Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement

Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement.

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.

Justina’s Law to Follow “Mad Psychiatric Experiment” on Justina Pelletier

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.
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.

"They were so mean and nasty to me, and mean and terrible to my family also." Justina Pelletier

The Controversial Re-diagnosis of Justina Pelletier

The Pelletiers with Mike Huckabee. From left to right: Linda, Jennifer, Huckabee, Jessica, Lou, and in front: Justina and Julia

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.
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.
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.”
BCH Allowed to do Research on Wards of the State
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…”
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.
Justina’s Bill
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.
In a press release issued on Friday June 27, the four reps each made a statement:
• 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.
• 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.”
• 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.”
• 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.”
Highlights of the Huckabee Interview

Justina Pelletier talks to Mika Huckabee

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.”

Oh my gosh that is awesome. Justina Pelletier

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).
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.

"I love my family so much; I cannot believe I am home with them." Justina Pelletier

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.”
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.”
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.”

"They had their own agenda; and that’s a sad thing." Lou Pelletier

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.”
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.
By Penny Swift
Sources
Michele Bachmann
Fox News
Daily News
The Boston Globe

Justina Pelletier the Poster Child for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!

Justina Pelletier the Poster Child 

for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!

 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.

Sign the petition today and let’s return Justina to her family.

  Story Summary

Justina Pelletier Custody Case

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.

Below is from an article by Ken Klukowski published on 28 Feb 2014 in Breitbart.com/Big-Government

These are the facts as relayed by Staver, parts of which Breitbart News has corroborated with court documents and with a Boston Globe story.
Staver begins:

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.

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.
According to Staver:

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.

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.

 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.
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.
Staver adds, “She’s now two full grades behind her class. She has gone from ice-skating competitions to being in a wheelchair.”
The family is Roman Catholic, yet Staver says Justina has not been allowed communion for this entire thirteen-month period.
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.
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.”

DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

The following two articles illustrate perfectly the concerted effort by some of our elected officials to undermine the 2nd Amendment. I suspect that they are looking to capitalize on the recent horrible murders committed by one lone psycho with a stolen gun.

Statistics prove how unlikely anyone is to die in this manner. So why the urgency to disarm law abiding citizens? 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 anticipate possible resistance to their future unveiled plans. History proves this indeed a possible scenario!

DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

As posted in the teaparty.org website on January 4, 2013.

(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.
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.

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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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?”
“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.”
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.

Boston Mayor Menino: Biden ‘Guaranteed’ Massive Gun Control By February

As posted in the breitbart.com  website on January 14, 2013 authored by Ben Shapiro
.
(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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.

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
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

Guns 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?

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:

Reporter:
Dwight R Worley
230-6 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
718-527-0832

Journal News President:
Janet Hasson
3 Gate House Lane
Mamaroneck, NY 10534
914-694-5204

Editors:
Cyndee Royle
1133 Westchester Ave. Ste N110
White Plains, NY 10604
914-694-9300

Nancy Cutler
9 Woodwind Ln
Spring Valley, NY 10977
845-354-3485

Parent company of The Journal News (Gannett):
CEO Gracia C Martore
728 Springvale Rd
Great Falls, VA 22066
703-759-595

Here is a Link to the actual Google Map of the Journal News Employees. Please do feel free to pass this useful bit of information on.

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.


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!

The Journal News is Armed and Dangerous

BY DYLAN SKRILOFF as published in the ROCKLAND COUNTY TIMES on January 1st, 2013

Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.

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.

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.

Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

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.

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.”

Police said the email “did not constitute an offense” and did not contain an actual threat.

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.

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.

[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]

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.

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.

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.

The Rockland County Times has not investigated whether the Journal News’ Westchester County headquarters in White Plains has beefed up security.

The Genocide Chart

The 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.

Below is a story that the Liberal biased reporters continue to ignore!

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).
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.

OMG! 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 Forward over the cliff.

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.

The following is a transcript of actor Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, 2012. Pulled from a FOX news post

EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt.
(APPLAUSE)
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
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
people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
John's here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us.
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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
close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?
(LAUGHTER)
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. 

(APPLAUSE)
I've got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where
credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And
that's --
now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in
Iraq,
and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
You
know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We
didn't
check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for
10
years.
(APPLAUSE)
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and
I
think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned
something about having a target date for bringing everybody
home. You
gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only
sensible
question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out
now?
Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''
(APPLAUSE)
And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut
up, it
is my turn.
(LAUGHTER)
So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to
have a
little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these
promises
-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell
Romney? I
can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to
himself.
(APPLAUSE)
You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as
bad as
Biden.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the
Democratic
party.
(LAUGHTER)
Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
(LAUGHTER)
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I
think
that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.
See, I
never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,
anyway.
(APPLAUSE)
I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always
taught
to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both
sides...
MORE
(INSERT ZACH)
XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're
always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything,
weigh both sides.
EASTWOOD: They are always devil's advocating this and
bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.
But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe
a businessman. How about that?
(APPLAUSE)
A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar
businessman.''
And I think it's that time. And I think if you just step
aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still
use a plane.
(APPLAUSE)
Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you
are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and
stuff like that.
(APPLAUSE)
You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to
drive that around?
OK, well anyway. All right, I'm sorry. I can't do that to
myself either.
(APPLAUSE)
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
-- we own this country.
(APPLAUSE)
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg
for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in
the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether
you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should
not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we
got to let them go.
(APPLAUSE)
Okay, just remember that. And I'm speaking out for
everybody out there. It doesn't hurt, we don't have to be
(AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible)
(LAUGHTER)
I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have to be -- what I'm saying, we do not have to
be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don't
really even want in office just because they seem to be nice
guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the
recent ads going out there, I don't know.
(APPLAUSE)
But OK. You want to make my day?
(APPLAUSE)
All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: Make my day!
EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.

What Does Paul Ryan Believe In?

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.

"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?" 

 

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?.

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.

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!

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.

 Assessing President Obama's Fiscal Record

August 2, 2012

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.

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.

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.

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.

Key Points:

• Spending surged 18% in 2009 reaching 25% of GDP - the highest since World War II
• Deficits exceeded $1 trillion in each of the four years of the President’s term
• Gross debt has increased over $5 trillion since the President was inaugurated
• Even adjusting for a weak economy and Bush-era policies, President Obama has signed legislation increasing deficits by $1.6 trillion over his term
• 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

Read the full report HERE

Below is an opinion piece pulled from the Wall Street Journal that I think is worth reading.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK Updated August 11, 2012, 9:57 p.m. ET
The Ryan Choice
Romney selects a leader of the GOP's reform wing.

When these columns asked last week "Why Not Paul Ryan?", 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.

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.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republican Vice Presidential hopeful Paul Ryan

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.

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.

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.

The Ryan Selection
Why Not Paul Ryan?
The GOP Budget and America's Future
Ryan's Charge Up Entitlement Hill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
***

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?"

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.

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.

The truth about Obama ending workfare.

This is a must read article from Heritage.org. Please do enjoy it.

Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform

Amy Payne

August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am

(9)

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.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first broke the story 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 patently illegal.
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.
Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements
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.
Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to increase work.
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 increase the number entering welfare in the first place.
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.
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.
Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too
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.
Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector explains:

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 toughened 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.
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?
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.

Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back
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 said:

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.

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.”
But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had changed his mind 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.”
One of his 2008 campaign ads touted “the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”
This evolution is unsurprising, considering the vast majority of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to work.
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 signature achievements 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.
Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.


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
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

The Obama broken promises from his 2008 election campaign

I was thinking about the Obama 2012 election campaign in relation to his 2008 campaign. The contrast is amazing.

He was voted into office on the theme of Hope and Change that has turned into Nope and Chains.

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.

NASA

"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."
a quote from a public school teacher

Clean Coal

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.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg hit the Obama administration for his policies on the coal industry.
"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.

The reality is that he is attacking Oil and Coal producers with his only weapon left excessive regulation thru the EPA.

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.

"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."

Fast and Furious & Transparency

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!

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.
“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.”

Below is an article published by Business Insider on Mar. 3, 2012. 

Written by Jaywon Choe and Richa Naik.

9 Campaign Promises That Obama Has Broken

Promise #1 - No Super PACs

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.

"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.

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.

Source: University of California, Santa Barbara
Source: The New York Times

Promise #2 - Closing Gitmo

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:

“Yes. I have said repeatedly that I will close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.”

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.

Though the president said that he is still committed to closing the detention center, the move was largely seen as a concession.

Source: The Washington Post


Promise #3 - Goodbye Bush Tax Cuts

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.

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.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Promise #4 - Get Cap-And-Trade Passed

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,” said Obama in 2007 before the Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future.

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."

Source: NPR


Promise #5 - No New Taxes For Families Making Under $250,000

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.

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.

Source: The Daily Caller

Promise #6 - Encourage states to guarantee same-sex couples are treated equally in regards to family and adoption laws

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.”

Promise #7 - Send people to the Moon by 2020...and then Mars

The Promise: In Obama’s 2008 campaign material “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.”

The Reality: When Obama released his fiscal year 2011 budget, he said he was offering an alternative direction for space exploration.

"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.”

The NASA space shuttle program officially ended on August 31, 2011. Source: Barack Obama Campaign MaterialSource: whithouse.gov


Promise #8 - Guarantee that employees get at least 7 paid sick days per year

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.

The Reality: In the first year of this presidency, Obama expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. However the bill 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.

Source: Department of Labor


Promise #9 - Introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of his first year in office

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.

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.

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

Chick-fil-A now more popular then ever

To 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.

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."

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
This was all he said. Where is the so called hate speech?

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.

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!

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.

"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

"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."

 

western Chicago

 

 Lafayette, LA

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

The defense of the right to keep and bear arms is a defense of the core of the American Soul. The San Francisco Bleat, Nancy “stretch” Pelosi is calling for gun registration. In an interview with Good Morning America (Good Grief, America; you actually watch that?) everyone`s favorite Bolshevik grandmother called for the registration of American firearms. According to the Washington Times: “The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats’ coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that “it’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she responded, “We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”
The above was pulled from a Timothy Birdnow article

They want you to say | It's better to say   
    (and you lose if you say): | (and they lose if you say)  
    =======================================================               
                       pro gun | pro rights
                   gun control |   crime control
             anti-gun movement | anti-self-defense movement
         semiautomatic handgun | sidearm
               concealed carry | carry or right to carry
      assault or lethal weapon | household firearms
                     junk guns | the affordability issue
       high capacity magazines | full capacity magazines
              Second Amendment | Bill of Rights
        the powerful gun lobby | civil rights organizations
      common sense legislation | dangerous utopian ideas
       reasonable gun controls | victim disarmament
              gun control laws | infringement laws
                      anti gun | anti-gun bigot
                      anti gun | anti-gun prejudice
                      anti gun | anti rights

                When they say: | You say:
            ================================
                     Guns kill | Guns save lives
              Guns cause crime | Guns stop crime
                  Guns are bad | Guns are why America is still free
       Assault weapons are bad | Assault is a type of behavior
         Guns are so dangerous | Guns are supposed to be dangerous
 Guns are too dangerous to own | You should take a safety class
    People shouldn't have guns | Maybe you shouldn't have one
Guns should be totally outlawed | Let's try that with drugs first
The purpose of a gun is to kill | The purpose of a gun is to protect
        People don't need guns | Only good people need guns
           Guns should go away | Then you should personally sign up
                                  to never have a gun in your life, 
                                  as you would ask of me
         They should take away | Bad guys first
                  all the guns 
They should take away all the guns| Who exactly is "they" you would
    because they're so dangerous   you wold give all these dangerous
                                   guns to?
Gun owners should be registered | Bad guys first
Gun owners should be registered | So, how would writing my name on a
             to help stop crime   government list help stop crime?                        
          We need more gun laws | Criminal activity is already banned
Why would anyone want to own a gun? | You're kidding, right? You mean you
                                    really don't know? Well, why do you
                                    think we give guns to the police?
I'm not against people having guns | What sort of guns do you think
                                     people should have, and why?
     Do you really have a gun? | Of course, don't you?
                                                                  Alan Korwin
                                     www.gunlaws.com - Click New Stuff button

"The Chinese, the Russians, the Nazis and Saddam Hussein all agree! Gun Control Works!"
 Dean Armstrong

A little Gun History Lesson:
* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
 * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities.
Daniel Schmutter (b. 1964)

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

United States Constitution, Amendment II Bill of Rights

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that 

all power is inherent in the people; that... 

it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." 

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. 

The communist party must command all the guns, that way, 

no guns can ever be used to command the party." 

Mao Tse Tung Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
Lenin (1870-1924)

 "Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. 

I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. 

Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. 

We'll see who wins." 

Sammy "the Bull" Gravano (b. 1945) Asked about Gun Control in an interview in Vanity Fair

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device
 to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." 
 Lenin (1870-1924) "The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia"

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
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).