, in 1934, Sanger went to Congress again. Reporting on the first day of the hearings, the New York Times noted:
... the almost solidly Catholic opposition to the measure. This is now, according to Margaret Sanger. . . the only organized opposition to the proposal.

Sanger wrote a letter to her "Friends, Co-workers, and Endorsers" that portrayed the opposing testimony as the work of Catholics determined ... not to present facts to the committee but to intimidate them by showing a Catholic block of voters who (though in the minority in the United States) want to dictate to the majority of non-Catholics as directed from the Vatican in social and moral legislation ... American men and women, are we going to allow this insulting arrogance to bluff the American people?

For Sanger, the proper attitude toward her religious critics featured character assassination, personal vilification and old-fashioned bigotry. Her Birth Control Review printed an article that noted: "Today by the Roman Catholic clergy and their allies . . . Public opinion in America, I fear, is too willing to condone in the officials of the Roman Catholic Church what it condemns in the Ku Klux Klan.

A favorite Catholic-baiter of Sanger's was Norman E. Himes, who contributed articles to Sanger's journal. Himes claimed there were genetic differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.

Are Catholic stocks . . . genetically inferior to such non-Catholic libertarian stocks and Unitarians and Universal . . . Freethinkers? Inferior to non-Catholics in general? . . . my guess is that the answer will someday be made in the affirmative. . . and if the supposed differentials in net productivity are also genuine, the situation is anti-social, perhaps gravely so.

Sanger sought to isolate Catholics by creating a schism between them and Protestants, who had held parallel views of birth control and abortion for centuries. She welcomed a report from a majority of the Committee on Marriage and the Home of the General Council of Churches (later the National Council of Churches) advocating birth control. This committee was composed largely of social elite Protestants, including Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A number of Protestant church bodies publicly repudiated the committee's endorsement.

The Rev. Worth Tippy, council executive secretary and author of the report, told Sanger in April 1931 that: ... the statement on Moral Aspects of Birth Control has aroused more opposition within the Protestant churches than we expected. Under the circumstances, and since we plan to carry on a steady work for liberalizing laws and to stimulate the establishment of clinics, it is necessary that we make good these losses and also increase our resources.Could you help me quietly by giving me the names of people of means who are interested in the birth control movement and might help us if I wrote them.

Sanger immediately wrote Tippy that she would be "glad to select names of persons from our lists whom I think might be able to subscribe." Tippy replied to Sanger a week later, offering to give her some names for fund raising and thanking her for the offer of "names of people who are able to contribute to generous causes and who are favorable to birth control." He also related that they had expected some reaction from the "fundamentalist groups," but nothing like what had happened.

Protestants repeatedly stated their unity with Catholics in opposing Planned Parenthood's initiatives. During Sanger's attempts to reform New York state law, another Protestant stood with Catholics. The Rev. John R. Straton, Pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church of New York City, said: "This bill is subversive of the human family . . . It is revolting, monstrous, against God's word and contradicts American traditions."

Sanger's attack on Catholics appeared to be an attempt to divert attention from the class politics of Planned Parenthood. The Rev. John A. Ryan wrote: ... their main objective is to increase the practice of birth-prevention among the poor . . . It is said that the present birth-prevention movement is to some extent financed by wealthy, albeit philanthropic persons. As far as I am aware , none of these is conspicuous in the movement for economic justice. None of them is crying out for a scale of wages which would enable workers to take care of a normal number of children.

Sanger's sexual license was another motivation for her Anti-Catholic sniping. A Sanger biographer, David M. Kennedy, said her primary goal was to "increase the quantity and quality of sexual relationships." The birth control movement, she said, freed the mind from "sexual prejudice and taboo, by demanding the frankest and most unflinching re-examination of sex in its relation to human nature and the basis of human society.

Sannger's Gamble

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in chargeÑas it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.

Birth control was presented both as an economic betterment vehicle and as a health measure that could lower the incidence of infant mortality. At the 1942 BCFA annual meeting, BCFA Negro Council board member Dr. Dorothy B. Ferebee–a cum laude graduate of Tufts and also president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the nation's largest black sorority–addressed the delegates regarding Planned Parenthood's minority outreach efforts : With the Negro group some of the most difficult obstacles . . . to overcome are: (1) the concept that when birth control is proposed to them, it is motivated by a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide; (2) the so-called "husband rejection" . . . (3) the fact that birth control is confused with abortion, and (4) the belief that is inherently immoral. However, as formidable as these objections may seem, when thrown against the total picture of the awareness on the part of the Negro leaders of the improved condition under Planned Parenthood, or the genuine interest and eagerness of the families themselves to secure the services which will give them a fair chance for health and happiness, the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed.

Birth control as an economic improvement measure had some appeal to those lowest on the income ladder. In the black Chicago Defender for Jan. 10, 1942, a long three-column women's interest article discussed the endorsement of the Sanger program by prominent black women. There were at lease six express references, such as the following example, to birth control as a remedy for economic woes:" . . . it raises the standard of living by enabling parents to adjust the family size to the family income." Readers were also told that birth control" . . . is no operation. It is no abortion. Abortion kills life after it has begun. . . Birth Control is neither harmful nor immoral."

But the moral stumbling block could only be surmounted by Afro-American religious leaders, so black ministers were solicited. Florence Rose, long-time Sanger secretary, prepared an activities report during March 1942 detailing the progress of the "Negro Project." She recounted a recent meeting with a Planned Parenthood Negro Division board member, Bishop David H. Sims (African Methodist Episcopal Church), who appreciated Planned Parenthood's recognition of the extent of black opposition to birth control and its efforts to build up support among black leaders. He offered whatever assistance he could give.

Bishop Sims offered to begin the "softening process" among the representatives of different Negro denominations attending the monthly meetings of the Federal Council of Churches and its Division of Race Relations.

These and other efforts paid off handsomely after World War II. By 1949, virtually the entire black leadership network of religious, social, professional, and academic organizations had endorsed Planned Parenthood's program.

National Scandal

More than a decade later, Planned Parenthood continued targeting minority communities, but without much success.

In 1940, nonwhite women aged 18 to 19 experienced 61 births per 1,000 unmarried women. In 1968, the corresponding figure was 112 per 1,000, a 100 percent jump. What other factor could account for the increased rate of sexual activity than wider access to birth control, with its promise of sex without tears and consequences?

Alan Guttmacher, then president of Planned Parenthood, was desperate to show policy-makers that birth control would produce a situation whereby "minority groups who constantly outbreed the majority will no longer persist in doing so. . . "

Despite claims that racial or ethnic groups were not being "targeted," American blacks, among whose ranks a greater proportion of the poor were numbered, received a high priority in Planned Parenthood's nationwide efforts. Donald B. Strauss, chairman of Planned ParenthoodÑWorld Population, urged the 1964 Democratic national Convention to liberalize the party's stated policies on birth control, and to adopt domestic and foreign policy platform resolutions to conform with long-sought San gerite goals: [While almost one-fourth of nonwhite parents have four or more children under 18 living with them, only 8% of the white couples have that many children living at home. For the Negro parent in particular, the denial of access to family planning professional guidance forecloses one more avenue to family advancement and well-being..

Unwanted children would not get the job training and educational skills they needed to compete in a shrinking labor market; moreover, unwanted children are a product and a cause of poverty.

Surveying the "successes" of tax-subsidized birth control programs, Guttmacher noted in 1970 that "[Birth control services are proliferating in areas adjacent to concentrations of black population." (In the 1980's, targeting the inner-city black communities for school based sex clinics became more sensitive than expected.)

Guttmacher thought that as long as the birth rate continued to fall or remained at a low level, Planned Parenthood should certainly be introduced before family size by coercion is attempted."

Reaching this goal, he thought, would best be accomplished by having groups other than the PPFA preach the doctrine of a normative 2.1-child family, as doing this would offend Planned Parenthood's minority clients. He suggested that family size would decrease if abortion were liberalized nationwide and received government support. In this prediction he was right on target.

But Guttmacher did not completely reject forced population control: Predicting 20 critical years ahead in the struggle to control the population explosion, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned parenthoodÑWorld Population, continues to urge the use of all voluntary means to hold down on the world birthrate. But he foresees the possibility that eventual coercion may become necessary, particularly in areas where the pressure is greatest, possibly India and China. "Each country," he says, "will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed. At Present, the means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.

Coerced abortion is already practiced in China, with the International Planned Parenthood Federation's approval.

Extreme Irony

Despite its past, Planned Parenthood has managed to present the image of toleration and minority participation through the vehicle of its divorced, telegenic, African American president, Ms. Faye Wattleton, appointed titular head of the PPFA in 1978, a post she still holds. Though paid in the six-figure range, she has impeccable minority credentials that would have fit the public relations criteria for both Margaret Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble.

Wattleton's PPFA biography touts her as a friend of the "Poor and the young"; a nurse at Harlem Hospital; and the recipient of the 1989 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Humanitarian Award and the World Institute of Black Communicators' 1986 Excellence in Black Communications Award. It further states she was featured in a national photography exhibit, "I Dream A World: Portraits of Black Women Who Changed America"; interviewed in Ebony; and was the cover story in Black Enterprise magazine. (Time published a profile of Wattleton in 1990 entitled "Nothing Less Than Perfect.")

Her ideological orientation has received certification in the form of the Better World Society's 1989 Population Model, the 1986 American Humanist Award, and others. But surely, the spectacle of the Congressional Black Caucus awarding its humanitarian award to the black woman who presides over the organization that has hastened and justified the death of almost eight million black children since 1973 and facilitates the demise of the black family is ironic in the extreme.

Killer Angel

In his book, Killer Angel, George Grant says: "Myths, according to theologian J. l. packer, are Ôstories made up to sanctify social patterns.' They are lies, carefully designed to reinforce a particular philosophy or morality within a culture. They are instruments of manipulation and control.

Killer Angel tells the real story behind one of the biggest myths that controls our culture todayÑthe life and legacy of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Grant exposes "the Big Lie" perpetuated by Sanger's followers and the organization she started.

Through detailed research and concise writing, Grant unveils Sanger's true character and ideology, which included blatant racism, revolutionary socialism, sexual perversion and insatiable avarice. Grant includes direct quotes from sources such as Sanger's Birth Control Review to support his findings. His biography spans Sanger's disturbed and unhappy upbringingÑwhich Sanger said contributed to her agitation and bitterness later in lifeÑto her eventual fixation with drugs, alcohol and the occult.

Particularly shocking was Sanger's involvement in the Eugenics movement. Grant says: "[Sanger] was thoroughly convinced that the Ôinferior races' were in fact Ôhuman weeds' and a Ômenace to civilization.' . . . [S]he was a true believer, not simply someone who assimilated the jargon of the timesÑas Planned Parenthood officials would have us believe."

Sanger died September 6, 1966, a week before her eighty-seventh birthday. Grant says: "[She] had nearly fulfilled her early boast that she would spend every last penny of Slee's [her second husband] fortune. In the process, though, she had lost everything else: love, happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment, family, and friends. In the end, her struggle was her naught."

The truth uncovered in grant's book has proven to be a threat to those who follow the cult of :Planned Parenthood. In fact, Killer Angel was recently banned from a public library in Toledo, Ohio. A library manager stated in a letter that, "The author's political and social agenda, which is strongly expoused throughout the book, is not appropriate even in a critical biography of its subject."

In response, Grant pointed out that "The question at hand is whether librarians should be making subjective judgments about my political beliefs and the beliefs of other authors."

By censoring Killer Angel, the library appears to be violating its own policies, which state that, "the Library collection shall include representative materials of all races and nationalities, and all political, religious, economic and social views." Except Christian views, apparently.

While the Toledo public library may not be interested in the information put forth in Grant's book, pro-lifers will find this biography useful and enlightening. It serves as a powerful tool in dispelling the myths surrounding a womanÑconsidered a heroine by manyÑwho began an organization that is responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn children.

Grant states that, "Margaret SangerÑand her heirs at Planned Parenthood . . . have thus far been able to parlay the deception into a substantial empire. But now the truth must be told. The illusion must be exposed." Killer Angel does an outstanding job in doing that.
Sanger's Legacy is Reproductive Freedom and Racism

Despite Margaret Sanger's contributions to birth control and hence women's freedom and empowerment, her legacy is diminished by her sympathies with eugenics. This writer says that, like many modern feminists, Sanger ignored class and race.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Margaret Sanger opened the nation's first birth control clinic in 1916. For the rest of her life she worked to establish a woman's right to control her body and to decide when or whether to have a child. In 1921, she founded the American Birth Control league, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood.

Her impact on contemporary society is tremendous. Enabling women to control their fertility and giving them access to contraception, as advocated by Sanger, makes it possible for women to have a broader set of life options, especially in the areas of education and employment, than if their lives are dominated by unrelieved childbearing.

A recent reminder of Sanger's impact on our society came when the Equal employment Opportunity Commission found that it is illegal sex discrimination to exclude prescription contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive health benefits plan. Sanger's efforts to provide access to contraception are at the foundation of decisions to provide equal access to prescription contraceptives and other prescriptions.

Still, especially with the Bush administration, activists will have to fight to maintain access to contraception and to abortion. In April, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would establish criminal penalties for harming a fetus during the commission of a crime. While proponents of the bill say it does not include abortion, some see fetal protection legislation as an attempt to undermine abortion rights. The passage of this legislation is a reminder that the rights Margaret Sanger worked so hard to establish are tenuous rights that many would challenge.

For all her positive influence, I see Sanger as a tarnished heroine whose embrace of the eugenics movement showed racial insensitivity, at best. From her associates, as well as from some of the articles that were published in Sanger's magazine, the Birth Control review, it is possible to conclude that "racially insensitive" is too mild a description. Indeed, some of her statements, taken in or out of context, are simply racist. And she never rebuked eugenicists who believed in improving the hereditary qualities of a race or breed by controlling mating in order to eliminate "undesirable" characteristics and promote "desirable" traits.

Sanger: We Must Limit the Over-Fertility of Mentally, Physically Defective

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism," she wrote in the recently republished "The Pivot of Civilization." This book, written in 1922, was published at a time when scientific racism had been used to assert black inferiority. Who determines who is a moron? How would these morons be segregated? The ramifications of such statements are bone chilling.

In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.

Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context?

It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded."

Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.

Like Many Modern Feminists, Sanger Ignored Race and Class

Would the NAACP's house organ, Crisis Magazine, print articles by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Would Planned Parenthood publish articles penned by fetal protectionist South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham?

The articled published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W. E. B. DuBois on her "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger Ôs views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements.

What, then, is Sanger's legacy?

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has grown to an organization with 129 affiliates. It operates 875 health centers and serves about 5 million women each year. Planned Parenthood has been a leader in the fight for women's right to choose and in providing access to affordable reproductive health care for a cross-section of women. Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views.

In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around "women's issues" and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together.

Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic.

That's reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity.

Say Goodbye to Prosperity Oregon

2010-01-27T05:28:00.000-08:00

Oregon voters passed measures 66 (higher taxes on the rich) and 67 (higher taxes on business) yesterday!

Hey Oregon, can you spell MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA! Oregon is a Progressive Socialist State that believes by simply raising taxes all the states problems will be solved!

Truth is; People with wealth (business owners and investors) will leave the state or decide not to move to Oregon to avoid paying higher taxes! Oregon; Say goodbye to your good for nothing RICH GREEDY FAT CATS! Businesses too will relocate, hire fewer people, or outsource (oh, that terrible word the Progressives love to throw around) to another state or country!

In the long term the end result is predictable. Loss of jobs, loss of the industrial base and loss of tax revenue!

Prediction: Years from now the Progressives will blame this failure on the RICH GREEDY FAT CATS and Businesses that "outsourced" the jobs or moved away! History being repeated again... Funny, the States with the worst economic conditions are those being lead by the Progressive (Democrat) Party!

One word regarding outsourcing for you Progressives! Businesses must remain competitive to stay in business! Raise taxes results in higher prices. Higher Prices results in a loss of your consumer base to companies that can produce at lower overall costs! Companies must lower their costs to remain in business; so they "OUTSOURCE" to remain profitable! YES, China and India can make it for less!

Profits! Another evil Progressive term! Without profits businesses will fail in the long term! Without Businesses you have NO TAX BASE!

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

2010-01-14T04:28:00.000-08:00

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:

Democrat's
Answer :

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knockthe knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

....................................................

Republican's
Answer:

BANG!

................................................... ...................................................

Redneck's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG !
Click . . .. (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hydrashocks?
Son: Can I shoot the next one?
Wife: You ain't taking that to the taxidermist!

Health Care and Our Deficit

2009-12-23T08:32:00.000-08:00

Congress claims their one trillion dollar health care bill is deficit neutral over ten years. Taxes and fees start immediately and benefits begin four years from now! Okay, I will bite, lets take a look at Congresses figures. The graph below breaks down the taxes/fees collected each year, benefits paid, and deficit in Billions of dollars. Notice after 10 years Congress is right; the balance is nearly zero which clearly indicates the program is deficit neutral after ten years.

BUT; notice how the deficit increases every year starting with year 11. This is why Congress calculated this program in this manner; to make it appear their plan pays for itself!

YR Taxes/Fees.............Benefits Paid.........Deficit
1 $100.................$ 0....................$100
2 $100.................$ 0....................$200
3 $100.................$ 0....................$300
4 $100.................$ 0....................$400
5 $100.................$166...................$334
6 $100.................$166...................$268
7 $100.................$166...................$202
8 $100.................$166...................$136
9 $100.................$166...................$ 70
10 $100.................$166...................$ 4
11 $100.................$166..................-$ 62
12 $100.................$166..................-$128
13 $100.................$166..................-$194
14 $100.................$166..................-$260
15 $100.................$166..................-$326

(UPDATE) Is Senator Sherrod Brown an anti-constitutionalist?

2009-12-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

Last September I wrote Senator Brown a email because his staff compared the actions of ACORN to those of the Catholic Church. I wrote asking Senator Brown what his official position regarding the Catholic Church and ACORN was? I received a personal reply in a matter of days.

More recently, I email Senator Brown a question regarding Constitutional Law and health care. I received the standard cut and paste response to a generic health care question. Senator Brown chose not to answer my questions so I now assume Senator Brown believes Congress has the power to over-ride Constitutional Law. Senator Brown also must believe our country did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution.

(I cut and pasted the following into an email to Senator Brown)

After several attempts to get two questions answered by Senator Brown via email, yesterday I called his office to ask my questions directly. 1). I asked, “Will Senator Brown please provide the Article and Section in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government authority to regulate and pass laws regarding health care?” 2). “Where in the Constitution is authority established to compel citizens to purchase health insurance or any other commodity or service as part of being a law-abiding United States Citizen?”

The person in Senator Brown’s officer told me the Constitution does not give government authority to regulate health care; BUT, congress has the authority to pass any law as long as the law was “for the good of the people”.

Following these anti-Constitutional statements I was told by Senator Brown’s representative, that health care was not addressed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers because our nation did not have Medical Care back then.

Really! Senator Brown, is it your position that this nation did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution? And, Congress can pass any law as long as the law “is for the good of the people?”

Please Senator Brown; will you respond to this letter?

(Response from Senator Brown;)

Dear Mr. Smiley:

Thank you for sharing your views regarding health reform.

Deliberations are ongoing and the issues you have raised are included in these discussions. In particular, there is continued debate related to provisions that would establish a public option, insurance reforms, tax credits, and an excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans. Additionally, the Senate continues its dialogue on Medicare issues, including provider payment rates, program eligibility, patient access, medical malpractice, and further improving Medicare benefits for the more than 44 million current enrollees.

Ensuring that the health reform legislation is budget neutral is a firm commitment that Congress will continue to uphold now and in the future. These issues won’t be resolved until a merged bill is agreed upon by both the House and Senate. As Congress moves forward on health reform, I will certainly work to address the issues contained in your letter.

If you wish to learn more about my work on health reform as well as the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that Ohioans have posed to my office, please visit my website at:

http://brown.senate.g....

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Below is a post I made on Columbus/Central Ohio 912 Project Message Board. Please notice that Senator Brown wrote me a "personal" reply to my allegations. Apparently he wanted to set the record straight regarding his position on the Catholic Church/ACORN comparison his staff made during a phone conversation.

I called Sherrod Brown's office a few days back. I wanted to known if Senator Brown supported ACORN, and I also wanted to know what the senator thought of the undercover investigation and what was uncovered.

Senator Brown's spokesperson compared ACORN with the Catholic Church which made me mad as hell.

I wrote Senator Brown asking if he truly believed ACORN was on par with the Catholic Church when it came to community organizing.

Seems he is backpedaling quickly; I received the following. (First Personal Reply to date; I usually get a cut and paste reply)

Dear Mr. Smiley:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I was disturbed by your comment relaying your conversation with a staff person in my Columbus office. I certainly do not equate ACORN with the Catholic Church, and in fact I voted yesterday to bar ACORN from receiving any funds, directly or indirectly, from the appropriations bill under consideration that will fund federal transportation, housing, and urban development efforts.

A number of Ohioans have contacted me concerned that ACORN may be receiving tax dollars for voter registration efforts or to promote affordable housing as a result of the recent Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). Many have also expressed concerns regarding the current situation involving the organization’s practices in Baltimore and Florida.

I certainly understand these concerns, however, ACORN is not receiving federal funds for voter registration or as a result of EESA. The federal government does not fund voter registration drives by any group.

As a former Secretary of State, I understand and value the importance of the integrity of the voting process. I strongly support efforts to investigate and prosecute voting fraud. For the most part, these law enforcement efforts are carried out at the state and local level. This is why local authorities have jurisdiction in the investigation of the 11 individuals accuse of fraud in Florida and Baltimore.

I will continue to monitor this situation. Should legislation regarding this matter come before the Senate, I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Civil Rights

2009-12-07T09:45:00.000-08:00

Following the Civil War the Democratic Party did everything within its power to disenfranchise African-Americans and to “put them in their place”. Following the death of President Lincoln, his successor, Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed Republican Controlled Congress’s Civil Rights Bills. Beginning in 1874, there was a rise in Democratic white paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and Red Shirts, a group of racist Democrats that supported Wade Hampton III’s political ambitions (Prelude to the Ku Klux Klan), whose political aim was to drive out sympathetic Republicans and terrorized blacks to bar them from the polls.

If the Democrats are so PROUD of their heritage and history why does their official website (www.democrats.org) have a gap between 1848 and 1912? Are they not proud of their party’s heritage during this period? Are they not proud of the Jim Crow laws they put into place? Or, the lynching of blacks? The actions of the KKK? Democratic sponsored terrorism towards blacks and whites supporting black rights? I have sent numerous emails to the Democratic Party asking why their website abandons this period of Democrat History. Democrats choose not to reply to my inquiry.

I will fill in the Democrats missing heritage for them since they themselves find it unpalatable;

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. As you read the following Democratic atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.
May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party.
June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party.
July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet.
February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover.
March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.
June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks.
October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation.
June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery.
April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.
April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver.
July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”.
August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation.
August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army.
September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect.
February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery.
June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War.
June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts.
October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”.
January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.
April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation.
November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery.
May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights.
July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen.
July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150.
January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.
May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors.
September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor.
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.
October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation.
December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies.
May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.
January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”.
January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.
July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery.
August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South.
June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates.
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.
May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”.
December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools.
May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans.
January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions.
The only Civil Rights issue the Democratic Left has championed during its racist history was the hijacking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Much like today’s congress’ the Democratic Party had total control of Congress, and could pass any legislation it wished. It was Republican leadership that championed the historic civil rights acts of the 1960’s while many prominent Democrats, i.e. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), fought to stop this historic event.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of the 311 Democratic Congressmen, merely 64 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 80 percent of the 204 Republican Congressmen supported passage. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was the ONLY Northern Democrat to oppose this historic Act!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually the brain-child of President Eisenhower (Republican) and was introduced seven year earlier! Why didn't civil rights pass under Eisenhower? Then Senator Johnson blocked it's passage!

National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Of the 346 Democratic Congressmen, just 77 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 86 percent of the 168 Republican Congressmen supported the Bill.

The Far-Left progressives failed to stop passage of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 National Voting Rights Acts so they changed their rhetoric. They reasoned since a Democrat, President Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Bills into Law Democrats could lay claim as “the party of Civil Rights”.

I have news for the African-American community! The Democratic Party throughout its history has had one goal in mind; and that is the control of the black vote no matter the cost! Following the civil war until the 1960’s they used force, intimidation, and voting laws to control the black population and to try to discourage voting.
President Woodrow Wilson, (D) a progressive wrote in his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader." Wilson once told a black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." The Progressive movement had in its beginning the ultimate goal of control over the black population. Progressives understood the importance of the black vote and vowed to use blacks as tools to further the progressive agenda.
Subsequent to President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Bills into Law the Democratic Party regrouped and changed their strategy. They started passing laws that would on the surface seem to assist the African-American population while at its core was meant to keep the Black Community poor and in their place! Like crack-cocaine; the Democrat’s ambition is to get all Blacks addicted to government handouts thus ensuring Blacks would vote Democrat at every election!

You hear it during every election! The Democrat Candidate will get up on his soap-box and warn the Black Community, “The evil Republicans want to take away your welfare checks, your free or subsidized housing, and make you all get jobs” and “The evil Republicans will cut funding to all the vital services you have grown to depend upon”.The Democratic Party takes no prisoners; they will promise everything and deliver nothing! When they fail to deliver they always blame the evil Republicans!

Greed! Do you really believe Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want African-Americans to have equal opportunity? These men are motivated by greed and power. Both are in the pocket of the Democrat Political Machine. Jackson and Sharpton preach equality for all Americans regardless of color! I ask, when was the last time either showed up to support a white person or Asian whose civil rights were violated?

Both Sharpton and Jackson pick their battles carefully and always pick events that will champion the Democrat’s “blacks as victims” campaign. They carefully orchestrate demonstrations, rallies, and give wonderful speeches about equality all the while supporting a political party that has as its primary goal of keeping black-men in their place! Jackson and Sharpton are getting filthy-rich and live wonderful lives promoting blacks as victims! Why would they ever want true equality?

United States History being taught in schools today has been rewritten and/or carefully edited to present a progressive view of history. Strange, history books don’t mention that President Lincoln was the first Republican President. The fact that President Lynden B Johnson was a Democrat is pointed out in every paragraph. History books fail to point out that many more Democrats than Republicans in congress opposed passage of the 1960’s Civil Rights Laws. When children read about the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws it is not mentioned that Democrats were at the helm of these groups and laws; the history books just say “White Southerners”. Even President Wilson’s hatred for blacks has been revised to make him sound like Mary Poppins.

Next time you hear a debate between a Republican and a Democrat notice which candidate brings up race. It is always the Democrat; when they start to stumble on an issue they seem to always find a way to throw in a racial remark. For example; when a Republican brings up school choice as an alternative option to public schools the democrat will accuse the Republican of being a racist and wanting to cut funding to the poor black intercity schools.

Still not convinced the democrats are using the black community for political gain. In an article in The Washington Times President Obama’s justice department headed by Eric Holder ruled that the town of Kinston N.C. could not have non-partisan elections. “Voters in this small city overwhelmingly voted 2 to 1 to eliminate the (R), (D), and (I) from their ballots. President Obama’s justice department’s position is; without party identification how will Black voters know who to vote for? The Obama administration overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.”

According to President Obama African-Americans don’t vote for the best candidate but rather a party! I thought the 1964 civil rights act did away with Jim Crow laws.

Please don’t take my point of view as absolute proof. Do your own research. Seek the truth and support those who truly want a better America for all regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or, pick your issue.

Recently Congresswoman Barbra Boxer made racial remarks towards Mr. Alford the co-founder, CEO/President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

(Quote from the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s Website) “Here we were in the Senate Dirksen building participating in a Congressional Hearing on the pending climate legislation known as the Waxman/Markey Bill. This is a gigantic piece of proposed laws, taxes, regulations that will change the way America does business. There are many costs involved and it appears that the African American community will be paying a disproportionate share of the job loss and increased energy costs. No surprise as this is usually the case because we have no political apparatus that addresses that when it happens. The Congressional Black Caucus will go with the flow or, in other words, receive the orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and act obediently. If we allow business as usual: we lose.
So, it is with great fervor that the National Black Chamber of Commerce attempts to change this bill or contribute to its demise. The right way to do this is through debate. We got our act together by commissioning a very thorough study on the Waxman/Markey Bill analyzing the economic impact on urban and rural communities. The study done by the reputable Charles River Associates clearly points to our concerns. We, the last hired and first fired, will face the brunt of the costs and there will be little or no benefits achieved for it. So when the time came for me and Senator Barbara Boxer to go face to face about this important issue, she did something that I would have never expected. She began getting racial. Utilizing that old Jim Crow tactic of trying to pit my Black group against another – thus destroying ourselves, she went on an embarrassing rant.
First, she wanted me to attack the NAACP. That didn’t work so then she pulled out the 100 Black Men. Still, I didn’t take the bait. Finally, I went on the offensive and blasted her for her condescending manner replete with racial innuendo. I challenged her to argue against the study not wander off talking about any Black organization that came to her mind. Within a short time, we were yelling at each other on national television and the Internet. In fact, there have been over 500,000 views on YouTube showing the verbal match. Radio shows and television stations have been covering it. Yes, Barbara Boxer showed her racial animus. A persona that probably has not been detected by the general public until now and that is mysterious. Her overall inference was, what is a Black organization doing with a sophisticated study? This is white folks business and I got my Black groups to counter your Black butt. It was Bigotry 101.
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Let us remember the political game that brought her into prominence. She is the mastermind behind the “Anita Hill attack Clarence Thomas scenario”. Remember that, it pitted a Black female against a Black male and distracted us from the main issue – his legal talents. This modus operandi (M.O.) also appeared in the 2004 election in Ohio when she went after another Black male, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell using the late Elaine Tubbs Jones to do the fighting. Let us not forget that totally degrading attack on the Honorable Condoleezza Rice. The personal and heartless smears she put on her own constituents were less than moral. Yes, when it comes to Black folks Senator Barbara Boxer turns into a monster. So it is an easy question: Why did Senator Barbara Boxer go racial? That is what racists do. When they get up against the wall, their racial persona takes over and all of the ugly comes out like a gusher.
How does a state like California whose population is over 54% minority have such a person representing them as their Senator? Something is going to have to give. California is in a state of financial ruin and social upheaval. What the people of my native state need is leadership that is inclusive, positive and certainly productive. They need to start looking for new leaders and cultivating a process that will yield good “fruits”.
In my 16 years of testifying before Congress, I have never had to deal with racial animus, direct or indirect, until now. It is a “bump in the road” if we all deal with it now. If we ignore it, it will turn into a cancer and fester throughout our political apparatus to the detriment of America. Former Senator Trent Lott made a verbal slip and paid dearly. What Senator Boxer has done is a major revelation and we must act accordingly. God does not like ugly nor should the American people.”

Barbra Boxer is the perfect example of Democratic Leadership. As long as the Black Man tows the line, does as he is told, and votes Democrat he will be rewarded with welfare payments and the promise of a better future.

What has the Republican Party done for the Black Population in the last 100 years?
Here is a list of Republican Accomplishments for the Black Population. It can’t be denied any longer!
1. 1863 Emancipation Proclamation
2. 1865 The 13th Amendment- Abolishing Slavery
3. 1866 Civil Rights Act of 1866-Ending Slavery
4. 1868 14th Amendment- Giving Citizenship to former slaves
5. 1870 15th Amendment- Right to vote
6. 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871-Anti KKK Act
7. 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875- Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations
8. 1909 NAACP founded by 3 “White” Republicans
9. 1909 Over 200 Anti-Lynching Bills were introduced since that time. They were all defeated by Democrats
10. Democrats reigned supreme in Congress for the entire first half century.
11. 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957-Established a Civil Rights Commission
12. 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960-Federal Inspections of Voter Registration Polls
13. 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964-Anti-Discrimination-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
14. 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
15. 1968 Fair Housing Act -Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
16. The following is a list of some of the black schools and colleges that were founded by prominent Republicans in the face of opposition from Democrats.
Morehouse College 1867 Atlanta, GA
Howard University 1867 Washington, DC
Spelman College 1881 Atlanta, GA
Shaw University 1865 Raleigh, NC
Fisk University 1866 Nashville, TN
Atlanta University 1867 Atlanta, GA
Virginia Union University 1899 Richmond, VA
Straight University 1869 New Orleans, LA
Talladega College 1867 Talladega, AL
Clark University 1870 Atlanta, GA
Meharry Medical College 1867 Nashville, TN
Morgan College 1867 Baltimore, MD
New Orleans University 1873 New Orleans LA
Philander Smith College 1883 Little Rock AR
Rust College 1883 Holy Spring MS
Samuel Houston College 1900 Austin, TX
Prominent Black Republicans
Michael Steele-RNC Chairman
Martin Luther King Jr.
Frederick Douglass
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Dr. Condelezza Rice
Alphonso Jackson
Kenneth Blackwell
Col. Alan West
J.C. Watts
Denzel Washington
Herman Cain
Walter Williams

Tolerance

2009-11-24T04:31:00.000-08:00

The Progressive Left has driven Christ from Christmas in the name of "Tolerance"

Merriam-Webster defines Tolerance as:
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

Our schools have banned Christmas in the name of tolerance. Really?

What group or groups are being taught tolerance by the practice of banning Christmas? Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews?

No, if the true goal was to teach tolerance we would invite every religious group to celebrate their holiest of holidays. We would then teach other religious groups to be "Tolerant" of others beliefs.

The true goal of the Progressive Left is to drive all religion from the public square to be replaced by the religion of "Government Control". Look to history; Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union are great examples of this practice! Drive out religion and replace it with Government sponsored programs.

Progressive's do everything in the name of compassion. Or, do they have other plans?

Today President John F Kennedy Would Be A Republican

2009-11-13T06:55:00.000-08:00

I believe this to be true!

Today President John F Kennedy Would Be A Republican
By David Hinz - Posted on August 9th, 2009

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

Today, one of the valiant heroes of the Democratic Party, President John F Kennedy, could not earn his party's nomination for president -- based upon the principles and ideals upon which he governed. His words above demonstrates how far left the Democratic Party of today has drifted.

President Kennedy was a supply-side economist, cutting the top marginal tax rates [for the wealthy] and bringing about economic prosperity for a decade.

Quote:

In his tax message to Congress in 1963, Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91% to 65%. His goal was to reduce all statutory income tax rates by about 30%, including a reduction in the bottom tax rate from 20% to 14%.

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government," he told Congress in January of 1963.

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate," he told a national television audience in September of 1963.

Quote:

Today, an income over $300,000 in adjusted gross income would put someone into the top 1%. The equivalent income of $50,000 in 1962, however, put one into just the top 0.2%; that is, the top two-tenths of 1%. To be in the top 1% in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000. Those with incomes above this level got 14% of the Kennedy tax cut.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus," said President Kennedy in a news conference in 1962.

The increased revenue the government enjoyed from his tax cuts never became a surplus, but was used by his successor, President Lyndon B Johnson, to fund ambitious social programs that have transformed our country to this day -- from a nation of individuals to a collective -- looking toward the federal government for handouts.

President Kennedy understood business, and the necessity of business to be able to make money. Unlike the Democrats of today, he did not demonize those corporations who moved capital off-shore in order to maintain a profit.

"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment," he told Congress in April of 1963.

Instead of demanding that Congress act to penalize those international corporations -- as do Democrats today -- he used those examples as an argument for tax breaks for business.

President Kennedy was strong on national defense -- a warrior unafraid of confronting evil, and defeating it -- a strong departure from the surrender monkeys that have controlled the Democratic Party since the surrender of Saigon and the resulting deaths of millions of our allies.

While still a Senator, John Kennedy gave an impassioned speech to Congress to close the "Missile Gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Quote:

His ringing call to close the "missile gap" which will face us in the years ahead was termed by Joseph Alsop as "one of the most remarkable speeches on American defense and national strategy that this country has heard since the end of the last war."

When confronted with the imposition of Soviet missiles in Cuba, he stood tough against a clear and present danger to our nation, and forced the USSR to back down. The United States stood upon the bring of war, but the president knew that strength, and not weakness, was the only way to deal with our enemies. President Kennedy apologized to no nation for American strength -- he offered no peace plan to our enemies that would leave this country more vulnerable and less safe.

When the USSR began to isolate Berlin with the building of the Berlin Wall during his presidency, President Kennedy went to Berlin, and gave this message of strength to the German people.

Quote:

I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."

I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

Can anyone imagine any Democrat leader making such a speech today? I know I cannot.

President Kennedy believed in the content of a man's character, rather than the color of that man's skin. While he was a warrior for civil rights, it was Johnson, not Kennedy that imposed reverse discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action quotas on this nation.

And finally, in his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, President Kennedy said this:

Quote:

"...we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....

--snip--

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Has any American Democrat spoken words such as these in the last thirty years, and meant them? I think not.

If he were alive today, John F Kennedy would be a Republican.

2009-11-09T07:44:00.000-08:00

Curtis &Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville , MS. and bought a mule for $100.
The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day.
The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night."

Curtis &Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule."

The farmer asked, "What in the world y'all gonna do with a dead mule?"

Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!"

Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don 't hafta tell nobody he's dead!"

A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis &Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked what they ever did with the dead mule?"

They said, "We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do."

Leroy said, "Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898."

The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?"

Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back."

Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.

They're overseeing the Bailout Program.

Limit all US politicians to two terms.
One in office; one in prison.
Illinois already does this!

What if automobile repair shops had to function like a medical facility?

2009-10-28T11:58:00.001-07:00

What if automobile repair shops had to function like a medical facility?

Assume you are the owner of an automobile repair facility. You carefully calculate your prices based on your overhead costs, employee wages and benefits, part prices, and other miscellaneous expenses.

At the end of the month you have receipts of $100,000 and expenditures of $94,000 which leaves you with a profit of $6,000. Enough to pay your bills, feed your family and a little left over for savings and entertainment.

What would happen if the government dictated how you managed your business; just like health care? Presently 13 percent of people in the United States do not have health care insurance. Many within this group are young and choose not to have insurance. A little less than half are in the country illegally, and the rest just don’t have coverage for a variety of reasons.

Medicare and Medicaid, both government managed insurance programs presently reimburse health care providers at about 65 percent of cost and represent about 35 percent of doctors clientele.

Let’s apply these numbers to your automobile repair business. Thirteen percent of your customers will not pay for their car care; in this case the total will be $13,000. Thirty-five percent of your customers will reimburse you $22,750 for $35,000 worth of repairs for a net loss of $12,250.

Using the government model your monthly receipts will be $74,750.

What do you have to do to remain in business? You could layoff some employees or raise your prices. You decide to raise your prices; by doing some simple algebra you determine that you must increase your prices by 34 percent to stay in business. The oil change that was $35.00 is now $46.90, and the brake job that was $300.00 will now set a customer back $402.00.

People: Health Care is broken not because of the business model. It is broken because government is passing laws that force businesses (medical facilities) to give away their services.

Jounalism has truly died.

2009-07-20T05:56:00.001-07:00

With the passing of the great journalist Walter Cronkite we can now officially pronounce the death of American Journalism.

How many Americans knew Mr. Cronkite was a left-leaning card carrying Democrat? Very few if any! Walter understood the role of the press and the power of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Walter Cronkite left his political leanings at home so he could provide America with the truth regardless of the outcome or political fallout.

Today ABC, NBC and CBS have chosen to side politically with the far-left. Fair and Balanced reporting have been cast aside in favor of a Socialist agenda!

We know why Benedict Arnold committed treason. What is more difficult is why Charles Gibson of ABC, Brian Williams of NBC, and Katie Couric of CBS have chosen to follow in Benedict Arnold's footsteps? All are receiving $Millions to host their respective newscasts which could explain their refusal to provide fair reporting. Perhaps all three and the stations they represent have socialist beliefs.

What Americans do understand is that ABC, NBC and CBS have abandoned their responsibility to the public and have violated the true purpose of the First Amendment. In my opinion, a majority of the press has sided with the political left for financial gain and power. All are willing to throw this great country under the bus for their personal benefit.

Rest in peace and God Bless Mr. Cronkite; journalism is going to be missed.

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

Another Government Failure

2009-05-20T04:47:00.000-07:00

The below story is another great example of what happens when our government gets into the business of business. Government's role is not to provide financial services, health care, or any other consumer services.

Here is a list of failed government run enterprises. Social Security; will be financially insolvent in a few more years. Medicare and Medicaid; both will be financially insolvent in a few years. The U.S. Post Office is slowly bleeding itself dry and I am sure will collapse within a few more years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both in financial trouble due to mismanagement and government regulations. The School System; show me a school district that isn't crawling on its knees begging to raise taxes while providing poor quality results.

Now our government is going into the auto business following the socialization of the banking system. Do you really believe the government will be able to produce quality automobiles and compete with the foreign car makers? All the while keeping the FAT CAT UNION BOSSES happy.

How about the government takeover of your health care? This should scare you to death!

People; PLEASE wake-up and smell the coffee! Your government is not your friend.

"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Thomas Jefferson

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 20, 3:12 am ET

WASHINGTON – In an ominous setback, the government agency that insures the pensions of 44 million Americans has amassed a record $33.5 billion deficit — triple what it was just six months ago.

The bleak financial snapshot, in a report obtained by The Associated Press, raises new fears that a federal bailout eventually will be needed for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The beleaguered agency is being saddled with the underfunded pension plans of companies going bankrupt in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

A rare midyear financial update requested by Congress shows the $11.1 billion deficit the agency posted at the end of its fiscal year on Sept. 30 has swelled by $22.5 billion to its highest level in the agency's 35-year history.

The agency's acting director says, however, that the more than 640,000 people who currently receive PBGC checks need not worry about the deficit.

"We have plenty of money to make those monthly payments promised to them for the near future," Vince Snowbarger said Tuesday. "We're comfortable that for the time being we've got a way to make sure those payments are going to be there. Long term there is going to have to be some resolution of that deficit. I think at some point in time it's going to require congressional attention."

The agency does not insure 401(k) plans, but its fate is important not only to the workers covered by more than 29,000 employer-sponsored benefit pension plans but to all taxpayers who could be asked to foot the bill on a bailout if the agency ever becomes insolvent.

Its balance sheet has taken heavy hits in recent years. Nine of the 10 largest pension plan terminations in its history, including United Airlines, Bethlehem Steel and Kaiser Aluminum, have occurred since 2001. On Tuesday, the PBGC announced that it has assumed responsibility for two pension plans covering about 4,300 workers and retirees of Lenox Group Inc., a bankrupt maker of tableware, giftware and collectibles based in Eden Prairie, Minn.

Created by Congress in 1974, the agency quietly operates in a brick office building a few blocks from the White House. When a company's pension plan is terminated, the agency takes over and pays benefits to the retired workers covered by the plan — although retirees don't always get 100 percent of what their employer promised. The maximum guaranteed amount currently is $54,000 a year for a person retiring at age 65.

Compounding the agency's fiscal problem are investigations into allegations that its former director, Charles E.F. Millard, had inappropriate contacts with three Wall Street firms that recently won multimillion-dollar contracts to advise the agency on a new strategy to invest its assets more heavily in stocks, real estate and private equity rather than more conservative fixed-income treasury securities.

A PBGC inspector general report released last week said that Millard's office had hundreds of phone conversations and e-mails with Wall Street firms bidding for the work at the same time that he was actively evaluating their proposals. In October 2008, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock and JP Morgan won awards to invest up to $2.5 billion of PBGC assets in real estate and private equity in return for up to $100 million more in fees over 10 years.

So far, no agency assets have been transferred to the three firms. Snowbarger said the staff was working with the agency's board of directors to decide whether the contracts being questioned should be terminated.

Millard has denied any wrongdoing, saying his actions were legal and ethical. He has been subpoenaed to testify Wednesday at a Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on the agency's ability to take over a rising number of underfunded pension plans from companies going bankrupt.

Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming have asked the inspector general to further investigate phone calls and e-mails that suggest Millard sought help getting a job in the weeks after the contracts were awarded to the Wall Street firms. The House Education and Labor Committee also has opened an investigation into the allegations against Millard.

A flurry of pension plans that have either been terminated or probably will end up being taken over by the PBGC is the largest reason for the agency's rising deficit. Declining interest rates was listed as the second-largest reason for the shortfall. Investment losses from the stock market were only the third contributing factor.

"Despite ongoing deficits, the PBGC has sufficient funds to meet its benefit obligations for many years because benefits are paid monthly — spread over the lifetimes of participants and beneficiaries, not as lump sums," Snowbarger said. "Nevertheless, over the long term, the deficit must be addressed. How soon depends on what happens in the next several years."

The agency is closely monitoring the auto, retail, financial services and health care industries, all in financial distress. The PBGC estimates that pension underfunding in the auto sector alone is $77 billion. "Participants in auto sector pension plans and the other stakeholders of the pension insurance program are at substantial risk of loss if these plans are terminated," Snowbarger said.

Obama's GE Bailout

2009-04-24T17:55:00.000-07:00

Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
03/03/09 8:12 PM

While many companies hire lobbyists to win earmarks, General Electric’s unmatched lobbying force has secured a tax increase — or its equivalent — in President Barack Obama’s budget.

Labeled “climate revenues” and totaling $646 billion over eight years, this line item in Obama’s budget has inspired confidence in GE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt. As Immelt put it in a letter this week, he believes that the Obama administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.”

On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget is Table S-2, titled “Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits.” The chart forecasts the costs of Obama’s spending proposals and the added revenue of his proposed tax increases. It also forecasts, beginning in 2012, billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues.” This budget line, which has struck fear into some lawmakers from coal-dependent states, could spell salvation for GE in these times of uncertainty.

How can Obama generate “climate revenues”? By forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

A tax on greenhouse gas emissions could accomplish this, but Obama’s preferred policy — and the approach embraced by a few congressional bills in recent years — is called “cap and trade.” In short, cap and trade requires businesses to spend “credits” to pay for their emissions. Businesses can buy or sell these credits, and the market — not the government — would directly set the price of a credit. Government would initially auction them off, generating revenue.

GE — a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade — leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008 as the company’s stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.

Reviewing their lobbying filings, you might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda. GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”

This isn’t altruism or public relations. GE has started a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in — and hopes to manage the trade in — greenhouse gas credits. But these investments and this trading floor are of basically no use and nearly no value without government restrictions on greenhouse gases.

Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.

Obama’s budget includes the payoff, promising to start a multibillion-dollar greenhouse gas industry by 2012. In a letter this week, GE’S Immelt told shareholders that current events present an “opportunity of a lifetime,” because “capitalism will be ‘reset.’ ”

Immelt wrote: “The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”

In short, GE plans to get rich by being one of the government’s closest partners — which it has always been, thanks to its unmatched lobbying efforts.

The environmentalist at this point might respond, “Well, good for GE. if they can get rich while helping the planet, more power to them.” But this ignores important issues. First, restraining greenhouse gas emissions will cost Americans dearly. Gas, electricity and heating prices will all go up. The prices of manufactured and shipped goods will go up. A Clemson University report on similar cap-and-trade proposals forecast a 1 percent decline in he U.S. gross domestic product by 2015 if they were implemented.

There are environmental costs, also, to such a focus on greenhouse gases: Ethanol’s damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality are the fruit of government pushing the product as a climate-friendly fuel.

When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric

Obama's Math Skills

2009-04-21T15:35:00.000-07:00

Robert Gibbs, President Obama's Press Secretary, just a couple of weeks ago said that $8,000,000,000 (8 billion) in earmarks is a miniscule amount. He made this statement defending President Obama's Earmark spending!

Now... Gibbs is trying to convince Americans that $100,000,000 (100 million) is a huge amount of money! This statement being made to defend his boss, (President Obama) and the $100 million Obama is cutting from the federal budget!

For Politicians, let me make this simple... 8,000,000,000 divided by 100,000,000 equals 80! So, lets see, $8 billion is 80 times more than $100 million!

Hummmm... Obama, if in your opinion $8 Billion is minuscule. What term should we apply to $100 Million?

Obama cutting $100 Million from a $4,000,000,000,000 ($4 Trillion) budget compares to a person making $80,000 dollars a year not buying a $2 coke and trying to convince the world he has preformed the biggest cost savings event in history!

AIG Bonuses

2009-03-23T06:07:00.000-07:00

Once again Congress screws-up and attempts to cover their tracks by crying wolf!

Congress, the President, and Timothy Geithner all knew about the Bonuses at AIG! AIG contributed millions of dollars to Senator Dodd, President Obama, and many other members of congress during their respective campaigns for office.

The Congress (under Senator Dodds lead) puts a law into the spending bill that would protect the bonuses Pay-back for AIG's campaign support) Signed by the President!

Somehow... the word gets out about the bonuses and they all run for cover! Congress called in the CEO of AIG and treated him like a dog! Both President Obama and Timothy Geithner lie about when they actually knew about the bonuses. Obama, jumps on his plane and runs for cover in California! (His favorite trick; just cut and run; or throw someone under the bus)

Meanwhile... the public is mad as heck, they want blood and threaten AIG employees and their families!

If someone gets hurt... I hope someone brings charges against the members of Congress and the President! THEY CAUSED THIS PROBLEM!

The GOOD! Perhaps in the future, corporations will think twice before running to the Government for help.

Too Big to Fail... Is IAG?

2009-03-17T05:49:00.000-07:00

"Too Big To Fail"

What a ironic idea that a company is to big to fail.

If that is really true... how big is too BIG?

If a company can actually become to big to fail should we not as tax-payers limit the size of a business? If in the long run we must use tax-dollars to bail out a failing company because it has become to large to fail; then should we limit the size of business?

NO! I believe in capitalism... if a company makes poor decisions and can not make a profit it should go into Bankruptcy for restructuring. Government Bailouts should never be an option!

So... should we require Ford to split into separate companies (Ford Cars, Ford Trucks, Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo), General Motors into (Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, GMC, Hummer, Cadillac, and Saab)?

I say NO! Government needs to keep its hands out of the PEOPLES business! If a company gets to big to fail then investors need to take this into consideration when investing!

So far we have pumped $170 Billion (taxpayer dollars) into IAG. So tell me what we have avoided... if the company would have been allowed to file Chapter 11 last fall the company would have been split up into profitable sections and failing sections and sold off or allowed to resume business! It would have cost investors some money; but hasn't it cost us all $170 Billion ($1500 per U.S. household not including the interest payments to come).

I believe our Government is playing Politics with our money! The politicians are totally in the pockets of BIG Business and the politicians are repaying BIG Business for their political support! IGA donating millions of dollars to political campaigns is like buying Insurance! (Now that is Ironic).

Until our Politicians and Business Leaders adopt the nine principles and 12 values that WE AMERICANS live by they will continue to make unethical decisions!

Hamas and our Tax Dollars...

2009-03-04T05:28:00.000-08:00

Again, Obama and the Dems have no idea how the real world works. Obama gives hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the Gaza Strip following its destruction by Israel. Which Israel had every right to do in its defense.

So, Hamas will get millions of dollars.. (they are the ruling party) and they are going to rebuild homes and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip... right!

Obama, why not cut out the middle-men (Iran, Syria, North Korea and Russia) and just purchase AK-47's, rockets, bullets, mines, and heck why not throw in a couple of F-22's as well.

To think Hamas will use Americans Tax Dollars for rebuilding is just plain STUPID!

Obama... are you for real? Or, are you really an undercover Muslim trying to bring down Israel and the United States?

Looking at your actions to date... it seems you are not on our side! You have put the final spear into the heart of out economy, you have grown government at a pace never dreamed of, you have added millions to the welfare roles, you attack big business and the rich daily, your staff are all tax cheats, everything you said during your campaign have turned out to be lies(raising taxes, no earmarks, security, support for Israel, transparency, bi-partisanship), you have put us in so much debt that our children and grand-children will suffer... shall I go on?

Tell me where I am wrong!

Class Warfare

2009-02-26T18:57:00.000-08:00

Obama wrote. "There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few."

These few, Obama is referring to graduated from high school, went to college, have MBA's or went on to Medical or Law schools. These people, which represent 2 percent of the U.S. tax-paying population pays 59.9 percent of the tax bill.

So... lets pretend for a moment that this 2 percent of the population decided to move to another country... what then? Yes, I know this isn't going to happen... but, what if it did? This country would go broke in a few months!

The rich under Obama's plan will pay 39.9 percent of the tax bill!

Along with these people would go much of this countries wealth, jobs, and future growth!

The LEFT needs to stop this class warfare crap now.

The poor should be grateful we have people that went to medical school, dental school, started businesses, etc. For without them, there would be no WELFARE!

Obama's Speech

2009-02-25T05:25:00.001-08:00

As usual, Obama came across as if he were an Angel sent from above. As long as he sticks to the teleprompter he wins the hearts and souls of the uninformed.

But, like his political speeches during his campaign he is making promises that he has no intention on keeping.

Look at his track record... he promised transparency and we received closed door negotiations, he promised to keep lobbyists out of his administration yet Obama's cabinet is filled with former lobbyists, he promised honesty and we have tax cheats throughout his administration, he keeps promising "responsible spending" and we just funded millions of dollars on the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in the San Francisco Bay area, he promised no earmarks yet the spending bill just passed is filled with earmarks.

Obama resembles a political character in a cheesy classic movie... "I promise a car in every garage and a rose garden in every yard." Everyone should know that these are hollow promises.

To use Obama's own retoric... "These are Only Words"

Rick Smiley

Global Warming?

2009-02-25T04:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

My friends, the above website is impressive and well thought out! Unlike Al Gores data that is based on a political agenda and fear. This website offers well thought out theories supported by REAL data.

Please take a look and decide for yourself.

Conservative Values and the GOP

2009-02-24T06:19:00.000-08:00

I am finding it difficult to swallow the GOP's resent return to Conservative Small Government values.

During the Bush administration my party went along with the increase in spending and growth of government. Where was the GOP then... where were their "Values".

It makes me mad as heck to see the GOP's fighting for small government NOW! Do you know how silly this makes you look? It makes you look partisan..... PERIOD!

Either you have Conservative values or not! Just because the sitting president is one of your own doesn't make it is alright to support his spending habits if they go against your Values!

Get it?

Obama is going to Slash Bush's Debt by half!

2009-02-22T08:04:00.000-08:00

Update March 23rd: the debt is now 11,039,686,130,898.10

Again... Obama is using smoke and mirrors to shield himself from the truth!

On Obama's inauguration day the Federal budget was $10.6 Trillion. (Check for yourself at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway).

Today, Obama tells the world he is going to SLASH the deficit by half by the end of his first term.

Well.... Obama is using a PRETEND number he grabbed from the air. If he really intends to slash the debt by half he needs to use the true figure.

Opps... since His inauguration Obama has added to the National Debt, it is now $10.8 Trillion. Again, check for yourself at the above website!

Obama... I realize truth and transparency are only "Words", but how about the truth for once!

As a fiscally conservative person I am all for reducing our nations debt! Obama, I am behind you in the effort of reducing our debt... but, don't throw out numbers that are meaningless just so down the road you cab toot your horn saying you reduced our debt for POLITICAL gain only!

So.. I challenge you President Obama to tell the truth and to reduce the actual debt by half! So far all you have done is add to the historically out of control problem... you point your finger at Bush, but you have added more to the nations debt at a pace that is unimaginable! (agin, just graph it)

So using the real debt, the national debt should be $5.4 Trillion at the end of your first term if you truely want to reduce it by half!

Anyone want to place a bet on Obama's success? I am willing to give you 100 to 1 odds that he can't reduce the debt to $5.4 Trillion! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! I have two mortgages to pay!

Open Letter to Reverend Al Sharpton

2009-02-19T18:47:00.000-08:00

Reverend Sharpton, As an American, I am sick and tired of you and your race baiters going out and stirring up trouble.

The Cartoon in the New York Post of a monkey being shot by two police officers is not an attack against President Obama as you claim. The picture is clearly making the statement that even a monkey can do Congress's job! For your information, Obama didn't even write the Bill... it was Nancy Pelosi and her cronies in Congress!

America will never take you, Reverend Sharpton, seriously until you come to the defense of a white person, a Hispanic, an Asian or other nationality other than African Americans. All you do is show up and throw gasoline on a fire! You preach equality... but you are the first to look the other way when it doesn't fit your racially motivated agenda. Don't we all deserve defense when our civil rights are violated? Or, is the civil rights movement a black cause only?

It is on you to show leadership in the civil rights arena. Put your actions where your mouth is; prove to America that civil rights is a color blind issue!

Where were you when the below pictures of President Bush were distributed? By the way, these are just a few of the thousands available. Why didn't you rush to Bush's defense? Because he is white? A conservative? A Republican?

Reverend, sorry but you just look foolish to most Americans! I know... I must be a racist for having an opinion that goes against yours or challenging a black person in general!

Your Government... Your Friend! Really?

2009-02-18T05:24:00.000-08:00

Once again our Government has found a way to step on capitalism. In a new law intended to protect children will actually result in the loss of thousands if not millions of jobs!

The law sets Lead-content limits: "Starting on February 10, 2009, consumer products intended for children 12 and under cannot have more than 600 parts per million [PPM] of lead in any accessible part" (quoted from the CPSC Enforcement Policy).

Manufacturers and re-sellers must certify that all items for sale have been tested at an government certified testing facility. This testing will cost thousands of dollars and will put many small and big business owners out of business.

The poor lady down the street that makes items for children and sells them at craft fairs will be out of business. She won't be able to pay for the testing! This woman that worked hard squeaking out a meager living won't be able to feed and clothe her children; another family on welfare!

Motorcycle dealers have been forced to remove small bikes and 4-wheelers from their showrooms already because they can't prove every part on the bike meets the new standard.

How about Goodwill Industries? They resell used toys and children's items... I guess they are out of business!

Will we be able to buy anything child related?

Makes me wonder how I survived childhood. The damn government wasn't there protecting me from big bad business.

Well kids... next Christmas will bring you sticks and stones! Well, tress and rocks have been known to have small levels of lead! A lump of coal is out, I am sure coal must contain small amounts of lead!

Thanks Obama... is this the Change you promised!

Budget Shortfalls

2009-02-17T04:15:00.000-08:00

When our government is faced with budget shortfalls why do the working people always get the shaft?

Take California for instance. The state has a $42 billion shortfall and the democratically lead political machine has been unable to come up with solutions.

So, like clockwork, the politicians remedy is to lay-off 20,000 government workers! Don't misunderstand me, I believe the government workforce is over-paid, too large, and not very productive when compared to their civilian counterparts! But, in their defense they do get up and go to work.

Never do we see "Benefits" reduced.... why is it perfectly fine for a woman on "WELFARE" with six children to give birth to eight additional children?... Who is on the hook to care for these 14 children? The unemployed mother? No, you and I! By the time these children reach the age of 18 we the tax-payers will have paid out millions of dollars caring for these children.

How about the millions of dollars being spent on the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in the San Francisco Bay area? The "Stimulus Bill" grants millions of dollars to this little rodent! NOT A JOB CREATING PROJECT!

Hummmm... a mouse lives about 3 years! So, if Darwin is correct this little mouse should be evolving at a pace 24 times that of man! Why doesn't this little guy just adapt to his environment, or grow wings and fly away? You on the left... is Darwin wrong?

I believe we must care for the environment,,, but we go to far!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." from our Declaration of Independence.

Simple said, we all have the right to do what makes us happy! So, if your goal in live is to have 14 children this is fine, but you should be able to support these children! If you want to sit on your rear all day long, fine, but don't expect a handout... you better have the bank-roll to support this choice!

My fellow Americans... it is time to care for Americans! Those that have chosen to live a Campaign and Caviar live on a Welfare budget must pay the price for poor decisions! Americans that get up and go to work, pay taxes and play by the rules should be rewarded with a government that puts us first and foremost! Call and Write your elected officials every day and tell them so!

Unemployment

2009-02-15T07:39:00.000-08:00

Today, President Obama via his Press Secretary said that unemployment will not reach 10 percent!

I believe unemployment will reach 10 percent and beyond. A spending bill like the one passed by the democrats will not stimulate the economy. Giving people additional welfare benefits while ignoring tax incentives for small and big business is stupid!

Obama, it may buy you votes to give the unemployed additional weeks of unemployment benefits, but benefits don't make jobs! Businesses make jobs!

America... if you want to see where we are heading as a nation look to California. California for decades has governed under the socialized model and see where they are today. High employment, budget shortfall of $42 billion dollars. The democratic lead law-makers are now trying to raise taxes!

What is going to happen in California... business and individuals will abandon the state due to the excessive tax rate. The state will see additional decline in its revenue as people and businesses run, those on welfare will continue to demand more government assistance and finally the state will go bankrupt!

This is the same model President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are using. How long before we see double digit unemployment, home interest rates in the double digits, inflation of 8 to 10 percent, and tax rates like those during the Carter years?

Tell me I am wrong!

Obama, another lie! What would Lincoln do?

2009-02-13T04:41:00.000-08:00

During Obama's campaign, he clearly labeled "Middle-Class" as those earning $250,000 or less.

The Pork Bill has the following provisions:

- Obama’s plan to give workers a break on payroll taxes was cut back. It went from $500 to $400 for individuals and from $1,000 to $800 for couples. Individuals earning $75,000 and couples earning $140,000 are ineligible.

- There will still be tax breaks for buying a new car, but it will be harder to qualify and the total money available dropped from $11.5 billion to $2 billion, The Wall Street Journal reports. On the other hand, CNNMoney.com reports the measure allows those who buy a vehicle this year to deduct the state sales and excise taxes, as long as the buyer earns less than $125,000 per year.

Funny, just a couple days ago Obama was on his soapbox telling America on national television how the middle class was hurting. How the middle-class needed action now to prevent a catastrophe.

Even Prince Harry and Princess Nancy kept to the talking points with the "Helping the Middle-class" was their top priority! Funny, I thought funding condoms was Princess Nancy's top issue!

IF Obama was a man of his word and had even a little integrity, "Like Lincoln, the President Obama is trying to emulate" he would veto the bill and send it back! Why, HE MADE A PROMISE TO CARE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THIS BILL LEAVES OUT MILLIONS OF MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS.

Will Obama be true to his word? Easy answer... NO!

Obama is no Lincoln! Obama, is a hollow-man with no soul! He will throw anyone from the bus to promote his socialist agenda including millions of those he sought support.

What Planet are we living on?

2009-02-12T05:55:00.000-08:00

A woman with six children goes to a fertility clinic and has 8 embryos implanted. Nine months later she gives birth to eight premature children.

This woman has no job or other means to care for her 14 children. She and her children are now dependent on you and I for the care and "welfare" of her family. Over the next 18 years we the tax-payers are going to be on the hook for millions of dollars.

A 15 year old girl gets pregnant. Drops out of high school to care for her child. By the age of 20 this same girl has three additional children, is married to her high school sweetheart who is also a high school drop-out.

These two love-birds sit at home all day long smoking "his" prescription marijuana, in their "free" government home, eating junk food purchased with food stamps, watching their 42" plasma TV purchased with welfare money while their children drink Mountain Dew all day long. (real people I know of in Oregon)

Obama gets in front of this nation and tells us that the time has come to take "RESPONSIBILITY"... does this only apply to the working class of this nation? Are high school drop outs, drug addicts, tax cheats, politicians, and malingerers exempt from taking "RESPONSIBILITY" for their actions?

Perhaps I need to show up at Obama's next press conference and beg for a brand new Range Rover and a CEO position at a major corporation... It is becoming apparent "to the working class" that Obama and his cronies want to establish a permanent class of people dependent on the government! With dependency comes votes! So Obama, if I vote Democrat will I get my Range Rover and CEO job?

People, please wake up before it is to late! Our government is raping our nation. The Trillions of dollars they are printing and borrowing must be repaid with interest in the future. Not to mention the $50 trillion dollar medicare and social security bill that is coming due in the next decade as baby-boomers retire. The "working classes" tax rate will be 70 to 80 percent after paying local, state and federal taxes! There will be no incentive to work when the majority of your paycheck will go towards social programs!

Are Auto Workers Overpaid???

2009-02-08T14:23:00.000-08:00

I am not a fan of University Professors due to their being mostly a bunch of left-wing socialists that pollute our children's minds with half-truths and Stalinist Ideals. But, with that being said, a university professor should earn 2 to 3 times times that of an United Auto Worker! At least the professor had the fortitude to stay in school!

We need people to assemble autos, but lets be honest, this is not brain surgery!

According to Forbes;

UAW Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

Obama's Finance Advisor!

2009-02-06T08:39:00.000-08:00

The great American company General Electric is losing value and is failing!

October 2007 the price of a share of GE stock was $41.77, yesterday it was trading in the $10 range.

The far-left CEO Jeffery Immelt mismanaged his company and last Fall had to beg our government for a $140 billion bailout.

TODAY... President Obama invited Jeffery Immelt to be part of his economic advising team.

HUMMMMM... again, I am not the smartest tack in the box. BUT.... is a person that is driving his company into bankruptcy and had to beg for a bailout the right person to advise on economic policy?

Side Note; GE owns NBC! Also known as the National Barrack Channel. GE is a major manufacturer of Wind Power Generators (and Obama is promising to spend billions of tax-payer dollars on wind power). Can you spell "C.O.N.F.L.I.C.T O.F. I.N.T.E.R.E.S.T." Is this the CHANGE Obama promised?

Leadership

2009-02-06T05:21:00.000-08:00

Contrast the actions of the U.S Airline's pilot "Skully" with those of our 44th President Obama and the partisan speech he gave the evening of 5 February.

Skully displayed professionalism, skill and confidence. Those around him during the events leading up to the plane landing in the Hudson River felt comforted and hopeful.

Last night, Obama left the citizens feeling that life was over and our great nations prosperity was at an end. The message I heard was that if you had different views than Obama you were part of the problem, not the cure.

Obama, in front of the world pointed his finger at the Bush administration. "I found this mess when I showed up." Obama went on to blame Republicans because Republicans believe this is a spending plan and not a stimulus plan. He frightened Americans and gave Americans even more reason to dig-in and stop spending.

Imagine if you can General Eisenhower addressing his troops prior to the invasion of Normady and making statements like... "We have to do this because of the leadership prior to my arrivial" or "I know it looks bad, and it is... thousands of you are going to die because of rushed planning" or "you Americans are ready because you worked hard and have the proper equipment, unlike the British who are lazy and their leaders don't agree with this plan"

Leaders must lead. They take responsibility. They lead by example. They must instill confidence. They never disenfranchise part of their membership. They must be the catalyst that binds all members to a common goal. Finally, They never discipline or talk-down to a subordinate in public!

Skully was a leader! Obama sounded like a child not getting his way!

One last word... Obama grow up!

What is being done to repower the U.S.?

2009-02-05T10:21:00.000-08:00

Below is a list of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants under construction worldwide. While every other country is taking the world's energy crisis seriously, what is the United States doing?

Note the number of power generating programs under construction in the United States!!! ZERO!

Our elected officials are doing everything in their power to bankrupt this country. Without power we will gradually become a third world country!

The big lie... wind and solar power will be the answer to our energy needs. Do you have any idea how many wind-generators and/or solar panels it will take just to replace our aging nuclear reactors? We may not have enough land!!!

Yes... our current inventory of nuclear power plants will soon be shut down due to age!

How many Nuclear Power plants are in the $900 Billion "Stimulus" Plan? Zero....

How much funding for Wind and Sun Research? Billions!

During the Campaign Obama said he was in favor of nuclear power... Really?

HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS WORLDWIDE

Name Capacity Country Scheduled completion

Three Gorges Dam 22,500 MW China 2009

Xiluodu Dam 12,600 MW China 2015

Xiangjiaba Dam 6,400 MW China 2015

Longtan Dam 6,300 MW China 2009

Nuozhadu Dam 5,850 MW China 2017

Jinping 2 Hydropower 4,800 MW China 2014

Laxiwa Dam 4,200 MW China 2010

Xiaowan Dam 4,200 MW China 2012

Jinping 1 Hydropower 3,600 MW China 2014

Pubugou Dam 3,300 MW China 2010

Goupitan Dam 3,000 MW China 2011

Guanyinyan Dam 3,000 MW China 2015

Boguchan Dam 3,000 MW Russia 2012

Chapetón 3,000 MW Argentina Unknown

Dagangshan 2,600 MW China 2014

Jinanqiao Dam 2,400 MW China 2010

Guandi Dam 2,400 MW China 2012

Liyuan Dam 2,400 MW China 2008

Tocoma Dam Bolívar State 2,160 MW Venezuela 2014

Ludila Dam 2,100 MW China 2015

Bureya Dam 2,010 MW Russia 2009

Shuangjiangkou Dam 2,000 MW China 2007

Ahai Dam 2,000 MW China 2006

Lower Subansiri Dam 2,000 MW India 2009

Red Sea dam 50,000 MW Middle East Unknown

Grand Inga 40,000 MW D/P Congo Unknown

Baihetan Dam 12,000 MW China 2015

Wudongde Dam 7,500 MW China 2015

Maji Dam 4,200 MW China 2013

Songta Dam 4,200 MW China 2013

Liangjiaren Dam 4,000 MW China 2015

Jirau Dam 3,300 MW Brazil 2012

Pati Dam 3,300 MW Argentina Unknown

Santo Antônio Dam 3,150 MW Brazil 2012

Lianghekou Dam 3,000 MW China 2015

Lower Churchill 2,800 MW Canada 2014

Changheba Dam 2,200 MW China 2015

Banduo 1 Dam 2,000 MW China 2009

REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION WORLDWIDE

Start Operation* REACTOR TYPE MW

2008 India, Rawatbhata 5 PHWR 202

2008 India, Kaiga 4 PHWR 202

2009 India, Kudankulam 1 PWR 950

2009 India, Rawatbhata 6 PHWR 202

2009 Iran, Bushehr 1 PWR 950

2009 Canada, Bruce A1 PHWR 769

2009 Russia, Volgodonsk 2 PWR 950

2009 Japan, Tomari 3 PWR 912

2009 India, Kudankalam 2 PWR 950

2010 China, Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300

2010 Canada, Bruce A2 PHWR 769

2010 Korea, Shin Kori 1 PWR 1000

2010 China, Lingao 3 PWR 1080

2010 Argentina, Atucha 2 PHWR 692

2010 Russia, Severodvinsk PWR x 2 70

2011 India, Kalpakkam FBR 470

2011 China, Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300

2011 Russia, Kalinin 4 PWR 950

2011 Korea, Shin Kori 2 PWR 1000

2011 China, Qinshan 6 PWR 650

2011 China, Lingao 4 PWR 1080

2011 Pakistan, Chashma 2 PWR 300

2011 Russia, Kursk 5 RBMK 1000

2012 Finland, Olkiluoto 3 PWR 1600

2012 China, Qinshan 7 PWR 650

2012 Korea, S Wolsong 1 PWR 1000

2012 France, Flamanville 3 PWR 1630

2012 Russia, Beloyarsk 4 FBR 750

2012 Japan, Shimane 3 PWR 1375

2012 Russia, Nov 6 PWR 1070

2012 Slovakia, Mochovce 3 PWR 440

2012 China, Hongyanhe 1 PWR 1080

2012 China, Ningde 1 PWR 1080

2013 China, Sanmen 1 PWR 1100

2013 China, Ningde 2 PWR 1080

2013 Krea, Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 1000

2013 Russia, Leningrad 5 PWR 1070

2013 Russia, Nov 7 PWR 1070

2013 Russia, Volgodonsk 3 PWR 1070

2013 Korea, Shin Kori 3 PWR 1350

2013 China, Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1080

2013 China, Yangjiang 1 PWR 1080

2013 China, Taishan 1 PWR 1700

2013 China, Shidaowan HTR 200

2013 China, Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1000

2013 China, Fuqing 1 PWR 1000

2013 Japan, Fukishima I-6 ABWR 1350

2013 Slovakia, Mochovce 4 PWR 440

2014 China, Sanmen 2 PWR 1100

2014 China , Haiyang 1 PWR 1100

2014 China, Ningde 3 PWR 1080

2014 China , Yangjiang 2 PWR 1080

2014 China, Hongyanhe 3 PWR 1080

2014 China, Fangjiashan 2 PWR 1000

2014 China, Fuqing 2 PWR 1000

2014 Korea, Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1350

2014 Japan, Power Ohma ABWR 1350

2014 Bulgaria, Belene 1 PWR 1000

2014 Russia, Leningrad 6 PWR 1200

2014 Russia , Volgodonsk 4PWR 1200

2014 Japan, Fukishima I-7 ABWR 1080

2015 Romania, Cernavoda 3PHWR 655

2015 Japan, Higashidori 1 ABWR 1080

Some further power reactors planned or on order

2015 Bulgaria, Belene 2 PWR 1000

2016 Japan, Higashidori 2 ABWR 1320

2014 Japan, Tsuruga 3 & 4 APWR 1500

2016 Japan, Kaminoseki 1 ABWR 1373

2017 Korea, Shin-Ulchin 1-2APR-1400 1350

2014 Japan, Higashidori 2 ABWR 1320

2015 Slovenia, Krsko 2 PWR? 1000?

Socialized Medicine... Not for ME!

2009-02-04T05:25:00.000-08:00

The story below demonstrates what happens when you get Socialized Medicine. Long waits, and a lack of treatment facilities.

Is this really what Americans want?

By MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Writer Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago

TOKYO – A 69-year-old Japanese man injured in a traffic accident died after paramedics spent more than an hour negotiating with 14 hospitals before finding one to admit him, a fire department official said Wednesday.

The man, whose bicycle collided with a motorcycle in the western city of Itami, waited at the scene in an ambulance because the hospitals said they could not accept him, citing a lack of specialists, equipment, beds and staff, according to Mitsuhisa Ikemoto.

It was the latest in a string of recent cases in Japan in which patients were denied treatment, underscoring the country's health care woes that include a shortage of doctors.

The man, who suffered head and back injuries, initially showed stable vital signs, but his condition gradually deteriorated. He died from hemorrhagic shock about an hour and half after arriving at the hospital, Ikemoto said.

Ikemoto said the victim might have survived if a hospital would have accepted him more quickly. "I wish hospitals are more willing to take patients, but they have their own reasons, too," he said.

The death prompted the city to issue a directive ordering paramedics to better coordinate with an emergency call center so patients can find a hospital within 15 minutes.

The motorcyclist involved in the Jan. 20 accident was hurt too and was also denied medical care by two hospitals before one accepted him, Ikemoto said. He was recovering from his injuries.

More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007, according to the latest government survey. In the worst case, a woman in her 70s with a breathing problem was rejected 49 times in Tokyo.

Liberals are Spin Artists!

2009-01-29T06:56:00.000-08:00

I am beginning to understand the art of liberal spin!

First, lets take the Global Warming issue! 10 years ago Al Gore and his cronies were yelling at the top of their lungs... the world is going to catch on fire! If you live in Michigan don't buy a new winter coat because within 10 years you won't need it!

I Live in Ohio! I have never seen a colder winter.

I also resently visited the Ocean! An area I visited when I was a child (45 years ago) and the level of the ocean was exactly as it was then! The same tidal pools, rocks, jetties, etc! The ocean hasn't gone up even an inch!

Three years ago... it was, "The Warming trend is taking a break" ... which really meant the current figures don't fit our phony graphs!

Now... We are hearing "Well, Global Warming really means that the winters will become longer and colder and the summers Longer and Hotter!" Right!

Now... lets examine Obama and his Job Growth Plan! At first he is going to wave his magic wand and create 1 million new jobs within months! Then the number raced to 2 million a couple of weeks later! We gave Obama a couple of more weeks and his retoric grew by another million jobs! Then 4 million by the end of 2009!

Today... he is quoted as saying his recovery plan would "save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years."

SO NOW he has totally covered all his bets! He is going to SAVE or CREATE Jobs and the time table has been pushed out THREE YEARS! Hummmm lets see... saving a dollar isn't anything like earning a dollar!

Liberalism... means not taking a real stance on any issue! You do everything in your power to cover all possible bets! If Obama or Pelosi went to a horse track they would bet $1 on every horse to win in order to profit three to four bucks! BUT... he can then go on ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN and claim to have picked the winner in Every Race! (This tactic wouldn't work on the FOX News channel because FOX would point out that he lost 4 to 5 dollars on every race).

Where am I wrong? Anyone can hit a bullseye with a shot gun!

GE profit down 44 percent

2009-01-23T05:04:00.000-08:00

Imagine that! The Ultra-Liberal American Company that sells its products and services to Iran is in financial crisis!

I for one will not even buy GE lightbulbs! I don't watch NBC, owned by GE, because of its far-left agenda.

I am sure I am not the only American not supporting GE!

Americans... please join me in destroying GE financially! Lets give the share holders a reason to boot CEO Jeff Immelt the leader of the far-left cult at GE!

ATHEISTS WANT GOD STRICKEN FROM INAUGUARL OATH

2009-01-15T04:57:00.000-08:00

I am one that tried his best to tolerate those that go against everything I believe in. I believe in God, and I believe we all will stand before him in judgment!

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't exempt you from judgment.

I find it funny that atheists even take the time to fight the existence of God. I would think they would be like me in regards to atheists. Let them do their own thing; because in the end we will see who has the last laugh!

Many a atheist has upon his or her death bed begged a priest for Gods forgiveness in the hopes of an eternal life!

Removing words from speeches, buildings and other government property will not change the fact that more that 90 percent of Americans worship a God.

One last word! This country was built on the foundation of Judeo Christian values! If God bothers someone so much perhaps they should move to a communist country where God has been eliminated! Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and a host of others are all role models for possible leaders if they were alive today!

To all atheists, God Bless You!

Be Concerned... Big Brother is alive and Well

2009-01-14T05:42:00.000-08:00

Quoted from an article by Steven Reinberg, a HealthDay Reporter; "According to the American Lung Association's State of Tobacco Control 2008, the federal government as well as most states failed to enact critical policy measures, such as higher taxes on cigarettes and to adequately regulate tobacco products."

Why should you be concerned? The American Lung Association automatically gave states a failing grade of "F" if their cigarette tax was too low.

This is how leftist organizations think. Punish people with high taxes to the point that they can no longer afford to use the product or service being excessively taxed.

You hear it already in the new Obama administration. Congress is concerned that federal gas taxes have declined along with the use of petroleum products. So, their answer is, double the federal tax on gasoline to make up the difference!

Democrats got what they wanted; less use of petroleum products! So how will they reward you and I? Raise taxes!

Liberals use tax as a tool to punish those that do not conform to their social agenda. The rich must be taxed because they aren't sitting at home waiting for federal assistance. Big Business must be taxed because big business hates the working class and unions! Smokers must be taxed because they are doing something liberals believe they shouldn't.

Who or what is next? Cows, because they fart climate killing gases and are meat! Carbon, again because it is harmful to the planet (even though we and earth are carbon based). The list will be seemingly endless once Obama is anointed President. He will more than likely have a think tank to come up with additional taxes or the more friendly user fees.

Excessive Taxation and Socialism leads to declining job growth, productivity, and new technology. A lesson liberals refuse to grasp.

You think the economy is bad now! Just give the Libs a couple more Trillion Dollar pots of money and see just how fast our economy tanks! It will be FDR and Carter all over again!

Don't you wish you had a money machine just like the federal governments! Just push a button and out pops a Trillon Dollars. the proverbial Money Tree does exist!

"We Think We can!", said big bad government.

2009-01-11T11:36:00.000-08:00

These are the same guys (Federal Govewrnment) that want to take over health care for everyone in the United States! In the big picture; switching from analog television to digital is a cake walk compared to managing millions of patients, their individual medical records and sepecialized treatments!

If our government can't manage television do you really want them dictating your medical care? No second opportunities when it comes to your health!

FCC chairman: DTV delay could cause confusion (AP)

LAS VEGAS - Postponing the turnoff of analog TV broadcasts beyond the scheduled date, Feb. 17, could confuse consumers, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission warned Saturday.

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team on Thursday asked Congress to delay the shut-off. The main reason the team cited was that the Commerce Department earlier in the week ran out of money for the coupons that subsidize the cost of the converter boxes which allow older analog TVs to receive digital signals.

In an interview at the International Consumer Electronics Show here, FCC chairman Kevin Martin said it's important to make sure that the converter box subsidy program gets back on track, but that doesn't mean delaying the analog turnoff is necessary.

"There are options they can do without having to delay to get coupons flowing immediately," Martin said. Congress could give the program additional funding, or eliminate the 90-day expiration deadline on the coupons, he said.

"I'm concerned about a delay in the sense that if you can solve that issue other ways, a delay has actually the potential to confuse consumers," said Martin, a Republican. "All of our messaging has been about Feb. 17 — not just ours — the industry's."

The Feb. 17 date has been widely advertised by local TV stations.

Additionally, Martin said, some broadcasters have already scheduled the engineering work necessary to take down their analog antennas so they can maximize their digital coverage.

The date of the transition and the terms of the coupon program were set by Congress. The FCC, as the broadcast regulator, has an important role in administering the transition.

Democratic FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, speaking at a panel discussion at the show, said he understood the call for a delay.

"This program has been badly mismanaged. It's not ready for prime time," he said. "There are so many elements of the preparation that have not been undertaken ... We don't have program in place in the field to help people who need assistance in their homes. The phone banks are inadequately prepared."

Plan for the Future... Obama is!

2009-01-09T06:43:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, President Elect Obama gave the nation a sermon on how bad the economy is and how much worse it will become in the next few years!

A BIG "Change" in his remarks from a few weeks ago prior to the election. Prior to the election HE was going to fix this problem over-night and would almost immediately put us back on the road to prosperity.

Being a rookie economist myself; if I were going to implement Obama's plan to rescue this nations financial woes I too would give a speech and tell the nation how bad and long this terrible economic crisis will last!

Fairly simple actually... if your credit cards are maxed-out and you can't afford the minimum payments then the wrong decision is to get more credit cards!

Jimmy Carter tried to spend our way to prosperity! Where did that land us?

I assure you, Obama's prediction will come true! The economy will get worse! Unemployment will go up, interest rates on a new home will go into double digits, and our nations debt will more than triple over the next four years!

Another Rick prediction... three to four years from now Obama and the His Liberal Media Friends will be pointing fingers back at President Bush and his failed policies! (Never would they look into Barney Frank and Chris Dodds involvement in the Housing Crisis which directly lead to this crisis!)

When will American get serious about winning the war against terrorism?

2009-01-07T06:31:00.000-08:00

War is Hell! During WWI and WWII I am fairly confident that prisoners of war were held in prison camps. They were underfed (Starved), had little to no access to health care, heat and air-conditioning were not provided, sanitation was unheard of!

Requesting a lawyer to sue your way out of prison camp would have been mocked; you would have received a beating or reduced rations just for asking!

Prisoners taken during the war against terror should go to prison camp until the end of the war! Same as during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc!

Do we want to win or are we just playing games? Unfortunately, the answer scares me!

It is time the POLITICIANS got out of the business of war and let the soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men do their jobs! Win the war!

The following story gives terrorist's the will to fight on! It demonstrates American's lack of fortitude and will to win!

Perhaps the answer is "Take no Prisoneers" That would put fear into the hearts of terrorists!

By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jan 7, 3:48 am ET

WASHINGTON – Four men being held as terror suspects at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan are asking a federal judge for the right to sue for their release — a right already given to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

A hearing Wednesday will test whether a 2008 Supreme Court decision — allowing al-Qaida and Taliban suspects at the U.S. naval base in Cuba to challenge their detention — should be extended to detainees held at other military prisons overseas.

The government argues that the detainees should have their cases heard by military tribunals.

"This court has no jurisdiction to review this," the Justice Department wrote in a Dec. 19 motion asking for the case to be dismissed.

It added, "Federal courts should not thrust themselves into the extraordinary role of reviewing the military's conduct of active hostilities overseas, second-guessing the military's determination as to which captured aliens as part of such hostilities should be detained, and in practical effect, superintending the executive's conduct in waging a war."

But lawyers for the four men in Wednesday's case in U.S. District Court say the Guantanamo standard needs to be applied to other prisons.

Otherwise, "a lot of the Guantanamo detainees could be transferred to Afghanistan — basically shifting the problem somewhere the government argues that they cannot challenge," said Kathleen Kelley of the International Human Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School, who is representing three of the four men.

"We are saying that's just not true," Kelley said Tuesday. "Detainees cannot be held without process indefinitely anywhere by the U.S. government."

More than 200 detainees are challenging their imprisonment at Guantanamo, where many have been held for years without being charged with a crime.

But more than 600 are being held at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, Afghanistan's capital. In Iraq, officials estimate thousands are imprisoned in U.S.-maintained detention centers.

The evidence against the four men at the heart of Wednesday's case is unknown, and many facts about how and whether they were initially swept up and imprisoned after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have never been made clear. Their lawyers are largely relying on statements from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other detainees who have since been released to build their case for freedom.

Tina Foster of the International Justice Network said none of the four — two Yemeni, one Tunisian and one Afghan — were in Afghanistan at the time they were captured in 2002. At least two of them disappeared for several years, then turned up in Bagram, Foster said.

It's suspected they were held in secret prisons where they could be interrogated, Kelley said.

Roosevelt, Carter, now Obama!

2009-01-04T07:27:00.000-08:00

What does the story below really mean to Americans! Our nation is going to go so far into debt during Obama's term in office we may never recover.

If a family faces financial difficulty shout it go out and rack up additional bills and go futher into debt? It doesn't take an economist with a PHD to understand how stupid this idea is! Common since dictates that additional debt will hurt in the long run!

Additional American debt means that more of our hard earned tax revenue will go towards paying the bill. Which in turn means less for the government and all its programs.

What will be the next step... the famous path always taken by Liberally Controlled Governments... raise taxes! Again... simple math right? just raise taxes and the money will pour in! No thought that businesses will fire more people because of the additional taxes.

Look at New Jersey and Michigan. Two states that went down this Liberal road! They have driven business out of their respective states by the never stopping tax increases. Both states are now begging our Federal Government for a bailout along with many other liberal states!

Because we Americans are using LESS gas the Federal governement is loosing federal gax taz revenue... thier answer; increase the gas tax by 50 percent!

Liberals will never learn... high taxes kill productivity and job creation!

Government made jobs are not the answer... sure, rebuild a road or a bridge because it is needed but this type of job creation is temporary! Once the road or bridge is completed the jobs will be lost again!

What is needed is long term job creation. Non-government jobs that manufacture or provide services to the people of the world. Successful businesses create jobs, provide tax revenue which in turn drive the economy forward!

History is clear... Roosevelt's liberal plan was a failure! It was World War II that ended the great depression not government projects!

Obama is heading down the Roosevelt road... in a couple of years I will be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Taxes will be raised, unemployment will raise, interest on a home purchase will go into the double digits, inflation will be near ten percent! Can you spell JIMMY CARTER?

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are considering a major expansion of government-assisted health care insurance and unemployment benefits as part of a two-year economic recovery program, The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions.

Proposals included extending unemployment compensation to part-time workers, subsidizing employers who must continue health insurance benefits temporarily for laid-off and retired employees and allowing workers who lose jobs that did not include insurance to apply for Medicaid, the Times said.

The proposals would be included with other economic measures like ramping up spending on infrastructure and other public works projects meant to stimulate job growth, the Times said.

Democratic aides said the House of Representatives is not expected to vote until next week at the earliest on any stimulus plan, with final action now unlikely before February, the newspaper reported.

Citing Obama advisers, the newspaper said the package, which could face resistance from Republicans and conservative Democrats, would cost at least $775 billion.

"This has really forced people to think outside the box," the Times quoted a House Appropriations Committee aide as saying, "because this is more money than anybody expected to be spending."

Obama is also likely to propose a tax credit of $500 for eligible individuals and $1,000 for couples, the newspaper said. Those earning too little to pay federal income tax would receive a check meant to offset Social Security retirement and Medicare payroll taxes.

Lowe's Hates Christans BUT Loves Their Money!

2008-12-29T06:30:00.000-08:00

The below story makes me mad as heck! I have remodeled two homes over the past four years and plan to do a few more when the economy improves. I have spent 10's of thousands of dollars at Lowes. NO LONGER! I REFUSE TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT HATE CHRISTAN'S.

Funny, Lowe's is more than happy to sell me Christmas Trees, Lights, and other Christmas related items but will not allow its employees to wear a pin!

By ERICA ESTEP
6 News Anchor/Reporter

NEWPORT (WATE) -- A Cocke County woman says she was fired just days before Christmas because of the way she was spreading Christmas cheer.

Kristie Sutton, a former Lowe's Home Improvement store employee, says it was all because of a pin she wore to work.

"It's called Christmas, for Christ's sake," the pin says.

When Sutton admired the pin being worn by a customer, the stranger gave it to her. Neither knew its message would mean trouble for the cashier.

"I wore it for a couple of weeks before one of the employees came and said to me, 'I need to ask you to take your pin off,'" Sutton explained.

Sutton says she didn't remove it immediately. Instead, she pleaded her case to the human resources manager.

"I asked him why they could sell Christmas products, sell nativity scenes," she said, "but I couldn't wear a Christian pin?"

Sutton says she was told because of store policy, no one would be allowed to wear a pin supporting a religion.

When Sutton returned from lunch that day, she says, she was fired. "The operations manager called me in his office and said, 'We don't need you to stay. You don't have to work out a notice, we just need you to go."

Sutton admits she was already looking for another job and had planned to put in a two weeks' notice after Christmas. But she says she's upset about missing her holiday pay.

She's also saddened by the message her firing gives. "What's so offensive about God? What's so offensive about the word Jesus? What makes us so afraid to let people say that?"

Though Lowe's won't explain why Sutton was fired, several employees told 6 News they believe she was fired because of the pin. They expressed support support of her, but they didn't want to go on camera for fear of losing their jobs.

In response, Lowe's public relations executive Karen Cobb released a statement to 6 News, saying:

"Personnel matters are confidential, so we're unable to share any information; however, Lowe's follows all federal, state and local laws governing employment including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion."

Lowe's also says its employees may wish customers Merry Christmas if they like.

Obama Points ... but in the wrong direction again!

2008-12-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

"More broadly, Obama blamed regulators for the financial debacle, saying they "dropped the ball." Regulators, he said, "have been asleep at the switch."

The president-elect said his new team will help put in place new rules that will help "crack down on the culture of greed and scheming."" (AP)

What role did Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Play? And don't forget the Democratic Party fighting regulation when it was brought to their attention (by the Prepublican party) that Fannie Mae was in big trouble many years ago?

See... Obama is just like the rest of the Political Elites! Points a guilty finger out into space and says it is not my or our fault!

Obama... forcing Banks to lend to people that can't repay their loans is stupid! So, I guess I must be calling you, Franks and Dodd stupid!

Yes.. there is a Santa ! Just ask Obama.

2008-12-17T10:20:00.000-08:00

"A senior adviser to President-elect Barack Obama defended chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday for his contacts with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office about filling Obama's Senate seat." (AP)

If anyone truly believes that Obama and/or his kool-aid drinking disciples didn't contact Gov. Blagojevich regarding Obama's open senate seat... well then you are either totally brainwashed or in need of an oil change!

Tell me... why wouldn't Obama have an interest in who was placed in his vacant seat?

Obama is going to have to work closely with this person to pass his far-left agenda! He wouldn't want a moderate!

SO PLEASE... don't insult my in intelligence by telling me Obama didn't speak to the Governor about his vacant post.

Auto Bailout - Letter to Congress

2008-12-12T05:49:00.000-08:00

Ever hear of Chapter 11? If filling Chapter 11 is good enough for the airline industry then it is good enough for the auto industry!

Stop trying to buy votes by catering to the UAW! Union auto workers are over-paid by about $10 an hour! A person at Burger King works as hard or harder than an auto worker at the UAW and the auto worker receives much greater compensation.

What would happen to McDonald's if they had to pay its employees $10 an hour more than Burger King, Wendy's and Jack in the Box? McDonald's would go broke! Same is true in the auto making industry! The big three can not compete with Honda, Nissan and BMW while providing wages not in line with going free market wage rate!

If you truly care about jobs and not votes at the BIG THREE then you must make them competitive with the foreign auto makers making autos here in America! CUT THE WAGES OF ALL UAW EMPLOYEES BY A THIRD!

Unions... A Socialist Concept!

2008-11-14T05:25:00.000-08:00

Ford and GM have established production facilities in China, India, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico and other low-labor-cost countries. Why?

Why would a United States of America corporation produce automobiles overseas? Survival!

China pays its factory workers $2 to $3 dollars an hour compared to a United Auto Workers $30 to $40 when including benefits. So, lets pretend for a moment that U.S. automakers are in the business to make money; OHHH, they are!

Now lets look at Federal tax rates businesses pay to have the privilege of providing jobs to their citizens. The U.S. has the second highest Corporate tax rate in the world! China, India, Brazil, and Mexico have the lowest!

Now lets pretend for a moment you are the CEO of Ford or GM and you must make a profit or close the doors! What do you do? Again, easy answer; move production overseas!

The Democrat (liberal) solution to this crisis is to raise corporate taxes and to back the UAW; demanding higher wages and benefits for UAW members. Democrats blame BIG BUSINESS and Republicans for sending jobs overseas (buzz-word; outsourcing). When it is Democrat and its Union Buddies that forced the jobs overseas in the first place!

Republicans on the other hand want to lower the tax rate and demand that auto workers (UAW) give back in order to save U.S. jobs!

I have toured an automobile plant! Building autos on a production line is not rocket science! Sorry UAW, but the truth is; a guy at McDonalds flipping hamburgers or a member of the United States Military works three times harder than you do! What specialized training is there to turn a screw?

What would the price of a hamburger be if McDonalds had to pay its employees $30 an hour? Or, the annual budget of our military if they got paid $30 and hour plus overtime!

Enough said! Unions had their day in the sun! We needed unions in the 20's and 30's to stand up for the small guy! Not today! We have enough laws and oversight in place to protect workers from the tyranny of greedy corporations!

If we continue to force unions down the throats of BIG BAD BUSINESS the democrats may get what they wish for! France! No jobs, no productivity, no innovation; just a bunch of people sitting at cafe tables complaining about their government handouts!

We have a choice America. Hard work for a fair paycheck or sipping lattes while reading about China's, Mexico's, India's, Brazil's and Thailand's booming economies!

I have advice for the Auto Makers! Just say no! Next time the UAW strikes for higher wages, just close the plant and move production to Mexico! This will make the Democrats happy! More people on unemployment or welfare which means another vote in their pocket!

If I owned a business and my employees wanted to unionize; Simple, I would close the door! If my employees were unwilling to work for the market value of their efforts then they deserve to be unemployed! We call it CAPITALISM!

Did Obama lie about his Plan?

2008-11-07T06:41:00.000-08:00

"CHICAGO (Nov. 7) — President-elect Barack Obama is seeking some economic advice from leaders of business, government and academia, making the struggling economy — the nation's No. 1 concern — his first order of public business.

Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden were to meet Friday with 17 members of their transition economic advisory board. Members include former presidential Cabinet officials and executives from Xerox Corp., Time Warner Inc., Google Inc. and the Hyatt hotel company. Investor Warren Buffett was participating by telephone."

Wait a minute... Why is Obama seeking adice? He said it clearly and I understood his carefully chosen words! He made it clear a month ago he had a plan that would steer our economy out of this crisis!

SO, am I to believe he lied?

Main Stream Media in the Tank. The case against OBAMA

2008-10-28T05:24:00.000-07:00

Main Stream Media is in the tank for Obama! REALLY!

I have been monitoring NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN to see what they report and how they are spinning Obama's and Biden's latest comments. NO MENTION or glossed over as a far-right hate crime.

Americans... you owe it to yourselves, your children, grandchildren and this great country to know the truth. Please, before you vote for Obama on emotion alone tune into FOX News for a few hours to get the real story. FOX Gives all sides to an issue an opportunity to speak and make their respective cases.

Obama tells the truth! He is a Socialist; he makes this statement in his books, during numerous interviews from the 1990's and early 2000's, and most recently to Joe the Plumber and then again during an interview not a week ago. America is not a Socialist country like Cuba or Russia. We believe in hard work and the opportunity to get ahead. Obama wants to take your hard work and give it away to those that chose not to work to get ahead.

Biden tells the truth! Obama is not ready to lead and America will face evil squarely in the face if Obama is President! Bidin went on to say that Obama will respond to a global crisis but it will be the wrong response!

Yes,,, the economy is bad! BUT, remember the Jimmy Carter years... interest on a home was over 20 percent, unemployment was over 18 percent in some states and was 12 percent nationally. Inflation was in the teens! The economy in the mid to late 70's was terrible. If you are young... do your homework and look for yourself!

Funny! Senators Clinton and Biden both said during the Democratic run for the Presidential nomination that Obama was NOT READY to lead! Both said, he would lead this country down the path of destruction! Again, don't believe me... look for yourself!

Obama's Friends! ALL have been thrown under the bus! Enough said!

If Obama were applying for a Top Secret clearance in the military he would be denied the clearance! Too many radical friends and shady financial dealings! I know... I had and worked with people every day that had Top Secret clearances. And I saw those that were denied a clearance and the reason for denial! Some were denied just because they had a high school buddy that was a little shady! Do we want a President that doesn't qualify for a Top Secret clearance commanding our troops?

CHANGE is not necessarily a good thing! Not when it means Spreading the Wealth (Socialism) or attacking your citizens for expressing their opinions (Communism), or promising to override the United States Constitution with liberal judges because you believe the document is flawed (Didn't Hitler make this same assertion about Germany's Constitution?).

Do we want a President that attacks its citizens and Media for asking difficult questions? Joe the Plumber asked a question and he was tar and feathered by Obama's Campaign and the Obama Lead Media. A Orlando Newswoman asked far questions and was also attacked by the Obama machine! I would expect this reaction in the Soviet Union or Communist China not America! What does this tell you about an Obama Presidency? Is free speech done? What next, a one way trip to a federal prison?

Please... don't vote against Bush because you are mad! Vote for the candidate that will keep you safe and will protect you from tyranny. We are America! Lets join together and do whats best for our country!

Social Security is a hoax!

2008-09-26T05:52:00.000-07:00

Social Security Facts!

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) Participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
2.) Participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. (it is now 12.4 %)
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA)withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!

We wonder why social security is broken?

Let's suppose for a moment that a man and wife married in 1963 and their combined incomes were the national median. The national median in 1963 was $6249 and grew to $59,000 by 2008. During 2008 they reached the age of 65 and decided to retire. Let's pretend the government didn't steal this couples life savings and instead left in it in an account just like Franklin Roosevelt promised. Let's also pretend for a moment that the government paid interest on the savings at the average stock market return rate during the period 1963 to 2008; which was 8.47 percent.

This couple would have $750,647 in savings for retirement! This couple could withdraw their funds and invest it; and if they could select the right mix of investments that could return 8 percent on their investment they could have $60,000 a year in income.

Instead they will receive a monthly check for about $1500, or $18,000 per year!

I have the data that supports this calculation. Please ask if you would like to see it!

What happened to the savings account?

The Democratic Lead Congress and President Johnson decided to take the social security money and replace it with an I.O.U.

For members of congress let me make it real simple: Lets say you want to send your child to college at the age of 18. So, every year on your child's birthday you deposit $2000 into a savings account. The following day you withdraw the $2000 to buy a new car, big screen TV or other nice to have thing and replace the money with an I.O.U. On the first day of college how much money will your child have? NONE! You will have 18 I.O.U.s totalling $36,000 minus any interest payments because you don't get interest on an I.O.U!

That's RIGHT! Your government took your life savings and used it for social engineering!

Funny. Every election year the Democratic Party runs ads that say. "The Republican Party wants to take away your Social Security." Question; how to you take something that doesn't exist?

Social Security is Broken and will soon totally bankrupt America! Thank YOU Congress!

What is wrong with this picture?

2008-09-25T05:13:00.000-07:00

Instinct is a funny thing!

Anytime the Democratic Party wants to make political gain what is their usual plan of action?

With the gas crisis they drug all of the BIG OIL CEOs into public hearings to chastise then for greed and taking advantage of the American public. When the truth was the Democratic Lead Congresses unwillingness to drill for new oil to make the United States more independent on foreign oil.

What happened during Enron? The Democrats again demanded hearings and held a witch-hunt that went on for months.

Compared to Enron the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis is small potatoes!

What are the Dems doing? Running for cover! No hearings! Nothing!

So why the big change? The Dems and Obama's fingerprints are all over this crisis! Two of the former CEOs that caused this crisis are working for Obama. Obama has received 10's of thousands of dollars from the two firms in question. The Dems had oversight! When the Republicans attempted to fix the problem back in 2005 and 2006 the Dems voted down party lines to stop the action before it could gain any traction.

This my friends is another failed attempt to Socialize America by the left that went wrong! Just like Social Security (which is in collapse and will soon fail) and Medicare (costs will soon bloom to a point that it will have to be stopped).

Another issue! Where is Main Stream Media? Very little reporting! Why? Because they too see that this problem is caused by the Democratic Party and they the media is in the tank with the left and a failing Socialist agenda.

The media has reported more on Enron that the current Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae crisis.

When the public finally learns the truth they are going to be mad as heck and should be!

Remember Pelosi saying two years ago, "We are going to be the most transparent and honest Congress in history", or words to that effect!

The current Democratic lead Congress has the lowest favorability rating in history and is more than half that of President Bush!

Obama and his Party of Change are in hiding! Why would Obama and his campaign try to change the topic of discussion? Do you think sending Biden out to make a speech on Foreign Policy was not a calculation? Obama and his staff where hoping to change the topic of discussion from Fannie Mae to Foreign Policy.

Even Obama refused at first to go back to Washington to face the issue head on. WHY would "I know more than McCain about the economy" refuse an opportunity to rub this in McCain's face?

Because Obama knows the truth. When something or someone gets in his path to the Presidential Palace he throws the person or issue under the bus. (Legislation that supported infanticide, Legislation that supported Kindergartners receiving oral sex training, Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Frank Davis, Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan, Communist Party Illinois, Socialist Party USA, The New Black Panther Party, Hamas Terrorist Organization, just to mention a few that went under the bus).

Obama... you can run but you can't hide!

Racial Divide

2008-09-22T04:48:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press published an article about racial discrimination today. All of the major networks and left-wing news-agencies are all jumping on the bandwagon of racial tensions and divide in America. I believe this is an effort to shore-up the Obama Presidential candidacy.

This all started last week when McCain was up in the polls over Obama by 5 to 6 percentage points. Coincidence?

I don't think so. The main-stream media attacked a McCain ad that pointed out that one of Obama's point men was the former CEO of Fannie Mae the mortgage company that recently had to be bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer. Obama received $165,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae which was the second highest of all politicians. The former CEO left Fannie Mae with nearly $100 million in salary and bonuses.

I believe pointing this fact out is fair game. But, because McCain used a picture of the former CEO in his ad McCain is being attacked by the main-stream media as being a racist! Ohhh, did I forget to mention the man is African-American! No mention of this persons race was mentioned in the ad other than the picture.

So... to be fair! If an Obama ad shows a picture of a white person who is being associated with McCain does this make Obama a racist? To apply the same standard... "YES"

I place blame on leftist main-stream media and the race-baiters that have made careers out of racial tension. The left and their media will attack a conservative in a heartbeat for any remark or gesture that in their opinion is racist in nature (i.e. the attack on McCains TV ad).

Former President Jimmy Carter recently called Obama a "BOY" during a speech he gave. Not a word was said about it in the media. BUT, if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity were to use the word "BOY" to describe a Black the media and race-baiters would be all over this like bees to honey!

The left and race-baiters deny this fact! BUT, trust me Americans are smart and see through this shame! They see this all of the time and all it accomplishes is divide.

SO... until media, the leftists, and the race-baiters (and you know who you are) start treating ALL people the same there will continue to be racial divide.

Tell me... when was the last time Jesse Jackson ran to the aide of a White Person that was discriminated against by a Black? Sorry Jesse and Al, but America sees the double standard! If you are going to champion racial equality then you must apply it across the color spectrum. What would happen to Jesse and Al's revenue stream if all racial tensions were to disappear over night?

Another American myth. Whites can be racists but Blacks are exempt from being racists because they are "Victims".

Double standards must end! Whites are racists if they use the "N" word. (SEE, even here I hesitate to spell out the word). But, Blacks use the "N" word as a term of endearment!

Is Race is being used to further a political agenda? What role is media playing? How about Jesse and Al?

General Electric & NBC

2008-09-18T06:24:00.001-07:00

I am calling on Americans to boycott All General Electric products including their television company NBC.

From the beginning of this election cycle NBC has been in the pocket of Obama. NBC might as well officially rename themselves the National Barrack (Obama) Channel. The Clintons stated loudly that NBC went out of their way to give Obama a pass while attacking the Clinton camp on a daily basis. It is true and the statistics don't lie!

NBC is now unfairly attacking Sara Palin. I am not against fair and hard questions because we need to know what this woman stands for and about her background.

On the flip side NBC has never asked Obama any hard questions. Never have they asked about his relationships with known socialists and terrorists Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Professor Khalidis, and Nadhmi Auchi,(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25166 ) the group of friends that provided Obama's professional and spiritual growth.

NBC and its so called reporters get shivers down their legs when in the company of the Great One Obama! Is that unbiased reporting?

The leadership of General Electric and NBC are known far left supporters and have made a decision to back Obama. This is being done because NBC News has poor ratings and is being beat by FOX News.

I call on you all to stop watching ALL NBC programs, write them letters, and boycott all GE products. Don't even buy a car if it has General Electric Products built into it! Lets send a message to our NEWS organizations that they may be able to stand behind their Constitutional protection but they can't run from the American Public. We want fair and unbiased reporting in ALL of our NEWS outlets.

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy

2008-09-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

So, Americans can be "Patriotic" by paying higher taxes according to Obama's VP pick.

Is it Patriotic to call American Soldiers "Baby Killers" or state "They bomb Innocent civilians in their sleep" or "They rape young children" or make anti-American propaganda movies depicting American Soldiers as evil and the U.S. as a terrible regime.

You guys on the LEFT have it so wrong!

Remember, the Constitution originally had no federal provision for taxing its Citizens. The Constitution was written to keep BIG (LEFT) GOVERNMENT out of your business! Everyone, from the day they were born had equal opportunity to prosper and do well. Prosperity comes to those who work hard, get an education, learn a trade or shill, and live a good morale existence (i.e., don't do drugs, live a life of crime, etc).

I am for a reformed tax code. Everyone paying the same rate regardless of their financial status. The left (democrats) have made a career of dividing the rich from the poor for political gain. They divide Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Christians, Whites, Woman, Gay, on and on for political gain. The Democrats then try to pit one group against the other for political power.

When Republicans go out and state, "We want everyone to get a fair chance by the use of school vouchers. This way parents can decide which school to send their children to." The LEFT spins this to mean somehow that Republicans hate Blacks or Hispanics.

Sorry... got off topic a little! But, doesn't it make logical sense to try to get the best education possible for every citizen? Look at the schools in democrat controlled Chicago, Detroit, Columbus Ohio; they are failing!

Competition! If Public Schools had to compete against Private Schools for students the private schools would put the public schools out of business! This would mean one thing to the LEFT.. not that children were now getting a good education, but a huge reduction in campaign contributions from the Teacher's Unions that control public schools.

So there you go! The truth! The Democrats want YOUR children to remain in the public school system so they can reap the benefits of campaign money!!!

Back to taxes... when you or I buy a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread, get a drivers licence, buy a movie ticket, eat fast food we all pay the same tax rate! So then why should we pay different tax rates on our federal taxes?

WHY? Let me tell you! Again... the LEFT is playing politics! If we can get a group of people to hate another group we can benefit politically! The truth... 10 percent of the population pays 70 percent of the federal tax burden and 50 percent pay zero!

So... if I can get the 50 percent to hate the 10 percent and vote for me I will win! The Democrat model of fairness!

My wife and I are in the 10 percent that pay 70 percent of the federal taxes. We both worked hard and have earned every dime we have. Both of us come from simple middle-class homes! My wife went to a 4 year state school and worked hard and earned great grades. She went to an Ivy-League Medical School for 4 years (and we have the bills to prove it), she then went on to advanced training at a medical facility for 2 years, then another state school for 3 more years for specialized training (more bills). She went to school for 25 years and we now have huge monthly education bills to repay!

I entered the Navy right out of high school. I worked hard! Studied, learned, and went beyond the call of duty! I applied for a officer's commission at my 8 year point in my career and was fortunate to be awarded one! Imagine that, a simple Oregon boy was promoted to the ranks of officers without a college degree. How did I achieve this...."Hard Work" I retired from the Navy after 26 years service as a Lieutenant Commander. I then went back to school to finish my college education.

My wife and I have worked hard to get ahead! So please tell me why we should be taxed more than the person who made the choice to deal drugs, or drop out of school, or the guy that did well in school but chose to become a construction worker (nothing wrong with being a construction worker, in fact I wish I could be as handy as these people).

America is a great country! From birth we have the right to make decisions regarding our future and to pursue our passions. Some of us will become wealthy and some will not! BUT, we all started on the same line!

The LEFT will again state... "The rich have an advantage in the race to the top." Trust me, Bill Gates was not born rich! The LEFT is once again trying to divide us my incomes!

I have news for all of you! If you want to succeed you can! If you want to learn higher math, history, writing, or basketball you can! You must make a "DECISION" and live with it!

Skipping School, Dealing Drugs, Cheating, will not get you ahead!

What does it mean to be Patriotic? To me... doing your best, playing by the rules, love God and Country, and treat everyone as an equal!

If Biden and Obama are right! Then the RICH are more PATRIOTIC than the POOR! I don't believe this for a second!

Obama... we can't TAX our way out of this!

Like McCain said, "The fundamentals of our economy are sound." Which means, our citizens are willing to work hard, make compromises when required and trust in God. Rich and poor alike!

Replacement Food Stamps for Spoiled Food

2008-09-17T12:49:00.000-07:00

"Based on the power outages and the flooding, customers who received food stamp benefits this month may be eligible for a replacement based on the value of food lost up to the amount of the month's allotment. Customers must sign a Replacement affidavit (click on link below) and fax, mail, or present that to a local DCF Service Center." copied from http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/27369114.html

Right! We might as well issue every food stamp recipient a replacement month's allotment! In the long run it would cost less than processing the tons of paperwork.

Sorry, I don't like to sound like a terrible person. But, there are thousands of everyday people who work hard and make it on their own without government assistance. Who is going to replace their lost food? I will tell you; Nobody! These same people will suck it up and find a way to fed their families!

Many of this countries welfare recipients are on welfare because they choose not to work! If being on welfare were a little more difficult perhaps some would decide to return to work instead of sitting on their rears all day! They have found the loopholes and share these with their friends! I know... because I have had many people approach me and confess their evil ways! Many very proud to be on welfare and having pulled the wool over the governments eyes!

Those of you that are truly in need. God Bless you!

My Point! This is another government run program filled with corruption and waste!

Do we really want to turn all of our health care over to our government? Medicare and Medicaid are already failing... why would we think the government could do better with all the apples in the barrel?

Obama and Fannie Mae CEOs!

2008-09-17T12:27:00.000-07:00

Obama has as his financial advisor two former Fannie Mae CEOs.

This is too easy! Lets see, two guys that took a perfectly good company and drove it into bankruptcy while each left with millions in compensation!

Is this the change Obama is promising?

Obama and his fellow decocrats received Millions in Campaign contributions from Fannie Mae!

Is this the change Obama is promising?

Isn't it funny that the democrat lead congress isn't demanding a witch-hunt for the reasons / causes behind the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failures. Of course not! They were the ones promulgating the regulations that lead to the collapse of these two companies.

Is this the change Obama is promising?

Obama is the same old story! Get rich on the dime of others while pandering to the people they promise to help!

Back In 2005 McCain reached across party lines and backed a bill to rein-in the practices of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The democrats fought the bill and it died! McCain foresaw the problem and tried to take action!

Is this the change Obama is promising?

Obama Doctrine?

2008-09-14T07:21:00.001-07:00

The Bush Doctrine, unlike the Monroe Doctrine which is actual words on paper, is a concept put together by the far-left to spread fear and hate.

Bush has never said or written, "this is my doctrine" and regardless of what happens in the world this is our path of action.

The action in Iraq was put to a vote in OUR Congress and it was overwhelmingly approved by CONGRESS to take military action against Iraq. MOST on the left today state, "If I knew then what we know today I would not have supported the war in Iraq." NOW that's leadership!

Lets see, "knowing what I know today I would have purchased Microsoft stock during its initial offering!" This statement doesn't make me a great investor! Or does it?

Knowing what I do about Obama, if he were in the senate during the historical vote to invade Iraq I am 99.8 percent sure he would have voted to invade! Too afraid to go against his contemporaries and the voice of public opinion. Or he would have stayed at home that day because you can't vote "Present" in our Federal Senate like the Illinois Senate.

Why do I believe this... Obama leads by polls. So, if his counterparts and the American population back something he too will blindly lead in that direction. May I point out his shift on drilling off-shore... he was against drilling off-shore regardless the cost to America. Now that 80 percent of Americas support drilling off-shore... so does Obama!

So what would the Obama Doctrine look like?

He would walk out into the rose garden in the morning holding up his finger to see which way the wind of American Opinion is blowing! Once he has determined what WE Americans want he will make a decision. But, not before getting approval with the Daily Kos, Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Professor Khalidis, and Nadhmi Auchi,(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25166 ) the group of friends that provided Obama's professional and spiritual growth.

The Obaba Doctrine will be a living document just like the left regards the Constitution of the United States! Wake-up, read the polls, make a suggestion to my my close friends and gain their approval (one is in jail so it will be a little more difficult), then make policy!

Obama... Attacking McCain's Lack of Computer Knowledge

2008-09-12T08:48:00.000-07:00

Obama... one word! WEAK!

If this is the best you can do as a former Community Organizer ... well, sorry dude!

Do Nothing Congress

2008-09-12T06:57:00.000-07:00

You and I are facing historical gas prices. Can you remember $2.00 a gallon gas? We are now paying and average of $3.67 for regular, up from $2.80 a year ago!

Heating oil currently costs $3.30 per gallon, up from $2.21 a year ago! This price will raise dramatically by mid-February!

Illegal Immigration is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in hospital costs, welfare benefits, crime (yes, I know not all illegals are criminals, but try telling that to the family in San Francisco that recently had the father and two sons killed by an illegal), and taking of American jobs!

What has congress done? NOTHING!

The Democrats refuse to vote on an energy plan! Thank You so much Harry and Nancy!

The Democrats refuse to go after illegals!

And, the Republicans sit on their hands like a bunch of scared monkeys.

It is time to replace the House and Senate! Let's find some real Americans that will go to Washington and take charge! What we need are farmers, small business people, teachers, police officers, firemen, and housewives to run for congress. Real people not afraid to to DO WHAT's RIGHT!

I am all for alternative energy! Wind, solar, worm-dirt, nuclear, and ????? But, in the mean-time we must DRILL! Get off foreign oil and keep our dollars here in the United States. Put people to work in the oil industry until we find the next source of clean renewable energy!

Natural Gas seems like a good source for a while.... we have tons of it! It is cleaner than Gasoline and we have the technology to convert cars to run on it now!

Illegals! IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!

If I were to choose not to pay my taxes, which is a federal crime! OUR government would be on me like flies on honey! You know they would be!

SO... why is it okay to sneak into our country illegally?

Perhaps we all should stop paying our taxes until our government enforces ALL LAWS!

God Bless America

2008-09-11T06:20:00.000-07:00

Today is the Anniversary of the September 11th attack on this nation.

Thank You George Bush and all men and women of the armed services for keeping American safe from terrorism.

On this date, seven years ago I was a lieutenant commander on board the USS Antietam, a guided missile cruiser. Our battle group was in route to the gulf to relieve the battle group that had been on station for the previous six months.

One of my shipmates came running into my stateroom saying, "the world trade center has been hit by terrorists!"

Our world changed! My world changed!

I recall hearing from the so called experts over the next six months, as reported by Main-stream media. "We will be hit again!" The main-stream media seemed to relish in the idea that we "the big bad United States" deserved to be bombed and we would soon be the victims of radical Muslims.

Believe me... George Bush is a hero! The leftist media and Leftist Political party have done everything they can to stop Bush from doing his job. Our President stood his ground and did what was right! Much like that soldier that dives on a hand-grenade to save his buddies!

Stop for a moment and THINK! What would a Democrat President have done following 9-11? Not a Roosevelt or Kennedy but a 21st century Democrat. Would we be as safe today?

I believe we would have been attacked again and we would be running for our lives!

Thank You George Bush!

Rick

Main-Stream Media. Fair and Balanced?

2008-09-11T05:30:00.000-07:00

The First Amendment to our constitution provides for "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press".

"The founders of the United States enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the "primary purpose" of the First Amendment was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches" (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary). " (1)

Who or what is going to protect us from the press. The press (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, Newsweek, US ...) have adopted a leftist agenda and slant ALL of their so called news to the left. From presidential elections to global warming all we hear reported as news is the views and opinions of the left. Never do we hear counter-points or other facts that discredit leftist views.

I am starting this blog to use my first amendment right to fight back against the liberal media and government officials that are leading this country to the slaughter-house.

I welcome comments, but please keep them clean and civil. Bomb-throwing isn't going to accomplish anything. If you want to make a claim or counter-claim please state your sources; if you want to be taken seriously you need to make statements of fact not statements of emotion.

This link will take you to Media Contacts and Addresses: http://www.mrc.org/MediaAddresses/mediaaddresses.asp

I encourage all Americans to write their congress-people on a regular basis. Use this link to contact your elected officials.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

I believe that ALL Americans are responsible for their individual success. Hard work and being a productive member of this great country is what made the United States the great country that it is today. Get an education, work hard, follow the rules, and believe in and trust God.

Thank You for your time.

God Bless

Rick

(1) http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodale.htm