tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66114558352485103212024-03-04T23:18:35.418-05:00ZACTechs blogA blog by Z_AC_Tech. Proud to be an exceptional American TEAhadist Conservative Infidel. Embrace the Conservative core values of low taxes, smaller government, freedom to practice religion or not if you desire, right to bear arms, a strong military and the right to an alternative education verses the failed public education. The Liberal answer let’s throw more money and regulations at the problem. Big government, big labor and big business is oppressing the common man. Reagan Akbar!ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-43609592003922906442017-02-17T13:06:00.000-05:002017-03-16T03:36:56.731-04:00I am back, after a hiatus and the win by Donald Trump. I see how the main-stream media, career government bureaucrats, entertainers and educators are treating our president unfairly. This has inspired me back into action once again.<br />
<br />
<h3 class="page-title title" id="page-title">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">Socialism is a religion</span></h3>
<h1 class="page-title title" id="page-title">
</h1>
<div class="page-title title" id="page-title">
<span style="font-size: large; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "times";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Socialism postulates a moral structure on insufficient foundations. Beginning
from a non-moral beginning and utilizing an amoral process, it hoped to
arrive at a moral endpoint through a reasoning that reduced justice,
mercy, nature, happiness, and even a shadow of transcendental longing as
wholly subservient to determined historical necessity. In retrospect,
one could not have designed a more thorough system of slavery: a
religious fervor with Man as the object; a Second Coming without a
Messiah. Devoid of moral content and without a lasting legacy, nothing
remains in its camp but the myriad of unmarked graves stretching out
across a century of muddled ideological passion while projecting its
unlearned lessons into the ominous future like curling fingers of fire.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="page-title title" id="page-title">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
Read more: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/socialism_as_religion.html#ixzz4bT1aENsW" style="color: #003399;">http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/socialism_as_religion.html#ixzz4bT1aENsW</a>
<br />
Follow us: <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker" target="_blank">@AmericanThinker on Twitter</a> | <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker" target="_blank">AmericanThinker on Facebook</a></div>
<h1 class="page-title title" id="page-title">
</h1>
<h3>
</h3>
Socialism is the belief that individual private property is a bad idea. It is thus an anti-Christian and anti-biblical belief. Socialists believe that governments should own most or all property and distribute it out as government experts, scientists, politicians, or occasionally voters see fit. Under socialism, the State puts itself in the place of God and says, “The earth is the State’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Under this view, the individual has no protection from his neighbor if his neighbor is in the majority, or if the State somehow deems his neighbor as needful in some way; the State simply uses force to take that individual’s property and give it to someone else. In this sense, the State moves landmarks every day. In this view, the State determines our rights, and gives us our freedoms; here there is no appeal beyond the State.
Socialism is the belief, therefore, that stealing is acceptable as long as another man or group of men says so. Socialism believes in theft by majority vote, or theft by a majority of representatives’ votes in Congress. Socialism is the belief that armed robbery is OK as long as you do it through proxy of the government’s gun. Socialism places man, and ultimately the State, in the place of God. Man becomes owned by other men, instead of by his Maker. Socialism is an entirely humanistic, God-denying, God-usurping belief.<br />
<br />
Read more at http://americanvision.org/6459/god-versus-socialism/<br />
<br />
<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="947ke-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="947ke-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="947ke-0-0"><span data-text="true">Of all religions, secular and otherwise, that of Marxism has been by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="b5npi-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="b5npi-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="b5npi-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="5ncf8-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5ncf8-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="5ncf8-0-0"><span data-text="true">In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="cpa33-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cpa33-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cpa33-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="dms1i-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dms1i-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="dms1i-0-0"><span data-text="true">And what did Marxism, this greatest of human social experiments, achieve for its poor citizens, at this most bloody cost in lives? Nothing positive. It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="382rr-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="382rr-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="382rr-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="6erdi-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6erdi-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="6erdi-0-0"><span data-text="true">The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="2vgtg-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2vgtg-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="2vgtg-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="8uegp-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="8uegp-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="8uegp-0-0"><span data-text="true">The Marxists saw the construction of this utopia as a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, “wreckers,” intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="cb8b-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cb8b-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="cb8b-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="chtra" data-offset-key="aovrk-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="aovrk-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="aovrk-0-0"><span data-text="true">The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world’s greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics – a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="aovrk-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="aovrk-0-0"><span data-text="true">Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28036/</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-59607061012699790522014-12-07T12:14:00.001-05:002014-12-07T12:19:27.048-05:00China's Now The Worlds Number One Economy<h1 id="article-headline" itemprop="headline">
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-america-is-now-no-2-2014-12-04" target="_blank">It’s official: America is now No. 2</a></h1>
<div class="topics floatleft">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Below is from an </span>article written by <span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Brett Arends originally published in marketwatch.com on </span></span>Dec 4, 2014</div>
<div class="topics floatleft">
</div>
<br />
Hang on to your hats, America.<br />
And throw away that big, fat styrofoam finger while you’re about it.<br />
There’s
no easy way to say this, so I’ll just say it: We’re no longer No. 1.
Today, we’re No. 2. Yes, it’s official. The Chinese economy just
overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world.
For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is not
the leading economic power on the planet.<br />
It just happened — and almost nobody noticed.<br />
<br />
The International Monetary Fund recently released<a class="icon " href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=84&pr.y=9&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C624%2C692%2C522%2C694%2C622%2C142%2C156%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=" target="_blank"> the latest numbers </a>for
the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in
“real” terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6
trillion — compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A.<br />
As recently as 2000, we produced nearly three times as much as the Chinese.<br />
To
put the numbers slightly differently, China now accounts for 16.5% of
the global economy when measured in real purchasing-power terms,
compared with 16.3% for the U.S.<br />
This latest economic earthquake
follows the development last year when China surpassed the U.S. for the
first time in terms of global trade.<br />
I reported on this looming
development over two years ago, but the moment came sooner than I or
anyone else had predicted. China’s recent decision to bring gross
domestic product calculations in line with international standards has
revealed activity that had previously gone uncounted.<br />
These calculations are based on a well-established and widely used
economic measure known as purchasing-power parity (or PPP), which
measures the actual output as opposed to fluctuations in exchange rates.
So a Starbucks venti Frappucino served in Beijing counts the same as a
venti Frappucino served in Minneapolis, regardless of what happens to be
going on among foreign-exchange traders.<br />
PPP is the real way of comparing economies. It is one reported by the
IMF and was, for example, the one used by McKinsey & Co.
consultants back in the 1990s when they undertook a study of economic
productivity on behalf of the British government.<br />
Yes, when you
look at mere international exchange rates, the U.S. economy remains
bigger than that of China, allegedly by almost 70%. But such measures,
although they are widely followed, are largely meaningless. Does the
U.S. economy really shrink if the dollar falls 10% on international
currency markets? Does the recent plunge in the yen mean the Japanese
economy is vanishing before our eyes?<br />
Back in 2012, when I first
reported on these figures, the IMF tried to challenge the importance of
PPP. I was not surprised. It is not in anyone’s interest at the IMF that
people in the Western world start focusing too much on the sheer extent
of China’s power. But the PPP data come from the IMF, not from me. And
it is noteworthy that when the IMF’s official World Economic Outlook
compares countries by their share of world output, it does so using PPP.<br />
Yes,
all statistics are open to various quibbles. It is perfectly possible
China’s latest numbers overstate output — or understate them. That may
also be true of U.S. GDP figures. But the IMF data are the best we have.ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-81813447710333269912014-09-01T10:20:00.002-04:002014-09-01T10:30:20.500-04:00What is Labor day really about part 2? <span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0"><span data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">With all the Progressives dumping on Obama a thought comes to mind. One
must be dubious when reading an admitted Progressives diatribe to
explain away another failed Progressive. They are quite good at it cause
for the last 300 years their leaders and systems have always failed
killing millions in the p</span></span><span data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3"><span data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0"><span data-reactid=".18.1:3:1:$comment10204560558955954_10204561135810375:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$0:0">rocess.
The explanation is always the same that they were not Progressive
enough when the real problem is simply that the system rewards failure
and punishes success but they cannot admit this cause it is the most
important feature of their quasi-religious (with Marx as God) like
belief system. In fact just like an extremist religious cult some are
willing to kill despite even when exposed to simple obvious truths that
are counter to their beliefs! The Labor Day holiday is a good time to revisit the Progressive agenda and how they are constantly revising their own history and attempting to evolve their failed beliefs by reinventing who they really are once you peal away their lies they use to cover up the failures of their own past.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
What is Labor day really about part 2?
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
A revisit of a post I put up two years ago.<br />
I thought Labor day was a good day to contrast the unrealistic Marxist
redistributive Socialist utopian dream against the simple well proven
truth of American Conservatism. <br />
<br />
The first Labor Day was founded by the Central Labor Union in New York city on September 5, 1882.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/09/02/fadedposter.png" /></div>
Leftists wanted May 1st but president Grover Cleveland and Congress
opted to choose the date of the original Labor Day parade organized by
the CLU, September 5, 1884, rather than May 1, as a national holiday.
Thus, the first Monday of September became Labor Day and was officially
written into law as a national holiday on June 28, 1894.<br />
" But the last holiday of summer is more than a day off work: It's also
one of the most controversial of American holidays, a celebration of the
laborers -- and more specifically, the unionized laborers" <br />
a quote from Bruce Watson<br />
<br />
So it is obvious that the Left uses Labor Day as another day to promote
their Marxist redistributive agenda. The rest of us need to counter this
false unsustainable utopian dream that has been proven time and time
again to be a complete failure that ends up making many suffer worse
then before. <br />
<br />
"What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the
politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a
democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in
which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the
state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes
deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth
that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent
bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone
with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce
enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which
the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy
may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to
fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a
meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet
Union."<br />
a quote from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html" target="_blank">Janet Daley</a><br />
<br />
"We own this country politicians are employees of ours and when somebody
does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go!" Clint Eastwood<br />
<br />
On the Internet, there is a cry for replacing this year’s Labor Day – as
in American workers’ day – with “Empty Chair Day” inspired by Clint
Eastwood’s ‘empty chair’ symbolizing the current employment - or should
it be said, unemployment - situation in the country.<br />
I feel Labor Day should now be celebrated as Empty Chair Day! Please do
join me in celebrating "National Empty Chair Day" on Labor Day!.<br />
<br />
Below is another excellent article from<br />
Real Clear Politics <br />
<h2 id="article-title">
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/27/public_unions__the_socialist_utopia_109046.html" target="_blank">Public Unions & the Socialist Utopia</a></h2>
<b>By</b> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Robert+Tracinski&id=14578"><b>Robert Tracinski</b></a><br />
<div class="article_body" id="article_body">
The
Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and
Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal
fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to
its very existence.<br />
Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of
Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it
is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.<br />
<div style="background-color: white; display: inline; float: right; margin: 0px 0 12px 12px; padding: 0 0 0 10px; position: relative; width: 300px;">
<div id="article-box-ad">
</div>
</div>
It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/24/public_unions_force_taxpayers_to_fund_dems_109013.html">explains</a>, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.<br />
But there is something deeper here than just favor-selling and
vote-buying. There is something that almost amounts to a twisted
idealism in the Democrats' crusade. They are fighting, not just to
preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or
rather, they are fighting to maintain the <i>illusion </i>that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.<br />
Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the
left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous
health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the
government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work
rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are
almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because
everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their
employer will go out of business.<br />
In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy in
miniature, including its political aspect: the grateful recipients of
government largesse provide money and organizational support to re-elect
the politicians who shower them with all of these benefits.<br />
Put it all together, and you have the Democrats' version of utopia.
In the larger American culture of Tea Parties, bond vigilantes, and
rugged individualists, Democrats feel they are constantly on the
defensive. But within the little subculture of unionized government
employees, all is right with the world, and everything seems to work the
way it is supposed to.<br />
This cozy little world has been described as a system that grants
special privileges to a few, which is particularly rankling in the
current stagnant economy, when private sector workers acutely feel the
difference. But I think this misses the point. The point is that this is
how the left thinks <i>everyone </i>should live and work. It is their version of a model society.<br />
Every political movement needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal works and that it works.<br />
And there's the rub. The left is running low on utopias.<br />
The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of capitalism,
particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called the "Third
World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on the
European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be so
much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic.
But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across
Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing
money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to
benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.<br />
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly
different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out,
within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold
sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised
the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health
care. Public employment is another.<br />
Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode.<br />
On the national level, it has become clear that the old-age welfare
state of Social Security and Medicare is driving the federal government
into permanent trillion-dollar deficits and a ruinous debt load. Even
President Obama acknowledged, in his State of the Union address, that
these programs are the real drivers of runaway debt-just before he
refused to consider any changes to them. You see how hard it is for the
Democrats to give up on their utopias.<br />
On the state level, public employment promises the full socialist
ideal to a small minority-paid for with tax money looted from a larger,
productive private economy. But the socialist utopia of public
employment has crossed the Thatcher Line: the point at which, as the
Iron Lady used to warn, you run out of other people's money.<br />
The current crisis exposes more than just the financial
unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral
unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these
welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to
perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few.<br />
This is why the left is treating any attempt to fundamentally reform
the public workers' paradise as an existential crisis. This is why they
are reacting with the most extreme measures short of outright
insurrection. When Democratic lawmakers flee the state in order to
deprive their legislatures of the quorum necessary to vote, they are
declaring that they would rather <i>have no legislature</i> than allow voting on any bill that would break the power of the unions.<br />
National Review's Jim Geraghty describes these legislative walk-outs
as "small-scale, temporary secessions." The analogy is exact. One
hundred and fifty years ago, Southern slaveholders realized that the
political balance of the nation had tipped against them, that they could
no longer hope to win the political argument for their system. Faced
with a federal government in which they were out-voted, they decided
that they would rather have no federal government at all. The Democrats'
current cause may not be as repugnant-holding human beings as chattel
is a unique evil-but it has something of the same character of
irrational, belligerent denial. More than two decades after the fall of
the Berlin Wall, the left is still trying to pretend that socialism is
plausible as an economic system.<br />
The Democrats are fleeing from a lot more than their jobs as state
legislators. They are fleeing from the cold, hard reality of the
financial and moral unsustainability of their ideal.</div>
<br />
Below is another excellent article from<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1906511942">The failure of unions and socialism</a><br />
from Braincrave Second Life staff<br />
Mar 02, 2011<br />
<br />
Someone once made a comment that he was 100% supportive of a tyrannical,
socialist government as long as he was the only citizen of his country
(paraphrased). Throughout the world, and especially in America, many are
still trying their best to pretend that socialism is a plausible
economic system and ideology by attaching it to capitalism. No matter
how often socialism has proved to be morally and economically
destructive, there continues to be those who desperately want to believe
that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" is a sustainable model.<br />
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-inc-2010-income-statement"><img src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d690245ccd1d5d750110000-920-691/usa-income-statement.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a><br />
Currently, there are multiple US states (e.g., Wisconsin, Ohio,
Tennessee, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Florida) that are attempting to
"break" public unions. This struggle appears to be bringing those on the
left together. Why are public unions such a particularly big deal for
Democrats? Is unionized, public employment representative of the
socialist utopia? Given what we are seeing with government's income
statement - and specifically the cost of entitlement programs which is
primary to liberal ideology - is it hubris to suggest that breaking the
public unions would effectively destroy the fundamental premises of the
Democratic party and, thus, the party itself? Given that Republicans are
just as guilty for supporting collectivism, how destructive could this
be to RINOs?<br />
<br />
FTA: "The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and
Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal
fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to
its very existence. Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The
battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and
more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left...
They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but
to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the
illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.
Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the
left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous
health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the
government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work
rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are
almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because
everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their
employer will go out of business...<br />
<br />
The point is that this is how the left thinks everyone should live and
work. It is their version of a model society. Every political movement
needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal
works and that it works. And there's the rub. The left is running low
on utopias. The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of
capitalism, particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called
the "Third World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on
the European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be
so much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic.
But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across
Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing
money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to
benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.<br />
<br />
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly
different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out,
within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold
sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised
the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health
care. Public employment is another. Now the left is panicking as these
experiments in American socialism implode... The current crisis exposes
more than just the financial unsustainability of these programs. It
exposes their moral unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the
generosity of these welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by
forcing everyone else to perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of
a privileged few."
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-77891207577723912662014-06-29T11:50:00.002-04:002014-06-29T11:56:47.185-04:00Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement<div class="copy-paste-block">
<h3>
Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement.</h3>
</div>
<div class="copy-paste-block" style="text-align: left;">
We all need to tell our politicians to support this new law being proposed. The pain and suffering inflicted upon this child was appalling and must never be allowed to happen again. This could happen to someone in your family.</div>
<div class="copy-paste-block">
</div>
<div class="copy-paste-block">
<a href="http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/justinas-law-to-follow-mad-psychiatric-experiment-on-justina-pelletier/" target="_blank">Justina’s Law to Follow “Mad Psychiatric Experiment” on Justina Pelletier</a></div>
<div class="copy-paste-block">
<div class="copy-paste-block">
<div class="wrapper">
<div id="container">
<div id="content">
<div class="post-388587 post type-post status-publish format-standard has-post-thumbnail hentry category-penny-swift category-usnews tag-justina-pelletier entry single-default" id="post-388587">
Following
the incarceration of Justina Pelletier at state institutions for 16
months, four members of the United States House of Representatives are
set to introduce bipartisan legislation that will prohibit the federal
funding of medical experiments on wards of the state. Nicknamed
Justina’s Law the bill has been drawn up by two Democrats and two
Republicans following what Justina’s father, Lou Pelletier has labeled a
“mad psychiatric experiment” on his daughter.<br />
Last night Justina, together with her parents Lou and Linda Pelletier
and her three sisters, Jennifer, Jessica and Julia, appeared live with
Mike Huckabee on his popular weekend talk show hosted by Fox News.
Huckabee is one of several media personalities who have championed
Justina’s rights over the past months in an endeavor to force the State
of Massachusetts (MA) to release her from the custody of the MA
Department of Children and Families (DCF) following a court order last
year. Lou Pellitier told the television audience, “It was all a mad
psychiatric experiment.” Justina, in turn said nobody should ever be
“put through” what she has been put through.<br />
<blockquote>
"They were so mean and nasty to me, and mean and terrible to my family also." Justina Pelletier</blockquote>
<b>The Controversial Re-diagnosis of Justina Pelletier</b><br />
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_388594" style="width: 460px;">
<img alt="Justina Pelletier" class="size-full wp-image-388594" src="http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/JP3.jpg" height="308" width="450" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text">
The Pelletiers with Mike Huckabee. From left to right: Linda, Jennifer, Huckabee, Jessica, Lou, and in front: Justina and Julia</div>
</div>
<b><br />
</b> Justina was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH),
Massachusetts in February last year after contracting flu that had made
her severely ill, dehydrated and unable to eat. Already diagnosed by
doctors at Tufts as having the very rare mitochondrial (mito) disease,
the then 14-year-old was re-diagnosed at BCH by doctors and
psychiatrists who insisted it was all in her head and that she was in
fact suffering from Somatoform Disorder.<br />
When her parents refused to accept the new diagnosis and sign
approval of it, the hospital called in the DCF that took instant legal
action and had her declared a ward of the state. They also charged the
Pelletiers with “medical child abuse,” stating that they had
over-medicated their daughter, in spite of the fact that they were
following instructions from reputable doctors at the renowned Tufts
Medical Center. The hospital withdrew all her medication, refused to
allow her to continue at school, and would not permit her to even go to
church, in spite of the fact that the family is very religious.<br />
From being an active figure skater in December 2012, she is now in a
wheelchair and cannot stand or walk without help. But after living a
life of hell for 16 months, Justina was carried back into the family
home in Connecticut on Wednesday last week by her father. At last they
were out of what Lou Pelletier described to Mike Huckabee last night as
“this Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole.”<br />
<b>BCH Allowed to do Research on Wards of the State</b><br />
In BCH’s The Clinical Investigation Policy and Procedure Manual that
details policy for wards of the state at the hospital, the first clause
states: “Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research
that presents minimal risk…” It also states: “Children who are Wards of
the state may be included in research that presents greater than
minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit…”<br />
There are additional clauses in the three-page document that Guardian
Liberty Voice has in its possession. This includes the need for
approval from the DCF Research Proposal Review Committee before research
may begin. Parents of children who are Wards are not consulted and
their permission for their children to be “guinea pigs” is not required.<br />
<b>Justina’s Bill</b><br />
The new bill that has been introduced, H.R. 4989, is aimed at all US
hospitals like Boston Children’s because of this very policy that allows
patients who are legally Wards of the State to receive whatever
treatment the hospital deems fit, or be part of a research program. The
four representatives (reps) behind the bill are Republicans Michele
Bachmann representing Minnesota and Tom Marino representing
Pennsylvania, and Democrats Karen Bass representing California and Jim
McDermott representing Washington State.<br />
In a press release issued on Friday June 27, the four reps each made a statement:<br />
• Rep. Michele Bachmann said it was their duty to ensure children were
“kept safe from harm while in the custody of their respective states.”
Not all families were willing to advocate on the children’s behalf like
the Pelletiers had done, she said. What happened to Justina Pelletier
was “unconscionable” and it was essential “to prevent it from ever
happening again.” The first step would be to remove federal funding that
would allow “such experimentation” in future.<br />
• Rep. Tom Marino pointed out how “lucky” Justina Pelletier was to have
parents who had fought so hard for her and “leveraged the support of the
media and public officials.” He was supporting the other three reps, he
said, because it was vital that no child “should be subject to medical
experimentation under the legal designation as ward of the state.”<br />
• Rep. Karen Bass said children should be cared for and loved and not
“experimented on.” The bill, she said would “make it clear that children
are blessings, not guinea pigs.”<br />
• Rep. Jim McDermott highlighted the “strength and bravery” of Justina
Pellier and her family, calling it “a guidestar” for the nation. It was
their responsibility to make sure children were not the “subject of
risky medical experimentation,” he said and for this reason he was
working with the other three reps “to pass Justina’s law as quickly as
possible.”<br />
<b>Highlights of the Huckabee Interview</b><br />
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_388597" style="width: 460px;">
<img alt="Justina Pelletier" class="size-full wp-image-388597" src="http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Justina-TV1.jpg" height="300" width="450" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text">
Justina Pelletier talks to Mika Huckabee</div>
</div>
Probably the biggest highlight of the Huckabee interview last night
was the declaration that Justina’s Law would “cut off any funding” to
organizations that experiment on children without their family’s
permission. This, Huckabee told Justina and his studio audience was
“what we hope for.”<br />
<blockquote>
Oh my gosh that is awesome. Justina Pelletier</blockquote>
It was not a long interview, but it was a happy one, unlike the many
that had gone before. First Mike Huckabee spoke to Justina. Holding her
hand tightly he asked her if she knew that so many people had been
praying for her. She simply nodded and said that it had made her “feel
so much better” and had helped her through the ordeal. Asked what the
hardest part had been, she said it was not being able to be with her
family, reminding the audience that she was only allowed one telephone
call per week, for 20 minutes, and strictly supervised by the DCF whose
officials would not allow her to talk about things that were meaningful
to her (for instance her health).<br />
Justina Pelletier told Mike Huckabee that all she knew was that the
DCF had taken custody of her, and that her family could not talk to her
because they had been “over-medicalizing” her – “which they were not.”
She said it had been “very scary” because there was no-one on her side
and no-one at BCH believed what she said. They stopped all her
medication because “they all though I was faking this medical stuff.”
She said they also tried to insist that her condition was improving when
it was not.<br />
<blockquote>
"I love my family so much; I cannot believe I am home with them." Justina Pelletier</blockquote>
Linda Pelletier, Justina’s mother was next. She said she had worried
all day, every day not knowing what the medical team at BCH was doing to
her daughter. She discovered that Justina had had pneumonia on two
occasions when a doctor called her to report, “she (Justina) is really
was not doing well.” Linda still cannot fathom “why they did this; there
is no explanation.”<br />
Lou Pelletier who earlier this year broke a gag order not to speak to
the press, taking his daughter’s plight to every media person and
television station willing to listen, said it had been like fighting a
“two-headed Goliath” in the form of Harvard Medical School, “the
wealthiest college in the land” and BCH which is owned by Harvard. “It
was all a mad psychiatric experiment. They said we were jeopardizing her
by not following the BCH protocol, which was to take her off all her
medications because what she had was all in her head.”<br />
Lou Pelletier has said it before publicly, and he said it again,
“Diagnosis of Somatoform takes over a year to diagnose and it is one of
the most nebulous diagnoses there is.” Yet the doctors at BCH made this
controversial diagnosis 12 hours after she had arrived at the hospital,
and after only a 25-minute interview, he said. His explanation was that
Somatoform is the “pet project” or specialty at BCH. “They do it because
they can.”<br />
<blockquote>
"They had their own agenda; and that’s a sad thing." Lou Pelletier</blockquote>
And then the sisters had their turn. Jennifer, the oldest, said she
was “a bit shocked” when Justina telephoned suddenly last week to say
she was allowed to go home. “It is fantastic to have her back home where
she belongs.” Jessica, who as also been diagnosed with mito said she
was “beyond shocked.” Julia, the youngest of the four, who has happily
gone back to sharing a bedroom with Justina, said she was just longing
to get “back to normal.”<br />
The best for Justina Pelletier is that she will be starting school
this week and is now able to spend time for her friends and beloved
family. “Later I will be ice figure skating again,” she told Huckabee
optimistically. Now aged just 16, the teenager who was part of a “mad
psychiatric experiment” stands to have Justina’s Law named after her to
ensure that nothing like this ever happens to an American citizen again.
The Pelletier family concedes it is going to be a long road, but it is
one they are happy to be going down it together.<br />
By Penny Swift<br />
Sources<br />
<a href="http://bachmann.house.gov/press-release/reps-bachmann-bass-marino-and-mcdermott-introduce-%E2%80%9Cjustina%E2%80%99s-law%E2%80%9D" target="_blank" title="Reps. Bachmann, Bass, Marino, and McDermott Introduce “Justina’s Law”">Michele Bachmann</a><br />
<a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/3649413682001/part-4-justinas-law-hopes-to-prevent-a-pelletier-repeat/#sp=show-clips" target="_blank" title="Part 4: ‘Justina’s Law’ hopes to prevent a Pelletier repeat">Fox News</a><br />
<a href="http://www.dailynewsen.com/local/justina-pelletier-says-no-one-should-go-through-her-ordeal-h2513073.html" target="_blank" title="Justina Pelletier says ‘no one should go through’ her ordeal">Daily News</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/18/justina-pelletier-returns-her-family-home-connecticut-ending-medical-and-legal-odyssey/ON7QhGURgprYZoVS7uuxeL/story.html" target="_blank" title="After 16-month battle, Justina Pelletier returns home">The Boston Globe</a><br />
<div class="pw pw-widget ra1-pw-classicWidget ra1-pw_size_small pw-layout-horizontal pw-counter-horizontal pw-widget-look-native">
<a class="pw-button pw-button-blogger button-type-looknative pw-size-small pw-button-counter-horizontal look-native" href="https://www.blogger.com/null"><span class="pw-button-type-looknative"><span class="pw-icon ra1-pw-icon ra1-pw-icon-blogger"></span><span class="pw-button-type-looknative__txt"></span></span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-83761557138331785832014-04-27T12:55:00.000-04:002014-04-27T13:00:39.045-04:00Donald Sterling Spewing Racist Statements is a DemocratIn an article from <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/race-hate-spewing-clippers-owner-is-democratic-donor/" target="_blank">The Daily Caller</a> - Donald Sterling was <a class="external" href="http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">exposed</a> Friday by TMZ making racially charged comments about African Americans to his girlfriend V. Stiviano in an audio recording. Between 1990 and 1992 Donald Sterling made a $2,000 donations to the
former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, a $1000 donation to current
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, as well as a $1000 donation to the
recalled former governor of California Gray Davis. Despite having a 100%
track record of donating to Democrats, Littlesis.org has no records of
him donating to either of President Barack Obama’s election campaigns.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRKwc9sZAK06KVu4Mwk5oylBEBD46KXFjWcaSHrDCukFeuUpd5gmUQd_8s2veEalwZPRVyvzFlT6o2WsmAtTpo7A9KQnwzXYjeevU52yFomTMq3o-mt1XWGOL5uhczKlRXtxmtSwDPJuE/s1600/silenceisconsent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRKwc9sZAK06KVu4Mwk5oylBEBD46KXFjWcaSHrDCukFeuUpd5gmUQd_8s2veEalwZPRVyvzFlT6o2WsmAtTpo7A9KQnwzXYjeevU52yFomTMq3o-mt1XWGOL5uhczKlRXtxmtSwDPJuE/s1600/silenceisconsent.jpg" /></a></div>
This shows that there is still some racism in the world and contrary to the Democratic narative it is on both sides of the isle! This also includes the Democrats in equal measure have some racism within their ranks. In my humble opinion is that it is only a very small minority of Americans are racist and this behavior can not be tolerated on any level. One also can not lightly accuse anyone of racism with out definitive evidence.<br />
<br />
I thought this list was interesting and worth posting.<br />
The United States History of Racism Against Blacks by the Democrats who have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism. <br />
<ol>
<li>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. </li>
<li>March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party. </li>
<li>July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. </li>
<li>March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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”. </li>
<li>June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery. </li>
<li>April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”. </li>
<li>August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation. </li>
<li>August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army. </li>
<li>September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation. </li>
<li>January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War. </li>
<li>June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts. </li>
<li>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”. </li>
<li>January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition. </li>
<li>March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves. </li>
<li>April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination. </li>
<li>December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C. </li>
<li>July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans. </li>
<li>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”. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor. </li>
<li>October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights. </li>
<li>June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South. </li>
<li>September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell. </li>
<li>February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters. </li>
<li>March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina. </li>
<li>April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”. </li>
<li>January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government. </li>
<li>September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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”. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote. </li>
<li>December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans. </li>
<li>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”. </li>
<li>December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools. </li>
<li>May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans. </li>
<li>January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans. </li>
<li>October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country. </li>
<li>May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice. </li>
<li>May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no. </li>
<li>April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus. </li>
<li>August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures. </li>
<li>January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster. </li>
<li>June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans. </li>
<li>October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention. </li>
<li>December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”. </li>
<li>June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country. </li>
<li>August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation. </li>
<li>June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it. </li>
<li>October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries. </li>
<li>April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system. </li>
<li>August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” </li>
<li>February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools. </li>
<li>July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters. </li>
<li>September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. </li>
<li>December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education. </li>
<li>May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education. </li>
<li>November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel. </li>
<li>March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation. </li>
<li>June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law. </li>
<li>October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”. </li>
<li>November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President. </li>
<li>September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. </li>
<li>September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools. </li>
<li>June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights. </li>
<li>February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats. </li>
<li>May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats. </li>
<li>July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform. </li>
<li>May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights. </li>
<li>June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama. </li>
<li>September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School. </li>
<li>June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate. </li>
<li>June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. </li>
<li>June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act. </li>
<li>March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL. </li>
<li>March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace. </li>
<li>August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. </li>
<li>August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor. </li>
<li>July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits. </li>
<li>September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders. </li>
<li>February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII. </li>
<li>September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs. </li>
<li>June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. </li>
<li>August 10, 1988 Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR. </li>
<li>November 21, 1991 Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation. </li>
<li>August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law. </li>
<li>April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President. </li>
<li>January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”. </li>
<li>March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference. </li>
<li>May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture. </li>
<li>February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me” </li>
<li>I should also point out that The Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats.</li>
</ol>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-78387991285853173102014-04-19T14:16:00.000-04:002014-04-19T15:08:29.528-04:00Fascism is a deformity of Socialism, not of Capitalism<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Fascism is a deformity of Socialism, not of Capitalism</h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Someone recently asked what I mean by this so I thought it was worth elaborating. According to Merriam Webster Fascism means -</div>
<div class="headword" id="headword">
<h3>
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism" target="_blank">fas·cism</a></h3>
<span class="main-fl"><i>noun</i></span> <span class="pr">\<span class="unicode">ˈ</span></span>fa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
<br />
<div class="ld_on_collegiate">
: a way of
organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls
the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree
with the government<br />
<div class="bottom_entry">
: very harsh control or authority</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="sblk">
<div class="snum">
1</div>
<div class="scnt">
<span class="ssens"> <i>often capitalized</i> <b>:</b>
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of</span> the Fascisti) that<span class="ssens"> exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
for a centralized <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocratic" target="_blank">autocratic</a> government headed by a <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorial" target="_blank">dictatorial</a> leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition </span></div>
</div>
<div class="sblk">
<div class="snum">
2</div>
<div class="scnt">
<span class="ssens"> <b>:</b> a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <span class="vi"><early army="" em="" instances="" of="">fascism</early></span></span></div>
</div>
and brutality — J. W. Aldridge> <br />
<div class="r">
— <b>fas·cist</b> <i>noun or adjective</i> <i>often capitalized</i> </div>
<div class="r">
— <b>fas·cis·tic</b> <i>adjective</i> <i>often capitalized</i> </div>
<div class="r">
— <b>fas·cis·ti·cal·ly</b> <i>adverb</i> <i>often capitalize</i></div>
<div class="r">
So with that being said with Socialism being <i></i><span class="ssens">a stage of society in <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marxism" target="_blank">Marxist</a> theory transitional between <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism" target="_blank">capitalism</a> and <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism" target="_blank">communism</a> and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. </span></div>
<div class="r">
<span class="ssens">As <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism" target="_blank">Communism</a> is defined as </span><span class="ssens"><i class="sn">a</i> <b>:</b> a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism" target="_blank">socialism</a> and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics </span><span class="ssens"> </span><br />
<div class="break">
</div>
<span class="ssens">
<i class="sn">b</i> <b>:</b> a totalitarian system of government in which a single <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian" target="_blank">authoritarian</a> party controls state-owned means of production </span><span class="ssens"> </span><br />
<div class="break">
</div>
<span class="ssens">
<i class="sn">c</i> <b>:</b> a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably </span><span class="ssens"> <div class="break">
</div>
<i class="sn">d</i> <b>:</b> <a class="formulaic" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communist" target="_blank">communist</a> systems collectively</span></div>
<div class="r">
<span class="ssens">Capitalism is defined as </span><span class="ssens">an economic system characterized by <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private%5B1%5D" target="_blank">private</a> or corporate ownership of <a class="formulaic" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital" target="_blank">capital</a>
goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by
prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined
mainly by competition in a <a class="d_link" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market" target="_blank">free market</a></span></div>
<div class="r">
<span class="ssens"><u><b>My conclusion</b></u> after studying the above definitions is that the system and/or systems leaders that has evolved into Fascism the most often would almost all have came from some form of Socialist or Communist system. here are some examples </span></div>
<div class="r">
<ul>
<li><span class="ssens">The first Fascist leader was </span>Benito Mussolini who started out as member of the Italian Socialist Party. Upon gaining control of Italy by 1935, Mussolini claimed that three-quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. Does this sound like private ownership?</li>
<li>The Showa Studies Society of Japan was another "think tank" for future leaders of a radical totalitarian Japan, led by Count Yoriyasu Arima. He was a supporter of radical political experiments. He read Karl Marx and Max Stirner, and other radical philosophers. With Fumimaro Konoe and Fusanosuke Kuhara, they created a revolutionary radical-right policy. These revolutionary groups later had the help of several important personages, making reality to some certain ideas of the nationalist-militarist policy with practical work in Manchukuo. They included General Hideki Tōjō, chief of Kempeitai and leader of Kwantung Army; Yosuke Matsuoka, who served as president of the (South Manchuria Railway Company) and Foreign Affairs minister; and Naoki Hoshino, an army ideologist who organized the government and political structure of Manchukuo. Tojo later became War Minister and Prime Minister in the Konoe cabinet, Matsuoka Foreign Minister, and Hoshino chief of Project departments charged with establishing a new economic structure for Japan. Some industrialists representative of this ideological strand were Ichizō Kobayashi, President of Tokio Gasu Denki, setting the structure for the Industry and Commerce ministry, and Shōzō Murata, representing the Sumitomo Group becoming Communication Minister. Other groups created were the Government Imperial Aid Association. Involved in both was Colonel Kingoro Hashimoto, who proposed a Nationalist single party dictatorship, <u>combined with a state-run economy.</u> The militarists had strong support from the wealthy owners of major industries, <u>but there were also certain socialist-nationalist sentiments on the part of radical officers, aware of poor farmers and workers who wanted social justice. The "New Asia Day" celebration was to remember the sacred mission of extending influence to nearby Asian nations.</u> The Japanese government, possibly following the German example of a <u>"Worker's Front" State Syndicate, ultimately organized the Nation Service Society to group all the trades unions in the country. All syndicates of the "Japanese Workers Federation" were integrated into this controlling body.</u> After reading the preceding from Wikipedia's article on Japan one can conclude it was a sort of hybrid of Nationalist Socialism and Capitalism.</li>
<li>Germany's Adolf Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist before he became a Fascist Dictator. Nazism (Nationalsozialismus,
National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi
Germany. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to
provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social
welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to
the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation. Sounds like a twist of
Socialism to me and defiantly not based on Capitalism. </li>
<li>MaoTse-Tung, Stalin,Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi and Fidal Castro all are closer to Fascism then they were to Capitalism.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="r">
<br /></div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-22577929587372443642014-04-06T08:37:00.000-04:002014-04-06T09:14:31.780-04:00Justina Pelletier the Poster Child for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Justina Pelletier the Poster Child </h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!</h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What would you do if your child was about to be kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital? This is the question that comes to mind as one learns about Justina Pelletier's plight in Boston Massachusetts. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCtRuZxKbtYkHEA2VTEj0yMA3EGvCCqlmWqXJPScxN5JdqPN_bi7ScHRZsZIzQNlTv3pjGBNAPb_xyyuXnyrAZCAC3fulSBD2Qne9xa2mTsCAJwElIOELDnvLboaECu3Zi6Z_9rz0wBXA/s1600/justina-pelletier-facebook.jpg" /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://justiceforjustina.com/" target="_blank">Sign the petition today and let’s return Justina to her family.</a></h4>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Story Summary</h3>
<a href="http://foxct.com/local-news/investigations/stories/hospital-holds-west-hartford-girl-for-9-months/" target="_blank">Justina Pelletier Custody Case</a><br />
<div class="topic-content">
FOX CT’s Beau Berman has been following the case of Justina
Pelletier, a West Hartford teen who has been held from her parents since
they admitted her to Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013 with
flu-like symptoms. Justina had previously been diagnosed with
mitochondrial disease at Tufts Medical Center in 2011. Doctors at Boston
Children’s questioned the diagnosis and said they believed her symptoms
— including weakness, headaches and abdominal pain — were
psychologically induced. They diagnosed her with somatoform disorder, a
mental disorder. Justina’s parents disagreed with that diagnosis, and
have been in a custody dispute with the State of Massachusetts ever
since. She remains in Massachusetts custody.</div>
<br />
<br />
Below is from an article by <span class="story-author" id="content_0_maincontent_0_spanAuthor">
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Ken-Klukowski" id="content_0_maincontent_0_hplAuthor" rel="author">Ken Klukowski</a>
</span>
<span class="story-time">published on 28 Feb 2014 in <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/28/Family-Horror-in-Boston-Daughter-Taken-from-Parents-Hospitalized-for-13-Months" target="_blank">Breitbart.com/Big-Government</a></span><br />
<br />
These are the facts as relayed by Staver, parts of which Breitbart News has corroborated with court documents and with a <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html"><i>Boston Globe</i></a> story.<br />
Staver begins:<br />
<blockquote>
Prior to her admission to Boston’s Children’s Hospital, Justina was
being treated by Dr. Mark Korson associated with Tufts Medical Center,
and being treated under a working diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.
Korson explained, as does the Mayo Clinic, that your cells are not
transmitting enough energy, and the lack of energy impacts different
parts of your body in different ways.</blockquote>
Korson referred Lou and Linda to his former colleague, Dr. Alejandro
Flores, who had previously worked on Justina’s case and was now at
Boston Children’s Hospital. When the parents got there and Justina was
admitted, a new doctor took the case before Flores could see Justina.<br />
According to Staver:<br />
<blockquote>
Boston Children’s Hospital is a teaching hospital for Harvard.
Children who are ‘wards of the state’ are by state law subjects of
research for teaching hospitals. So a young doctor and a pediatrician
disagree with Justina’s treating physicians and come up with somatoform
disorder, which is where a person convinces herself that she’s sick.
They change the diagnosis from physical to mental, and suggest it’s all
in her head.</blockquote>
Breitbart News was told the first physician is Dr. Jurriaan Peters, a
neurologist who had finished his medical training just seven months
earlier. Peters brought in Dr. Simona Bujoreanu, a psychologist.
Although Tufts had been treating Justina for a physical condition for a
year, Peters and Bujoreanu began to believe the problem was mental
rather than physical.<br />
<br />
Staver explains that the family is only allowed to see Justina for
one hour per week and only under strict supervision. Last week during
that one hour, there were four DCF workers and a police officer all
present when Linda was with Justina. They are not allowed to take photos
or use a cell phone. <br />
Nor are they allowed to go in as a full family. The 92 year-old
grandparents have not seen Justina for thirteen months, and one of
Justina’s sisters (she’s the youngest of four) has not seen her since
May. <br />
Staver adds, “She’s now two full grades behind her class. She has gone from ice-skating competitions to being in a wheelchair.”<br />
The family is Roman Catholic, yet Staver says Justina has not been allowed communion for this entire thirteen-month period.<br />
The Juvenile Court has scheduled a hearing on Justina’s status and
care for Mar. 17, though Staver says the family is gravely concerned
about her deteriorating health in the meantime. The judge has also
scheduled a hearing regarding the gag order for Mar. 24. <br />
Staver argues, “If her condition were not real, if it were mental and
not physical, then she should have gotten better; instead she has gotten
worse.” He says he asked the parents, “What do you want out of this
situation?” He recounts they answered, “We want to take our daughter
back to Tufts Medical Center so she can receive the treatment she needs.
And we want our daughter to be reunited with the family.”ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-42682351698755119972014-03-09T14:41:00.001-04:002014-03-09T14:54:12.228-04:00Emily Gets Her Gun<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMI0xC8BsZZlVqQPVEhnWyBy9BlLIOc21GOW7jJE8zzaj_ufWg5W_ymg_tbGfP-XoevQ3kRMRhemqfynKPJNetTlZq6lT4NXde-Xb77RRiGWHnzEbUTOfBhIkryIawrxIRFF8SZHzch44/s1600/Emily+Miller.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMI0xC8BsZZlVqQPVEhnWyBy9BlLIOc21GOW7jJE8zzaj_ufWg5W_ymg_tbGfP-XoevQ3kRMRhemqfynKPJNetTlZq6lT4NXde-Xb77RRiGWHnzEbUTOfBhIkryIawrxIRFF8SZHzch44/s1600/Emily+Miller.jpg" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Emily Gets Her Gun </h2>
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/</a><br />
An Article By Emily Miller - Originally published in the The Washington Times on October 5, 2011, 12:49AM<br />
<br />
This is the first of a series of great articles about just how difficult it is to get a handgun in DC.<br />
The article follows Emily Miller as she navigates the government bureaucracy in order to lawfully obtain a gun as is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment to all law abiding American citizens. <br />
<br />
I fully endorse a Woman's right to pro-choice of the pistol she desires.ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-49236827488629244262014-02-15T20:06:00.001-05:002014-02-15T20:11:13.540-05:00<h1 itemprop="headline" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/15/workers-at-tennessee-volkswagen-factory-reject-united-auto-workers-union/" target="_blank">Workers at Tennessee Volkswagen factory reject United Auto Workers union</a></h1>
<h1 itemprop="headline" style="text-align: center;">
</h1>
Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee have voted against union
representation in a devastating defeat for the United Auto Workers
union's effort to make inroads in the South.<br />
The 712-626 vote released late Friday was surprising for many labor
experts and union supporters who expected a UAW win because Volkswagen
tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the
Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches.<br />
"This is like an alternate universe where everything is turned upside down," Cliff Hammond, a labor lawyer at in Detroit, told <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304434104579382541226307368?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a>, noting that companies usually fight union drives. <br />
"This vote was essentially gift-wrapped for the union by Volkswagen,"
said Hammond, who previously worked at the Service Employees
International Union.<br />
The setback is a major defeat for the UAW's effort to expand in the
growing South, where foreign automakers have 14 assembly plants, eight
built in the past decade, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the labor
and industry group at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry
think tank in Michigan.<br />
"If this was going to work anywhere, this is where it was going to work," she said of Chattanooga.<br />
Organizing a Southern plant is so crucial to the union that UAW
President Bob King told workers in a speech that the union has no
long-term future without it.<br />
"If the union can't win [in Chattanooga], it can't win anywhere,"
Steve Silvia, a economics and trade professor at American University who
has studied labor unions, told the Journal.<br />
But the loss likely means the union will remain quarantined with the Detroit Three, largely in the Midwest and Northeast.<br />
Many viewed VW as the union's only chance to gain a crucial foothold
in the South because other automakers have not been as welcoming as
Volkswagen. Labor interests make up half of the supervisory board at VW
in Germany, and they questioned why the Chattanooga plant is the only
one without formal worker representation. VW wanted a German-style
"works council" in Chattanooga to give employees a say over working
conditions. The company says U.S. law won't allow it without an
independent union.<br />
In Chattanooga, the union faced stern opposition from Republican
politicians who warned that a UAW victory would chase away other
automakers who might come to the region.<br />
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee was the most vocal opponent, saying that
he was told that VW would build a new midsized SUV in Chattanooga if
workers rejected the union. That was later denied by a VW executive.
Other politicians threatened to cut off state incentives for the plant
to expand if the union was approved.<br />
“I’m thrilled for the employees and thrilled for our community,”
Corker said in a telephone interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I’m
sincerely overwhelmed.”<br />
"The UAW had all the advantages," the Republican senator told the
newspaper. "Everybody but the UAW had both hands tied behind their
backs. I’m just thankful the employees made the decision they made."<br />
After 53 percent of the workers voted against his union, King said he
was outraged at what he called "outside interference" in the election.
He wouldn't rule out challenging the outcome with the National Labor
Relations Board. "It's never happened in this country before that the
U.S. senator, the governor, the leader of the House, the legislature
here, threatened the company with no incentives, threatened workers with
a loss of product," King said. "We'll look at all our options in the
next few days."<br />
The union could contend that Corker and other local politicians were
in collusion with VW and tried to frighten workers into thinking the SUV
would be built in Mexico if they voted for the union, said Gary
Chaison, a labor relations professor at Clark University in Worcester,
Mass.<br />
But Chaison said it will be difficult to tie the politicians to the
company, which remained neutral throughout the voting process. "It's the
employer that has real power," he said.<br />
The loss put a spotlight on the union's major difficulty in the
South: signing up people who have no history with organized labor and
are fearful of being the first in the area to join, Chaison said.<br />
Dziczek said the union may have to change its tactics in future
organizing efforts, because King's strategy of the union and company
working together to help each other did not work.<br />
But she does not expect the well-funded union to give up on
organizing Southern factories. "I think they will continue to push
everywhere they were pushing and see if they get more traction," she
said.<br />
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam said through a spokesman that he was
pleased with the vote and "looks forward to working with the company on
future growth in Tennessee."<br />
<i>The Associated Press contributed to this report.</i>ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-34007484759944783552014-01-05T12:16:00.000-05:002014-01-05T12:16:54.294-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<h1 id="content_0_headlineimage_0_h1Headline" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/04/ten-years-later-al-qaeda-flags-fly-in-fallujah" target="_blank">Almost Ten Years Later, Al Qaeda Flags Fly over Fallujah</a></h1>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5COt2fbtnskywT0Buh9Hyc44bg78ykWUKSyCDOJCa7V_nJnA3F__5BuOVlIvG2C4svRxzGh_YLVTan1H9_BN71CziGTI-RBiToHEgXkAEVzSqdYVjmc2f_PkorQh5TO1hnKU4j43dwtk/s1600/al_qaeda_fallujah_ap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5COt2fbtnskywT0Buh9Hyc44bg78ykWUKSyCDOJCa7V_nJnA3F__5BuOVlIvG2C4svRxzGh_YLVTan1H9_BN71CziGTI-RBiToHEgXkAEVzSqdYVjmc2f_PkorQh5TO1hnKU4j43dwtk/s1600/al_qaeda_fallujah_ap.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
“At the moment, there is no presence of the Iraqi state in Fallujah,” a
local journalist who asked not to be named because he fears for his
safety told Sly. “The police and the army have abandoned the city,
al-Qaeda has taken down all the Iraqi flags and burned them, and it has
raised its own flag on all the buildings.”</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The results of the Obama, Clinton, Cary, Pelosi and Reid regimes efforts. Why am I not surprised with this development.</div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-49911880085612796052013-11-10T09:23:00.002-05:002014-04-13T09:16:58.440-04:00The Affordable Boat Act<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" data-ft="{"type":45,"tn":"*G"}" id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><b>The Affordable Boat Act</b></span></span><br />
The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The
Affordable Boat Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new
boat by April, 2014. These ‘affordable’ boats will cost an average of
$54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing
fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees,
maintenance, or repair costs.<br />
This<span class="text_exposed_show"> law has been passed because,
until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people
have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every
American can now have an ‘affordable’ boat of their own, because
everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before
the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ life jackets (does not
include monthly usage fees).</span><br />
In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable boat,’ the
cost of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year.
This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people
don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who
can’t afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children
(under the age of 26) can use their parents boat(s) to party on until
they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own boat.<br />
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you
can’t). If you don’t want or don’t need a boat, you are required to buy
one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be
regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If
you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable boat’ from a
private business, you can buy a starter boat from the U. S. government
‘affordable boat exchange.’ Such a boat will have the basic necessities
(hull, oars or paddles) and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a
similar boat purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax
dollars will subsidize the purchase of a boat from the U. S.
government’s ‘affordable boat exchange,’ it will appear that you are
getting a good deal.<br />
Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in
the desert, ghettos, inner cities, or areas with no access to lakes are
not exempt. Neither age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor
lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.<br />
A government review board (that doesn’t know the difference between
the port side, starboard side, or stern of a boat) will decide
everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you
can use your boat, along with how many people can ride your boat. The
board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able
to use their boat, and will also decide if your boat has out lived its
usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories (like a $500
compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.<br />
Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so … it’s only
fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to
comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.<br />
Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a
boat, they and their families can obtain boats free at the expense of
tax payers. Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political
affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-49756103822539377482013-11-03T12:16:00.001-05:002013-11-03T12:16:13.755-05:00ObamacareSome observations on Obamacare also known as the Afordable Care Act.<br />
<br />
Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to defend the growing number of
cancellation notices sent to people whose plans changed after the law
was implemented, but Emanuel could not.<br />
James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the
grandfather clause in ObamaCare too narrow, adding that “the whole point
of the exchanges was to close down the individual insurance market.”
<br />
Capretta called out Obama’s pitch to the public about the benefits of
the plan and repeated pledges that Americans would be able to keep
their current insurance providers if they liked it misleading and says
Obama should shoulder the blame.<br />
“There’s no extenuating circumstances,” Capretta said. “It was
central to passing the law. He said clearly you can keep your plan. This
wasn’t a minor pledge. It was central to the law. He broke that
pledge.”<br />
Capretta said the Obama administration “shouldn’t be able to play fast and loose” with people’s medical coverage.<br />
<br />
The above information came from <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/03/obamacare-architect-defends-plan-insurance-exchanges-on-fox-news-sunday/#">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/03/obamacare-architect-defends-plan-insurance-exchanges-on-fox-news-sunday/#</a>ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-8670470272035592012013-04-28T19:13:00.002-04:002013-04-28T19:16:56.298-04:00Democrats and racismI just watched the Movie Lincoln and felt a few facts about the Democratic racists that your Liberal Professor ignores and their deeds of the past were in order. <br />
<ul>
<li>African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having
been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders
journeying to America in 1619.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the
Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens
but instead were property and therefore had no rights.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the
Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the
14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the
state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights
and privileges of any other citizen in that state.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th
amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>George Wallace was a Democrat.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Bull Connor was a Democrat.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans
trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact
Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests,
white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic
Party.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks
and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal
anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson,
it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases –
not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work
of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent
extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the
Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential
appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B.
Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland
removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin
Harrison reappointed him.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade.
Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things
definitely were moving in the right direction.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas
Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in
Congress.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited
slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed
the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting
slavery in almost half of the federal territories.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”.
That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery
or else pay huge fines.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried
into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a
consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some
20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during
this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the
South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to
escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law
strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats
in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which
slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise,
they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory.
But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier
restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the
new territory where it previously had been forbidden.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May
of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with
some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the
Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party
to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. The
name of that party? They called it the Republican Party because they
wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set
forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery
members of Congress had perverted those original principles.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles
Sumner. In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate
against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative
Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the
Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally
clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious,
and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of that day,
many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even
amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his
vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily
re-elected to Congress.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential
election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James
Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever
Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the
platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold
declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending
slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to
lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such
efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the
people”.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats
often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they
did in the Dred Scott decision. In that instance, a black individual
was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his
property as he wished. Today, Democrats have largely taken that same
position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable
property to do with as one wishes.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>African Americans were the victims of this disposable property
ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today. Consider:
although 12 percent of the current population is African American,
almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans.
In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live
births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies. Democrats
have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life
with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent
votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view,
with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly
pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent
unborn human life.</li>
</ul>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-45977156670655937232013-01-21T12:34:00.002-05:002013-01-21T12:46:09.343-05:00Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrRBjvxgnfqzwuW2CkEKc5SnMbW7491avT7s8x2hxx3LhX7RurJDAKVc4VYeCj6g3h4lvSDIPg2lPBcFhKJhpBUTcGNCkXH2TEJ9I8kgjV-ayWIkZ_9hEZCS0891flbzzDp-XaHP8atzk/s1600/MLK.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrRBjvxgnfqzwuW2CkEKc5SnMbW7491avT7s8x2hxx3LhX7RurJDAKVc4VYeCj6g3h4lvSDIPg2lPBcFhKJhpBUTcGNCkXH2TEJ9I8kgjV-ayWIkZ_9hEZCS0891flbzzDp-XaHP8atzk/s320/MLK.jpg" /></a></div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.378392148995772" style="font-weight: normal;"><b>A</b> statement made by King’s niece, Alveda C. King, a founder of the group
King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his
lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to
Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated
themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that
passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery
and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.</b>ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-26286348577668315702013-01-06T10:47:00.000-05:002013-01-07T08:46:39.171-05:00DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5NGCU38L9Rjt4KSK5hymOEpwQQBQ0UQ00v8Jfi_UI5H5jvqlbl0D2zfEgMrQ7OI8qXBOJC5pgw-XgDM5psuUo3q6nEYyZIO6oTLBqtdg_Poe4ltJNrhJW7bz2fQIPRj-um0UwYi7bhM0/s1600/guns-dont-make-you-killer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5NGCU38L9Rjt4KSK5hymOEpwQQBQ0UQ00v8Jfi_UI5H5jvqlbl0D2zfEgMrQ7OI8qXBOJC5pgw-XgDM5psuUo3q6nEYyZIO6oTLBqtdg_Poe4ltJNrhJW7bz2fQIPRj-um0UwYi7bhM0/s1600/guns-dont-make-you-killer.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">The following two articles <span style="font-size: small;">illustrate</span> perfectly the concerted eff<span style="font-size: small;">o<span style="font-size: small;">rt by some of our <span style="font-size: small;">elected</span> officials to <span style="font-size: small;">undermine the 2nd Amendment. I suspect that they are <span style="font-size: small;">looking to capitalize on</span> the recent <span style="font-size: small;">horrible</span> <span style="font-size: small;">murders <span style="font-size: small;">committed</span> by</span> one lone <span style="font-size: small;">psycho w<span style="font-size: small;">ith a stolen gun</span>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Statistics prove how <span style="font-size: small;">unlikely anyone is to die in this <span style="font-size: small;">manner</span>. </span>So why the <span style="font-size: small;">urgency to disarm law abiding citizens?</span> <span style="font-size: small;">Their true motive must be for some reason that would be rejected by most Americans. One possibility that comes to mind would be that they <span style="font-size: small;">anticipate possible resistance to their future <span style="font-size: small;">unveiled</span> plans. History proves this indeed a possible scenario!</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> </div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.teaparty.org/dhs-buys-200000-more-hollow-point-bullets-18227/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets</span></a></h2>
As posted in the <a href="http://teaparty.org/">teaparty.org</a> website on January 4, 2013.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhnpdEaPlKkbFIkMbUcbpXTVC1COa9QnB33NIXV_FtFcIkXlQkDH0AMNg-HnpGVbMp58ImurUFkE2-xuEHK2IiBEolF0-uch4SfSgzS3LVzSbcCI5ba1-uT1sQd8E-0NjCFWrMQcZN5_g/s1600/DHS+bullits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhnpdEaPlKkbFIkMbUcbpXTVC1COa9QnB33NIXV_FtFcIkXlQkDH0AMNg-HnpGVbMp58ImurUFkE2-xuEHK2IiBEolF0-uch4SfSgzS3LVzSbcCI5ba1-uT1sQd8E-0NjCFWrMQcZN5_g/s1600/DHS+bullits.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
(Info Wars) – While the Obama administration sets out to eviscerate
the gun rights of American citizens in the aftermath of Sandy Hook,
earlier this week it was announced that the Department of Homeland
Security has awarded a company a contract worth over $45,000 dollars to
provide the DHS with 200,000 more rounds of bullets.<br />
This new purchase adds to the staggering figure of 1.6 billion rounds
of ammunition already secured by the DHS over the last 9 months alone.<br />
<br />
A solicitation originally posted on the FedBizOpps.gov website on
December 17 on behalf of the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
advertised the need for 200 cases of 13–40 Cal, 180 Grain, Jacketed
Hollow Point bullets, with each case containing 1000 rounds, to be
delivered almost immediately as soon as the contract is awarded.<br />
The bullets are to be delivered to a training site in North
Charleston, South Carolina, which “specializes in Maritime Law
Enforcement and Port Security Training. Basic and advanced training
programs are conducted in concert with the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Law
Enforcement Academy, the U.S. Courts Probation and Pretrial Services
Training Academy, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Training
Academy, the Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy, and
the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.”<br />
The winner of the contract to provide the DHS with the ammunition,
announced on January 2, was Evian Group Inc., an organization that was
formed just five days before the announcement of the solicitation.<br />
As James Smith documents, Evian Group seems to be little more than a
front organization and doesn’t appear to have any real business assets, a
genuine physical address, a website, or even a phone number.<br />
Back in August, the Department of Homeland Security censored
information relating to the amount of bullets purchased by the DHS on
behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, citing an “unusual and
compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a
shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation that could cause
“substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement
officials not be adequately armed.<br />
The information was blacked out despite the fact that documents are
only supposed to be redacted if authorized by Congress or for national
security reasons.<br />
The contradiction of the Obama administration preaching gun control
while simultaneously the federal government arms itself to the teeth
with an arsenal that would be enough to wage a full scale 7 year ground
war is jaw-dropping.<br />
As Mike Adams highlights, “A citizen is considered to be a
stockpiling “terrorist” prepper if they own just 1,000 rounds of ammo.
The government, however, can purchase billions and the mainstream media
doesn’t even question it.”<br />
“Where is all this ammunition going? It’s being stockpiled by the
federal government, awaiting some future event during which it will
apparently be “activated.” Why else would you stockpile something if you
don’t anticipate needing to use it someday?”<br />
“During all this, Obama and his cohorts in Washington are loudly
insisting that American citizens have no right to purchase firearms or
ammunition, and that new laws will soon be enacted to make sure you
cannot do what the government does: stockpile weapons and ammo.”<br />
Indeed, the double standard is staggering and while Americans are
being raided for stockpiling “arsenals” of weapons that subsequently
turn out to be no more than a few guns, the federal government is
simultaneously building a very real and substantial arsenal while the
mainstream media turns a blind eye.<br />
<h1 class="title adelle" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/04/Menino-Biden-promise" target="_blank">Boston Mayor Menino: Biden ‘Guaranteed’ Massive Gun Control By February</a></h1>
As posted in the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/" target="_blank">breitbart.com </a> website on January 14, 2013 authored by <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Ben-Shapiro" target="_blank">Ben Shapiro</a><br />
.<br />
(Breitbart) – Democrat Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston says that Vice
President Joe Biden “guaranteed” him that by the end of January,
President Obama would put a vast gun control scheme on the table. Said
Menino, “He said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end
of January.’ They’re going to get it done.”<br />
Menino co-chairs the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group along with
nanny state Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. He says that Obama has
“no excuse not to pass strong legislation,” and that the National Rifle
Association should be ignored. “It’s time to get this moving and moving
quickly.”<br />
Menino’s overbearing big government tendencies have reared their ugly
head before. Back in August, Menino tried to bar Chick-Fil-A from
Boston after the head of the restaurant chain said that he opposed
same-sex marriage.<br />
As per the usual Democratic strategy, Menino has been standing
athwart the bodies of the dead children of Sandy Hook to promote his
anti-Second Amendment agenda. Back during that tragedy, he said, “There
are too many stories of those who have lost loved ones to gun violence –
and far too many were added from Newtown just days ago. To honor those
we’ve lost, we must continue to demand a plan from lawmakers that will
keep gun violence from taking more lives.”<br />
The implication: if you don’t agree with Menino, Obama, Biden, and
Bloomberg, you don’t honor those we lost. This sort of emotional
blackmail has dominated our politics for far too long. But look for the
thuggishness of the left to escalate in Obama’s second term.<br />
<br />
I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep
it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you
Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see <br />
<a href="http://zactech.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-liberals-always-resort-to-name.html" target="_blank">Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?</a>).
<br />
<br />ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-42106448981173353862013-01-05T11:41:00.000-05:002013-01-06T12:04:43.176-05:00The Truth About SocialismIrving Kristol once remarked that a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". So based on that I define a Neo-Marxist as a Socialist who was mugged by reality. What I mean by that is they have been forced to take off their rose colored glasses due to the complete failure of every Marxist based redistributive system since the French Revolution. They are now willing to use some aspects of Capitalism in a futile attempt to fund the Large Government required to administer their unattainable Utopian dream state. This is Crony-Capitalism at its worst and it comes from the Neo-Marxist movement to tax and regulate businesses that they deem inappropriate while at the same time attempting to pick and promote the ones they deem best (like Solyndra GM GE etc. etc). The only thing green about all their pet companies is the tax dollars funneled into them. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVJepRi5t2XJWI46vvUgxkGH2KleEVS5zmWjM1YK2rXg-5txdd5mIpieWlESg0RkhyVV6LvVhTl9NiC2K74lYJfXAn_0uabD3rb_zCAWjN9VXaGz2TfrE45dFrvz1g4B_XwAXsUp6Pn_g/s1600/Truth+About+Socialism.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVJepRi5t2XJWI46vvUgxkGH2KleEVS5zmWjM1YK2rXg-5txdd5mIpieWlESg0RkhyVV6LvVhTl9NiC2K74lYJfXAn_0uabD3rb_zCAWjN9VXaGz2TfrE45dFrvz1g4B_XwAXsUp6Pn_g/s1600/Truth+About+Socialism.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The Neo-Marxists know that there will be trouble in a few years as the tax rates are now being maxed out, the predictable inflation from printing money and when we can not borrow any more money. The only choice left will be to cut entitlements and this will cause rioting. Therefore the populous will have to be disarmed beforehand! Here is a nouvelle idea how about we drastically cut government spending now and avoid the inevitable future result of our current path that we are now on!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv3EuSSXWA_pUMGGy-3YEOboHdKQ5PMZQjqnc9rJKSMd3VWwLg0Hxk3NYnfWtUTETOVl-qxjSN-ZRQF4CWIuqm5z2kZw9zBFi5CUOD3_XRlH_2ioSm7Jx_7RQ5kvxH8mIrdMpnylQoZww/s1600/schindlers+list.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv3EuSSXWA_pUMGGy-3YEOboHdKQ5PMZQjqnc9rJKSMd3VWwLg0Hxk3NYnfWtUTETOVl-qxjSN-ZRQF4CWIuqm5z2kZw9zBFi5CUOD3_XRlH_2ioSm7Jx_7RQ5kvxH8mIrdMpnylQoZww/s1600/schindlers+list.png" /></a></div>
<br />
I welcome any input on these matters especially from the left. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will post it (I know many of you Liberals struggle a civil, factual and truthful discussion).ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-41342420901799634222013-01-04T04:30:00.001-05:002013-01-04T08:50:38.162-05:00Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.Why are the hypocrites at the Journal News working for Gannet Media hiring armed guards for them selves? Is not 911 good enough to provide for their safety?<br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[0]">Inexplicably
angry with law-abiding gun owners after the Newtown, Connecticut,
school shooting, a New York newspaper decides to print the names and
addresses of gun permit holders in two counties. We'd like to return the
favor:</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[1]" /><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[2]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[3]">Reporter:</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[4]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[5]">Dwight R Worl</span></span><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[0]">ey</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[1]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[2]">230-6 139 Ave</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[3]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[4]">Springfield Gardens, NY 11413</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[5]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[6]">718-527-0832</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[7]" /><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[8]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[9]">Journal News President:</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[10]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[11]">Janet Hasson</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[12]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[13]">3 Gate House Lane</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[14]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[15]">Mamaroneck, NY 10534</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[16]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[17]">914-694-5204</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[18]" /><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[19]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[20]">Editors:</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[21]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[22]">Cyndee Royle</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[23]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[24]">1133 Westchester Ave. Ste N110</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[25]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[26]">White Plains, NY 10604</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[27]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[28]">914-694-9300</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[29]" /><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[30]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[31]">Nancy Cutler</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[32]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[33]">9 Woodwind Ln</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[34]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[35]">Spring Valley, NY 10977</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[36]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[37]">845-354-3485</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[38]" /><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[39]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[40]">Parent company of The Journal News (Gannett):</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[41]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[42]">CEO Gracia C Martore</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[43]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[44]">728 Springvale Rd</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[45]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[46]">Great Falls, VA 22066</span><br id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[47]" /><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[48]">703-759-595</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0"><span id=".reactRoot[115].[1][2][1]{comment309984172451732_1484992}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[48]">Here is a Link to the actual <a href="https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=201650905593228814533.0004d1c39ceef0f9f292a&gl=us&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=m&source=embed&ll=40.96953%2C-73.855591&spn=0.379541%2C0.222049" target="_blank">Google Map of the Journal News Employees. </a>Please do feel free to pass this useful bit of information on.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
I find the following article shows the strength of the silent majority fighting against the Liberal Elite Neo-Marxists attempting to turn the US into a Socialist Utopian dream state.<br />
<br />
<br />The Neo-Marxists know that there will be trouble in a few years as the tax rates are maxed out, the predictable inflation from printing money and when we can not borrow any more money. The only choice left will be to cut entitlements and this will cause rioting. Therefore the populous will have to be disarmed beforehand! Here is a novel idea how about we drastically cut government spending now and avoid the inevitable future result of our current path that we are now on!<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">The Journal News is Armed and Dangerou<span style="font-size: large;">s</span></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
BY DYLAN SKRILOFF as published in the ROCKLAND COUNTY TIMES on January 1st, 2013</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander. <br />
<br />
A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013. <br />
<br />
According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester. <br />
<br />
Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location. <br />
<br />
Private investigator Richard Ayoob is the administrator of RGA. He told the Clarkstown Police on Friday, December 28 that there had been no problems on site at the Journal News headquarters despite the massive influx of phone calls and emails. <br />
<br />
McBride had filed at least two reports with the Clarkstown Police Department due to perceived threats. However, the police did not find the communications in question actually threatening. Incident-Report 2012-00033099 describes McBride telling police she was worried because an email writer wondered “what McBride would get in her mail now.” <br />
<br />
Police said the email “did not constitute an offense” and did not contain an actual threat. <br />
<br />
The Journal News caused an international stir when they released an interactive map of pistol permit holders names and addresses in Rockland and Westchester counties last Sunday, December 23. The editors have said they believe knowing where guns are is in the public’s interest. The newspaper has also taken a strident editorial position in favor of strict gun control. <br />
<br />
Rather than take the map down following the public uproar, the executive board at the Journal News has decided to “stick to their guns” and double-down on their original decision, as they have said a map listing all pistol permit holders in Putnam County will soon to be posted. <br />
<br />
[update---Putnam County officials have since announced their intention to not comply with the Journal News' request for the names and addresses of pistol permit holders] <br />
<br />
The controversial use of the Freedom of Information Act to create the interactive map may come back to bite the Journal News and others who would prefer that pistol permits remain public record. <br />
<br />
New York State Senator Greg Ball has already introduced state legislation to make such records off-limits to the public and Rockland County legislators led by Frank Sparaco (R) will soon introduce a bipartisan-sponsored resolution with a similar intent. <br />
<br />
It is not clear whether the negative reaction has threatened the Journal News’ true popularity as a news source. As an anecdotal piece of evidence, the Rockland County Times confirms receiving an influx of new subscribers who stated they cancelled their subscription to the Journal News due to the gun story. <br />
<br />
The Rockland County Times has not investigated whether the Journal News’ Westchester County headquarters in White Plains has beefed up security. </div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-36690456653803664892012-12-30T14:42:00.003-05:002013-01-01T20:45:46.300-05:00The Genocide ChartThe 2nd amendment is about civilians defending themselves! One must always remember that to control a nation our leaders would have to Distract, Deceive, Divide, Indoctrinate and Disarm! That last one is key to a truly free and independent nation. Our founding fathers understood this well. So thus we in this era must all do everything in our power to protect this most basic premise of self defense.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfkjLQiY4XgqleDni-6k_nf72kRgjtUq2cPqVgkSfjrFtMsATpPLmn7yE0bnooTyXe2iIDKIaR0kwWJiKhZXFKVjeehkMiv_SfhXyCXcpYOlQ-0XrgRGEp2Xt-Y299QI0cT8bg8Z50DAs/s1600/Genocide+Chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfkjLQiY4XgqleDni-6k_nf72kRgjtUq2cPqVgkSfjrFtMsATpPLmn7yE0bnooTyXe2iIDKIaR0kwWJiKhZXFKVjeehkMiv_SfhXyCXcpYOlQ-0XrgRGEp2Xt-Y299QI0cT8bg8Z50DAs/s1600/Genocide+Chart.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Below is a story that the Liberal biased reporters continue to ignore!<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdfO4OHyJMmcg5S5Vqsrv1cR8MUWVzqGj4kjge9QJ-u9_myLMUCpne1eWQ8A4bJ1s4-DqUqw6sILf2viY-837kTizPZ6laq0Qieq3itoiDEmItxc_h0_boZojn88Hb0l-ydHapvSbWdH4/s1600/Gun+Control.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdfO4OHyJMmcg5S5Vqsrv1cR8MUWVzqGj4kjge9QJ-u9_myLMUCpne1eWQ8A4bJ1s4-DqUqw6sILf2viY-837kTizPZ6laq0Qieq3itoiDEmItxc_h0_boZojn88Hb0l-ydHapvSbWdH4/s320/Gun+Control.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />I've been giving the "gun ban law" some thought, and here it is: this person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).<br /> And there are people in this country that somehow think passing another ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda. The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! Just Saying.<br /><br />
<br />ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-58221332222060191552012-09-22T08:55:00.001-04:002012-09-22T08:59:54.875-04:00Obama versus Romney what are the differences?<div style="text-align: center;">
<h2>
Obama versus Romney what are the differences?</h2>
</div>
Let us start with their slogans Forward versus Believe in America.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="320" src="http://www.preussen-chronik.de/bilder/1339_Der_VORWAeRTS_1878.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="216" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vorwarts is Forward in German</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht89jjI9qV8Xv_IWEq0nLeONxRK5iXN0MYgvB4QPLZkF31JJkV9udKvNi3CdkzUC62H4g4h3yuucwfBi0sP_9h4TJZcAqguk5KLOMrINR9fVK1sQimXXUNglRmwLPTUZhwndZoK2z9OVY/s1600/Communist+%22Forward%22+Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht89jjI9qV8Xv_IWEq0nLeONxRK5iXN0MYgvB4QPLZkF31JJkV9udKvNi3CdkzUC62H4g4h3yuucwfBi0sP_9h4TJZcAqguk5KLOMrINR9fVK1sQimXXUNglRmwLPTUZhwndZoK2z9OVY/s320/Communist+%22Forward%22+Poster.jpg" width="250" /></a>Forward has a long history of use by Leftists.<br />
<br />
Forward was the slogan of the National Socialists Hitler Youth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Obama's <u><b>Forward</b></u> is not a destination. If you'd asked Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or their supporters if they were taking their nations forward, they'd have undoubtedly said "yes." Mussolini? Forward. Napoleon? Forward. Genghis Khan? Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan would have said "forward" as well if asked their direction. <br />
The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and
radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which
would <b><u><span style="color: red;">move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.</span></u></b><br />
<br />
Romney's <b><u>Believe</u><u> In America</u></b> is in reference to his faith in shrinking government and creating an environment that encourages companies to grow and create jobs. To those who understand how the economy works, that makes perfect sense. Instead of taking more money from Americans through taxation, Republicans would let people keep more of their own money so they can build companies and buy goods that lead to more jobs. Mitt Romney has been laying out a vision that would make that growth possible. Romney would stop President Obama’s practice of bashing businesses and Wall Street, cut regulatory burdens that make it difficult for companies to operate, reduce government employment by 10 percent through attrition, approve the Keystone pipeline project, get rid of the crushing burden of Obamacare, and keep tax cuts in place. <br />
<br />
Below is from an article by <a class="author-name" href="http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/" target="_blank">John Hawkins</a> originally published in <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/11/barack_obama_vs_mitt_romney__10_big_differences_going_forward/page/full/" target="_blank">TheTownHall.com website</a><br />
<br />
1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn't have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you're hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is." <br /><br /> 2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he's been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there's no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation's credit rating, but it's possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn't safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he'd be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn't have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he'd have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016. <br /><br /> 3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he’s no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare. <br /><br /> 4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That's very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we'll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won’t. <br /><br /> 5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. <br /><br /> 6) We currently have a <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/immigration/for-all-practical-purposes-we-now-have-open-borders-under-obama-2/" target="_blank">de facto amnesty for illegal aliens</a> who haven't committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they're automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/romney-doing-the-job-republican-establishment-just-wont-do/" target="_blank">the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration</a>. <br /><br /> 7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost <a href="http://dustinstockton.com/2012/08/success-is-the-taxpayers-losing-25-billion-dollars-funding-obamas-cronies/" target="_blank">25 billion</a> on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won't be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable. <br /><br /> 8) The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can't afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/06/27/155761696/morale-takes-a-hit-at-beleaguered-fannie-freddie" target="_blank">handling 90% of all new mortgages</a>. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they're covering so that if, God forbid, there's another crash one day, taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill. <br /><br /> 9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won't happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it. <br /><br /> 10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who's in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney's pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again? <br />
<br />ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-48129423912629231852012-09-02T14:52:00.000-04:002012-09-03T11:37:55.438-04:00What is Labor day really about?I thought Labor day was a good day to contrast the unrealistic Marxist redistributive Socialist utopian dream against the simple well proven truth of American Conservatism. <br />
<br />
The first Labor Day was founded by the Central Labor Union in New York city on September 5, 1882.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/09/02/fadedposter.png" /></div>
Leftists wanted May 1st but president Grover Cleveland and Congress opted to choose the date of the original Labor Day parade organized by the CLU, September 5, 1884, rather than May 1, as a national holiday. Thus, the first Monday of September became Labor Day and was officially written into law as a national holiday on June 28, 1894.<br />
" But the last holiday of summer is more than a day off work: It's also one of the most controversial of American holidays, a celebration of the laborers -- and more specifically, the unionized laborers" <br />
a quote from Bruce Watson<br />
<br />
So it is obvious that the Left uses Labor Day as another day to promote their Marxist redistributive agenda. The rest of us need to counter this false unsustainable utopian dream that has been proven time and time again to be a complete failure that ends up making many suffer worse then before. <br />
<br />
"What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the
politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a
democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in
which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the
state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes
deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth
that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent
bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone
with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce
enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which
the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy
may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to
fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a
meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet
Union."<br />
a quote from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html" target="_blank">Janet Daley</a><br />
<br />
"We own this country politicians are employees of ours and when somebody does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go!" Clint Eastwood<br />
<br />
On the Internet, there is a cry for replacing this year’s Labor Day – as in American workers’ day – with “Empty Chair Day” inspired by Clint Eastwood’s ‘empty chair’ symbolizing the current employment - or should it be said, unemployment - situation in the country.<br />
I feel Labor Day should now be celebrated as Empty Chair Day! Please do join me in celebrating "National Empty Chair Day" on Labor Day!.<br />
<br />
Below is another excellent article from<br />
Real Clear Politics <br />
<h2 id="article-title">
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/27/public_unions__the_socialist_utopia_109046.html" target="_blank">Public Unions & the Socialist Utopia</a></h2>
<b>By</b> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Robert+Tracinski&id=14578"><b>Robert Tracinski</b></a><br />
<div class="article_body" id="article_body">
The
Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and
Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal
fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to
its very existence.<br />
Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of
Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it
is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.<br />
<div style="background-color: white; display: inline; float: right; margin: 0px 0 12px 12px; padding: 0 0 0 10px; position: relative; width: 300px;">
<div id="article-box-ad">
</div>
</div>
It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/24/public_unions_force_taxpayers_to_fund_dems_109013.html">explains</a>, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.<br />
But there is something deeper here than just favor-selling and
vote-buying. There is something that almost amounts to a twisted
idealism in the Democrats' crusade. They are fighting, not just to
preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or
rather, they are fighting to maintain the <i>illusion </i>that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.<br />
Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the
left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous
health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the
government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work
rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are
almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because
everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their
employer will go out of business.<br />
In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy in
miniature, including its political aspect: the grateful recipients of
government largesse provide money and organizational support to re-elect
the politicians who shower them with all of these benefits.<br />
Put it all together, and you have the Democrats' version of utopia.
In the larger American culture of Tea Parties, bond vigilantes, and
rugged individualists, Democrats feel they are constantly on the
defensive. But within the little subculture of unionized government
employees, all is right with the world, and everything seems to work the
way it is supposed to.<br />
This cozy little world has been described as a system that grants
special privileges to a few, which is particularly rankling in the
current stagnant economy, when private sector workers acutely feel the
difference. But I think this misses the point. The point is that this is
how the left thinks <i>everyone </i>should live and work. It is their version of a model society.<br />
Every political movement needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal works and that it works.<br />
And there's the rub. The left is running low on utopias.<br />
The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of capitalism,
particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called the "Third
World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on the
European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be so
much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic.
But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across
Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing
money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to
benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.<br />
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly
different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out,
within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold
sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised
the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health
care. Public employment is another.<br />
Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode.<br />
On the national level, it has become clear that the old-age welfare
state of Social Security and Medicare is driving the federal government
into permanent trillion-dollar deficits and a ruinous debt load. Even
President Obama acknowledged, in his State of the Union address, that
these programs are the real drivers of runaway debt-just before he
refused to consider any changes to them. You see how hard it is for the
Democrats to give up on their utopias.<br />
On the state level, public employment promises the full socialist
ideal to a small minority-paid for with tax money looted from a larger,
productive private economy. But the socialist utopia of public
employment has crossed the Thatcher Line: the point at which, as the
Iron Lady used to warn, you run out of other people's money.<br />
The current crisis exposes more than just the financial
unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral
unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these
welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to
perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few.<br />
This is why the left is treating any attempt to fundamentally reform
the public workers' paradise as an existential crisis. This is why they
are reacting with the most extreme measures short of outright
insurrection. When Democratic lawmakers flee the state in order to
deprive their legislatures of the quorum necessary to vote, they are
declaring that they would rather <i>have no legislature</i> than allow voting on any bill that would break the power of the unions.<br />
National Review's Jim Geraghty describes these legislative walk-outs
as "small-scale, temporary secessions." The analogy is exact. One
hundred and fifty years ago, Southern slaveholders realized that the
political balance of the nation had tipped against them, that they could
no longer hope to win the political argument for their system. Faced
with a federal government in which they were out-voted, they decided
that they would rather have no federal government at all. The Democrats'
current cause may not be as repugnant-holding human beings as chattel
is a unique evil-but it has something of the same character of
irrational, belligerent denial. More than two decades after the fall of
the Berlin Wall, the left is still trying to pretend that socialism is
plausible as an economic system.<br />
The Democrats are fleeing from a lot more than their jobs as state
legislators. They are fleeing from the cold, hard reality of the
financial and moral unsustainability of their ideal.</div>
<br />
Below is another excellent article from<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1906511942">The failure of unions and socialism</a><br />
from Braincrave Second Life staff<br />
Mar 02, 2011<br />
<br />
Someone once made a comment that he was 100% supportive of a tyrannical, socialist government as long as he was the only citizen of his country (paraphrased). Throughout the world, and especially in America, many are still trying their best to pretend that socialism is a plausible economic system and ideology by attaching it to capitalism. No matter how often socialism has proved to be morally and economically destructive, there continues to be those who desperately want to believe that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a sustainable model.<br />
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-inc-2010-income-statement"><img height="300" src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d690245ccd1d5d750110000-920-691/usa-income-statement.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
Currently, there are multiple US states (e.g., Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Florida) that are attempting to "break" public unions. This struggle appears to be bringing those on the left together. Why are public unions such a particularly big deal for Democrats? Is unionized, public employment representative of the socialist utopia? Given what we are seeing with government's income statement - and specifically the cost of entitlement programs which is primary to liberal ideology - is it hubris to suggest that breaking the public unions would effectively destroy the fundamental premises of the Democratic party and, thus, the party itself? Given that Republicans are just as guilty for supporting collectivism, how destructive could this be to RINOs?<br />
<br />
FTA: "The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence. Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left... They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable. Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business...<br />
<br />
The point is that this is how the left thinks everyone should live and work. It is their version of a model society. Every political movement needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal works and that it works. And there's the rub. The left is running low on utopias. The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of capitalism, particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called the "Third World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on the European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be so much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic. But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.<br />
<br />
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out, within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health care. Public employment is another. Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode... The current crisis exposes more than just the financial unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few."ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-27460213907703493562012-09-01T08:45:00.000-04:002012-09-02T14:26:43.538-04:00OMG! Clint Eastwood breaks the leftist Hollywood lock step.I am enjoying the predictable and completely transparent reaction of the mainstream media along with many of the leftists in the entertainment industry. Their bias is so obvious it can not be denied by any impartial observer. After two years of complete control of this country starting in 2008 they rammed their Marxist redistributive agenda down our throats. Then in 2010 they lost the house along with their super-majority in the senate. Now they have been slowed moving us all <a href="http://zactech.blogspot.com/2012/05/wikipedia-deletes-president-obamas-new.html" target="_blank">Forward</a> over the cliff.<br />
<br />
The issue Leftists have with Clint Eastwood is that he is a successful, critically acclaimed and popular actor/director that is an open and unabashed Conservative. The Hollywood elitist limousine Liberals can not accept one of their own speaking against their Marxist redistributive agenda. When this happens it must in the Lefts eyes be squashed by any means necessary. When Leftist can not support their message with simple facts and truth they resort to redefining the debate. After that fails they then attempt to discredit the messenger and name calling. They are now actively in the discrediting and name calling phase.<br />
<div class="article-text KonaBody">
<br />
The following is a transcript of actor Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, 2012. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-clint-eastwood-speech-at-rnc/" target="_blank">Pulled from a FOX news post</a><br />
<br />
EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what's a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people<br />think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative<br />people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw John Voigt, a lot of people around.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />John's here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us.<br />So I -- so I've got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he's -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven't done enough, obviously -- this administration hasn't done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know -- I know -- people were wondering -- you don't -- handle that OK. Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why<br />close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. </div>
<div class="article-text KonaBody">
(APPLAUSE)<br />I've got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where<br />credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And<br />that's --<br />now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in<br />Iraq,<br />and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.<br />You<br />know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We<br />didn't<br />check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for<br />10<br />years.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and<br />I<br />think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned<br />something about having a target date for bringing everybody<br />home. You<br />gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only<br />sensible<br />question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out<br />now?<br />Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut<br />up, it<br />is my turn.<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to<br />have a<br />little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these<br />promises<br />-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell<br />Romney? I<br />can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to<br />himself.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as<br />bad as<br />Biden.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the<br />Democratic<br />party.<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />Kind of a grin with a body behind it.<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I<br />think<br />that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.<br />See, I<br />never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,<br />anyway.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always<br />taught<br />to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both<br />sides...<br />MORE<br />(INSERT ZACH)<br />XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're<br />always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything,<br />weigh both sides.<br />EASTWOOD: They are always devil's advocating this and<br />bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.<br />But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe<br />a businessman. How about that?<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar<br />businessman.''<br />And I think it's that time. And I think if you just step<br />aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still<br />use a plane.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you<br />are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and<br />stuff like that.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to<br />drive that around?<br />OK, well anyway. All right, I'm sorry. I can't do that to<br />myself either.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.<br />Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we<br />-- we own this country.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not<br />politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg<br />for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just<br />think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in<br />the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether<br />you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should<br />not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we<br />got to let them go.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />Okay, just remember that. And I'm speaking out for<br />everybody out there. It doesn't hurt, we don't have to be<br />(AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible)<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.<br />(LAUGHTER)<br />We don't have to be -- what I'm saying, we do not have to<br />be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don't<br />really even want in office just because they seem to be nice<br />guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the<br />recent ads going out there, I don't know.<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />But OK. You want to make my day?<br />(APPLAUSE)<br />All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.</div>
<div class="article-text KonaBody">
AUDIENCE: Make my day!<br />EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.</div>
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-4966042688490233092012-08-12T10:13:00.002-04:002012-08-12T10:55:23.733-04:00<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">What Does Paul Ryan Believe In?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I am quite pleased with Governor Mitt Romney's choice for a running mate. Paul Ryan has already proven his commitment to reducing the size and scope of government thru his budgets that he was able to get passed in the house.<br />
<br />"The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline. Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie. As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity. As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself?" </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
above was quoted from A version of this article appeared August 9, 2012, on page A10 in the
U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Not Paul
Ryan?.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The critics on the left would like to label Paul Ryan as extreme. This is just another one of their feeble attempts at revising history to legitimize their extreme redistributive Socialist unsustainable utopian dream.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Democrats think it is extreme to cut 6 trillion from the budget over 10 yrs but not radical to add $5 trillion to the debt in 4 years!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Independents, Conservative Democrats and big Government Republicans are now starting to realize the threat to the Exceptional American Dream from the Leftists. They have been voting against those perpetuating Big Government, Big Labor and Big Business as these three powers are all oppressing the common man.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=305721" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Assessing President Obama's Fiscal Record</span></a></div>
August 2, 2012 <br />
<br />
Early in his Administration, President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half. While he clearly did not keep that promise, he has gone on to assert that his budget achieves $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and recently he claimed, “Since I’ve been President, Federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in 60 years.” Many were left wondering how this could be possible with President Obama presiding over unprecedented trillion-dollar deficits for four consecutive years, adding over $5 trillion in new debt since his inauguration, and piling on a slew of new government initiatives including a near-trillion dollar stimulus and a massive new healthcare entitlement. Indeed, a closer look at the evidence shows the President’s claim of spending restraint does not hold up against the facts, and his overall fiscal record doesn’t fare any better.<br />
<br />
The President and his allies have offered many excuses for why his fiscal record has been a disappointment. Some of the most prominent are “inheriting a trillion dollar deficit,” experiencing a “deeper recession than anyone anticipated,” and disagreement about who was responsible for actions taken in fiscal 2009 – a transition year when both Presidents Bush and Obama held office.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the President’s fiscal record from various perspectives in comparison to his numerous assertions of fiscal responsibility. The analysis addresses both the President’s actual fiscal record and his budget proposals going forward. Additional context is provided by exploring the President’s fiscal record under unified Democratic control of government during 2009-2010 and what happened afterward under divided government with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
As will be made clear throughout, the President’s fiscal record has been a failure regardless of the yardstick chosen to measure it. His assertions to the contrary are misleading at best, and his budget proposals for the future would perpetuate and aggravate an already dangerous fiscal situation.<br />
<br />
Key Points:<br />
<br />
• Spending surged 18% in 2009 reaching 25% of GDP - the highest since World War II<br />
• Deficits exceeded $1 trillion in each of the four years of the President’s term<br />
• Gross debt has increased over $5 trillion since the President was inaugurated<br />
• Even adjusting for a weak economy and Bush-era policies, President Obama has signed legislation increasing deficits by $1.6 trillion over his term<br />
• Republicans in the 112th Congress have stopped the spending spree and have forced the President to accept over $2.3 trillion in future deficit reduction<br />
<br />
Read the full report <a href="http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PresidentObamasFiscalRecord.pdf" target="_blank">HERE</a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Below is an opinion piece pulled from the Wall Street Journal that I think is worth reading.</div>
<div class="col10wide wrap padding-left-big">
<br />
REVIEW & OUTLOOK Updated August 11, 2012, 9:57 p.m. ET<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577583323575899222.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Ryan Choice </span></a><br />
Romney selects a leader of the GOP's reform wing. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
When these columns asked last week <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577577190186374230.html" target="_blank">"Why Not Paul Ryan?"</a>, we had no idea that Mitt Romney would choose the Wisconsin Congressman as his running mate. So much the better if he had already made up his mind. In choosing the 42-year-old, Mr. Romney has embraced the GOP's reform wing and made it more likely that the election debate will be as substantial as America's current problems. <br />
<br />
Vice Presidential choices rarely sway electoral outcomes, but they do reveal something about the men who make the choices. As Mr. Romney's first Presidential-level decision, the selection speaks well of his governing potential. He broke free of the stereotype that he is a cautious technocrat by picking Mr. Ryan, a man who has offered reforms that the country needs but are feared by the GOP's consultant class and much of his own party. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="265" src="http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-UD446_1vp_G_20120811213202.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republican Vice Presidential hopeful Paul Ryan </div>
<br />
Mr. Romney is signaling that he realizes he needs a mandate if he is elected, which means putting his reform ideas before the American people for a clear endorsement. He is treating the public like grown-ups, in contrast to President Obama's focus on divisive and personal character attacks. <br />
<br />
The Ryan choice also suggests that Mr. Romney understands that to defeat Mr. Obama he'll have to do more than highlight the President's economic failures. He must also show Americans that he has a tangible, specific reform agenda that will produce faster growth and rising incomes. <br />
<br />
Mr. Ryan is well equipped to help him promote such an agenda. The seven-term Congressman grew up in the GOP's growth wing and supply-side ranks as a protege of Jack Kemp. Far from being a typical House Republican, he was a dissenter from the Tom DeLay do-little Congress in the last decade. He began talking about his reform blueprint in the George W. Bush years when everyone said he was committing political suicide. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
The Ryan Selection <br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577577190186374230.html" target="_blank">Why Not Paul Ryan?</a> <br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291221193908272.html" target="_blank">The GOP Budget and America's Future</a> <br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577583011976262238.html" target="_blank">Ryan's Charge Up Entitlement Hill</a> <br />
<br />
Ignored in 2008, his agenda began to look prescient in 2010 as Mr. Obama's policies produced persistently high unemployment, the slowest recovery in decades, and exploding, unsustainable debt. In 2011, Mr. Ryan won the battle inside the House GOP to take on entitlements, including Medicare. The budget showed the courage of Republican reform convictions and helped smoke out Mr. Obama's insincerity on spending cuts and budget reform. <br />
<br />
Democrats and media liberals also claim to be thrilled with the choice, boasting that they can now nationalize the election around the Ryan budget. But behind that bluster you can also detect some trepidation. In Mr. Ryan, they face a conservative advocate who knows the facts and philosophy of his arguments. He is well-liked and makes his case with a cheerful sincerity that can't easily be caricatured as extreme. He carries his swing Wisconsin district easily though it often supports Democrats for President. <br />
<br />
This may be why, in his meetings with House Republicans, Mr. Obama has always shied away from directly debating Mr. Ryan on health care and spending. He changed the subject or moved on to someone else. The President knows that Mr. Ryan knows more about the budget and taxes than he does, and that the young Republican can argue the issues in equally moral terms. <br />
<br />
Democrats will nonetheless roll out their usual attack lines, and the Romney campaign will have to be more prepared for them than they were for the Bain Capital assault. There's no excuse in particular for letting the White House claim that Mr. Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it" because that is demonstrably false. <br />
<br />
Late last year, Mr. Ryan joined Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in introducing a version of his reform that explicitly retains Medicare as we know it as a continuing option. The reform difference is that seniors would for the first time also have a choice of government-funded private insurance options. The Wyden-Ryan bet is that the choices resulting from private competition will be both cheaper and better. <br />
<br />
This "premium-support" model has a long bipartisan pedigree and was endorsed by Democratic Senators John Breaux and Bob Kerrey as part of Bill Clinton's Medicare commission in 1999. Wyden-Ryan is roughly the version of reform that Mr. Romney endorsed earlier this year. <br />
<br />
Our advice is that Mr. Romney go on offense on Medicare. He could hit Mr. Obama with ads in Florida and elsewhere for his $716 billion in Medicare cuts, and his plan to cut even more with an unelected rationing board whose decisions under ObamaCare have no legislative or judicial review. Then finish the ads with a positive pitch for the Romney-Ryan-Wyden reform for more patient and medical choice. <br />
***<br />
<br />
In his remarks on Saturday in Norfolk, Mr. Ryan also hit on what is likely to be an emerging Romney theme: leadership that tells Americans the truth. "We will honor you, our fellow citizens, by giving you the right and opportunity to make the choice," he said. "What kind of country do we want to have? What kind of people do we want to be?" <br />
<br />
The underlying assumption is that at this moment of declining real incomes and national self-doubt, Americans won't fall for the same old easy demagoguery. They want to hear serious ideas debated seriously. The contrast couldn't be greater with a President who won't run on his record and has offered not a single idea for a second term. <br />
<br />
In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney is betting that Americans know how much trouble their country is in, and that they will reward the candidate who pays them the compliment of offering solutions that match the magnitude of the problems.</div>ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-68355941337086865842012-08-08T23:16:00.000-04:002013-01-06T11:46:23.770-05:00The truth about Obama ending workfare.This is a must read article from Heritage.org. Please do enjoy it.<br />
<div class="entry-title">
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/08/morning-bell-obama-denies-gutting-welfare-reform/" target="_blank">Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform</a></h1>
</div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<div class="author">
<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/author/apayne/" title="Posts by Amy Payne">Amy Payne</a></div>
<div class="date">
August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am</div>
<div class="comment-count">
<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/08/morning-bell-obama-denies-gutting-welfare-reform/#idc-container" id="IDShowCommentLink104149" target="" title="Comment on Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform">(9)</a></div>
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style ">
<div class="meta-social">
</div>
</div>
</div>
The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics
on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the
charge that the Administration gutted the successful 1996 reform’s work
requirements is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.” Even
former President Bill Clinton, who signed the reform into law, came out
parroting the Obama team’s talking points and saying the charge was “not
true.”<br />
The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/">broke the story</a>
on July 12 that Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) had
rewritten the Clinton-era reform to undo the work requirements, in a
move that legal experts Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt determined was <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/16/obamas-gutting-of-welfare-reform-is-illegal/">patently illegal</a>.<br />
The Administration’s new argument has two parts: denying the Obama
Administration’s actions and claiming that Republican governors,
including Mitt Romney, tried to do the same thing. In essence, “We did
not do what you’re saying, but even if we did, some Republicans did it,
too.” Both parts of this argument are easily debunked.<br />
<b>Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements</b><br />
Ever since the 1996 law passed, Democratic leaders have attempted
(unsuccessfully) to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
(TANF) and attempting to weaken the requirements. Unable to eliminate
“workfare” legislatively, the Obama HHS claimed authority to grant
waivers that allow states to get around the work requirements.<br />
Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to <i>increase</i> work.<br />
HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their
proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to
work compared to the state’s prior performance.” But given the normal
turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the
number of people moving from “welfare to work” is to <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/26/even-more-bad-news-on-obama-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform/">increase the number entering welfare in the first place</a>.<br />
Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996
reform. The law curtailed use of sham measures of success and
established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant
actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour
of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing
caseloads. Now those standards are gone.<br />
Obama’s HHS claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF
work provisions (contained in section 407), including “definitions of
work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification
procedures and the calculation of participation rates.” In other words,
the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing
TANF law a blank slate on which it can design any policy it chooses.<br />
<b>Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too </b><br />
Though the Obama Administration is claiming it is not trying to get
around the work requirements, it is also claiming that a group of
Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Clinton also
said in his statement yesterday that “the recently announced waiver
policy was originally requested” by Republican governors.<br />
Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/obama-administration-rebuffs-congressional-inquiry-on-legality-of-gutting-welfare-reform/">explains</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
But [the governors'] letter makes no mention at all of
waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the
letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for
Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have <i>toughened</i> the federal
work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates
imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF
caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.<br />
The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main
argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work
requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from
then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?<br />
Two reasons: First, it has been clear for 15 years that the TANF law
did not permit HHS to waive the work requirements. Second, the
Republican governors were not seeking to waive the work requirements in
the first place.</blockquote>
<b>Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back </b><br />
President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare
reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an
Illinois state senator, Obama <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obamas-voice-opposition-to-clinton-welfare-plan-a">said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was
signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential
political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to
desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black
folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well
as suburban.</blockquote>
The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not
entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal
level.”<br />
But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/22/obama-supported-work-requirements-before-he-was-against-them-video/">changed his mind</a>
about welfare reform: “I was much more concerned 10 years ago when
President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have
disastrous results….It had—it worked better than, I think, a lot of
people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am
absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any
social policy.”<br />
One of his 2008 campaign ads <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obamas-voice-opposition-to-clinton-welfare-plan-a">touted</a>
“the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that
as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”<br />
This evolution is unsurprising, considering the <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/25/nearly-all-americans-favor-welfare-work-requirements/" target="_blank">vast majority of Americans</a> favor requiring welfare recipients to work.<br />
President Obama has finally accomplished what Democrats have been
trying to do for years. He has even gotten President Clinton to turn his
back on one of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html" target="_blank">signature achievements</a>
of his Administration to give him political cover—which Clinton was
quick to do. In 1996, Clinton had to compromise and allow the tough work
requirements to get the legislation passed.<br />
Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.<br />
<br />
<br />
I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep
it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you
Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see <br />
<a href="http://zactech.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-liberals-always-resort-to-name.html" target="_blank">Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?</a>).
ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-43022269836478217202012-08-04T10:11:00.000-04:002012-08-04T10:18:16.030-04:00The Obama broken promises from his 2008 election campaignI was thinking about the Obama 2012 election campaign in relation to his 2008 campaign. The contrast is amazing.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSpRUx4NoFhqT0kpd1CAcFzY5UCSpm3sBaPzGaYL2KHk2nRsVZILGyU93HdOREaHgO8OGpK5p7K3qm_QTjp7qd_Ate4L4srX8yAoAi2LmfHehOod0wBGBZ7arW9aVRNn3sHQePpwceWgk/s400/281_cartoon_obama_puppet_hurwitt_large.gif" width="400" /></div>
He was voted into office on the theme of Hope and Change that has turned into Nope and Chains.<br />
<br />
I can understand how some believed the unsustainable, unachievable Progressive (AKA Marxist redistribution) goals promised by Obama and his facilitators. The harsh reality of humankind is that is an unsustainable model has been proved time after time thru out the last 300 years starting with the French Revolution. The closest thing to Utopia is the United States as the founders defined it in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know that there are flaws and room for improvement in the Exceptional American system but we should proceed carefully and slowly.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">NASA</span></div>
<br />
"In August of last year, then-Senator Barack Obama detailed a comprehensive space plan that included $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president. Since then, he has made NASA a low priority, not even bothering to name a director for NASA for several months, and instead of increasing funding by $2 billion, NASA's budget is going to be slashed.This is why I call him the Bizzarro President- whatever he says, you can take to the bank that he is going to do the opposite of what he says. He is a serial liar, a deceitful snake, and an untrustworthy person. His word is meaningless, and his promises worth less."<br />
a quote from a <a href="http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2010/01/obamas-new-nasa-policy-yet-more-broken.html" target="_blank">public school teacher</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Clean Coal</span></div>
<br />
<br />
The Obama campaign added "clean coal" to the energy priorities on its
web site this week, days after the president lost several counties in
coal-rich West Virginia and criticism from GOP lawmakers.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/05/120511_clean_coal_605.jpg" />Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg hit the Obama administration for his policies on the coal industry.<br />
"President Obama has broken his promise when it comes to pursuing
energy independence -- and no politically-expedient website change can
hide the fact that President Obama’s energy policies have led to higher
prices and destroyed jobs.," she said.<br />
<br />
The reality is that he is attacking Oil and Coal producers with his only weapon left excessive regulation thru the EPA.<br />
<br />
Obama talked with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 2008 for an interview. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an "aggressive" cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about bankrupting the coal industry. <br />
<br />
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," he said. In the same interview, the senator said that "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Fast and Furious & Transparency</span></div>
<br />
The only thing about transparent thing about the Obama administration, is his hope that the guns let loose in the Fast and Furious operation would result in bloody murders that would then allow him to ban guns from honest American citizens!<br />
<br />
The Romney campaign leads off its list of transparency failures with Fast and Furious. It points out how then-Senator Obama attacked President George W. Bush for using executive privilege in 2007, and how Obama is now asserting executive privilege to withhold Fast and Furious documents from Congress.<br />
“President Obama has run one of the least transparent administrations in American history,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement accompanying the release. “Whether hiding lobbyists in coffee shops, cutting back-room deals on Obamacare, or concealing the records of ‘Fast and Furious,’ President Obama’s pledge to be transparent has turned out to be just another broken promise. With no rationale for reelection and no plan to help middle-class Americans, President Obama has resorted to running a campaign of distraction, distortion and dishonesty.”<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Below is an article published by Business Insider on Mar. 3, 2012. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Written by Jaywon Choe and Richa Naik.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/9-campaign-promises-that-obama-has-broken-2012-3?op=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">9 Campaign Promises That Obama Has Broken</span></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Promise #1 - No Super PACs <br />
<br />
The Promise: While running for president in 2008, then Senator Barack Obama, in all his fresh-faced, dark haired enthusiasm, pledges that a vote for him means a vote for a candidate who won’t be swayed by the influence of special interests and Super PACs. <br />
<br />
"If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs,” Obama said in a campaign speech in Denver, Colorado. <br />
<br />
The Reality: Just four years later, faced with another election, now president Obama has second thoughts about those same special interests and Super PACs. He still doesn’t like them, but he’s going to use them, only because everyone else is. <br />
<br />
Source: University of California, Santa Barbara<br />
Source: The New York Times <br />
<br />
Promise #2 - Closing Gitmo<br />
<br />
The Promise: On 60 Minutes in 2008, Obama was asked whether he would take early action on closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and his answer was about as unequivocal as an answer can get: <br />
<br />
“Yes. I have said repeatedly that I will close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.” <br />
<br />
The Reality: Well, maybe it wasn’t that unequivocal. On March 7, 2011, the president signed an executive order to resume military trials for Guantanamo detainees and allow detainees to continue to be held in the facility. <br />
<br />
Though the president said that he is still committed to closing the detention center, the move was largely seen as a concession. <br />
<br />
Source: The Washington Post<br />
<br />
<br />
Promise #3 - Goodbye Bush Tax Cuts<br />
<br />
The Promise: Throughout his campaign, Obama played the not-Bush card a lot. And one thing he promised was ending the Bush-era tax cuts, which gave breaks to some of the richest Americans. <br />
<br />
The Reality: Obama agreed to temporarily extend the tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and reduction of Social Security taxes. With the 2012 election on the horizon, Obama has now stepped up his criticism of the current tax code and is pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy. <br />
<br />
Source: whitehouse.gov<br />
<br />
Promise #4 - Get Cap-And-Trade Passed<br />
<br />
The Promise: “As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming — an 80% reduction by 2050,” <a href="http://grist.org/politics/obamas-speech/">said Obama</a> in 2007 before the Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future. <br />
<br />
The Reality: Well it’s not quite 2050 just yet, but it looks like cap-and-trade may be dead. After making it's way through the House, the bill died in the Senate after Democrats lost their majority in 2010. Sensing that getting it passed was unlikely, Obama walked back his commitment on the plan. "[Cap-and-trade] was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end." <br />
<br />
Source: NPR<br />
<br />
<br />
Promise #5 - No New Taxes For Families Making Under $250,000 <br />
<br />
The Promise: In his campaign, Obama pledged that Americans making less than $250,000 would not see "any form of tax increase." Simple as that. <br />
<br />
The Reality: But sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law and increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, and with that, all the smokers making less that $250,000 a year saw their taxes go up. <br />
<br />
Source: The Daily Caller<br />
<br />
Promise #6 - Encourage states to guarantee same-sex couples are treated equally in regards to family and adoption laws <br />
<br />
The Promise: In an open letter to the LGBT community, Obama wrote “I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.” <br />
<br />
Promise #7 - Send people to the Moon by 2020...and then Mars <br />
<br />
The Promise: In Obama’s 2008 <a href="http://www.fladems.com/page/-/Obama_Space.pdf">campaign material </a>“A Robust and Balanced Program of Space Exploration and Scientific Discovery” Obama said, “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.” <br />
<br />
The Reality: When Obama released his fiscal year 2011 <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/">budget</a>, he said he was offering an alternative direction for space exploration. <br />
<br />
"NASA's Constellation program - based largely on existing technologies - was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020,” the report says. “However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA's program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA's attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations.” <br />
<br />
The NASA space shuttle program officially ended on August 31, 2011. Source: Barack Obama Campaign MaterialSource: whithouse.gov <br />
<br />
<br />
Promise #8 - Guarantee that employees get at least 7 paid sick days per year <br />
<br />
The Promise: During the 2008 campaign, Obama listed on his website his support for a federal guarantee that all employers provide seven paid sick days per year. <br />
<br />
The Reality: In the first year of this presidency, Obama expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. However the <a href="http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/congress/20091110_H1N1.htm">bill</a> stalled in committee. It is unlikely that this bill, or any version of this bill, will pass anytime soon now that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. <br />
<br />
Source: Department of Labor<br />
<br />
<br />
Promise #9 - Introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of his first year in office <br />
<br />
The Promise: “The American people need us to put an end to the petty partisanship that passes for politics in Washington. And they need us to enact comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. We can’t wait 20 years from now to do it. We can’t wait 10 years from now to do it. We need to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as president,” Obama said during a speech to the League of United Latin American Citizens in 2008. <br />
<br />
The Reality: Obama said immigration reform would be a top priority, but by the end of the first year no comprehensive bill supported by Obama had been introduced in Congress. <br />
<br />
In April of 2010 a 26-page immigration reform proposal was released. However he has yet to support a bill in Congress. Source: Associated PressSource: senate.gov <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/9-campaign-promises-that-obama-has-broken-2012-3?op=1#ixzz22aDEBjHV"></a>ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611455835248510321.post-43059219317143269082012-08-03T09:18:00.000-04:002012-08-03T12:55:32.939-04:00Chick-fil-A now more popular then everTo all the Exceptional American Patriots that are supporting the workers of Chick-fil-A that are victims of hate and intolerance heaped upon them from the Left as they can not tolerate freedom of speech! You all have my appreciation and complete support.<br />
<br />
In a recent interview with the Baptist Press and later on a Christian radio program, Dan Cathy CEO of Chick-fil-A defended marriage between a man and a woman and when asked about the company's support of traditional marriage said, "Guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit."<br />
<br />
In a later radio interview, Cathy said: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"The Southern Baptist Cathy family has long been known for using biblical principles to operate its business, including never opening the company's stores on Sundays<br />
This was all he said. Where is the so called hate speech?<br />
<br />
Dan Cathy did not say he would deny someone with a different view than his the right to eat in or work at any of his fast-food restaurants, which would violate the law. He did not say anything hateful about the homosexual community. He simply expressed a deeply held conviction rooted in his traditional American beliefs.<br />
<br />
The only intolerance I see is from the Leftists against free speech. We all have a right to do and say anything we please. Long live the first amendment!<br />
<br />
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum, both
have called for a show of support for Dan Cathy. They asked people to
eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants.<br />
<br />
"critics of Dan Cathy have taken his statements completely out of context." “I think liberals are missing a vital point in their blind hatred of Chick-fil-A,” Demetrios Minor<br />
<br />"We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country," said Steve Robinson, executive vice president of marketing, in the statement. "While we don't release exact sales numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day."<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="265" src="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Leisure/660/439/chick14.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
western Chicago</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="299" src="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Leisure/660/494/chick2.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Lafayette, LA</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />ZACTechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02272477379440890701noreply@blogger.com0