Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

A 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.

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?).

The Truth About Socialism

Irving 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. 

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!

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).

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.

Obama versus Romney what are the differences?

Obama versus Romney what are the differences?

Let us start with their slogans Forward versus Believe in America.

Vorwarts is Forward in German

Forward has a long history of use by Leftists.

Forward was the slogan of the National Socialists Hitler Youth.



Obama's Forward 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.
The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

Romney's Believe In America 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.

Below is from an article by John Hawkins originally  published in TheTownHall.com website

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens 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 the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.

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 25 billion 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.

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 handling 90% of all new mortgages. 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.

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.

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?

What 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.

The first Labor Day was founded by the Central Labor Union in New York city on September 5, 1882.

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.
" 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"
a quote from Bruce Watson

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.

"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."
a quote from Janet Daley

"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

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.
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!.

Below is another excellent article from
Real Clear Politics

Public Unions & the Socialist Utopia

By Robert Tracinski

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.

It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone explains, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 have no legislature than allow voting on any bill that would break the power of the unions.
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.
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.

Below is another excellent article from
The failure of unions and socialism
from Braincrave Second Life staff
Mar 02, 2011

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.

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?

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...

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.

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."

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