About Me

Name: raymondr612001
Email: raymondr612001@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Dow Breaks 10,000: BIG DEAL!!!

Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:18:11 AM
10-28-09
369 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    So the Dow Jones finally broke the 10,000 barrier for the first time since last fall....BIG DEAL!!! Those yahoos on Wall Street may be popping the champagne  corks and partying like it was the good old days again, but we aren't. We are still fighting to keep home and hearth together waiting for our own economic fortunes to change. Sure, the Dow is a reliable barometer of how our economy will fare in the future and that for all intents and purposes the recession is over. Tell that to those of us on the ground waiting for the recovery to reach us. As is stands now, unemployment is at or near 10% nationwide. In Michigan the jobless figure is at 15% (one of the highest in the country) and Detroit comes in at 30%.... 30%!!! One out of three Detroit Residents is out of work and barely getting by on unemployment benefits that are almost depleted. In California, thousands of farmers and oil workers have been put out of work to appease radical environmentalists who would rather see families go on welfare that risk harm to either whales in the Pacific or small minnows in the Central Valley. Not to mention California is just about bankrupt, paying their bills with IOUs  and driving people out of the state with rising taxes (Nice Going, Arnie). Auto workers nationwide are watching their jobs sent overseas because of Union greed. People are cashing in their 401Ks and other retirement savings just to keep roofs over their heads. Wall Street got a bailout. The Auto Industry got a bailout. Mr. Obama....Where's our bailout?

"Enough Said!" Congrats, Wall Street.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize....WHY?!!

Posted by raymondr612001 on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:40:22 PM
10-14-09
383 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

   I wanted to take this time to catch up on some of the issues of the past few weeks. I wanted to talk about the myriad "Czars" the Obama regime has in place to undermine congressional oversight of policies best enacted by elected officials and those who must pass muster with Congress under "Advise and Consent." I wanted to give a good righteous Hoorah to citizen journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles for exposing corruption within the ACORN organization. This was before word came that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now these stories and my commentary on them will have to wait. Rest assured those who deserve praise will be praised while those in need of a good tearing of a new one will be so torn.

   The questions I keep asking, along with most conservatives, is this: Why Him? What has Obama done to earn this honor? How many wars has he ended with diplomacy? How many wars has he stopped from starting? What has he done? The answer I keep coming up with is 0, ZIP, NADA, GOOSE EGG. In essence He ain't done JACK DIDDLY SQUAT!!! Theodore Roosevelt brokered a deal that ended a war between Russia and Japan in 1905. Woodrow Wilson led the way to organize the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations) after leading  winning World War I (although the United States did not join the league). Another question that comes to mind is this: What has Obama risked to earn the Nobel? Past winners like Dr. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were jailed for standing up for their beliefs. Mandela spent 28 years in a South African Jail rather than sell out his people in the battle to end Apartheid in South Africa. I did not support his Marxist philosophy, but He had the guts to pay the price. King faced down rednecks that hid behind badges and cross-burning Klansmen who hid behind hoods (COWARDS ALL!!!) in the name of freedom. Lech Walesa risked being hauled off to a soviet gulag when he led the Solidarity Movement that freed Poland in the 1980s. When did Barack Obama face either death or imprisonment? NEVER!!! Obama has what Federal Reserve Newsletter (FRN) Publisher Chris Dardzinski calls "Soft Hands." having never faced the kind of dangers King, Mandela or Walesa dealt with.

     Another school of thought holds that perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded as a sort of "Thank You" from global leftists for Obama's "World Apology Tour" earlier this year. Many in the far left around the world despised President Bush for his going it alone in his fight against terrorism including the Liberation of Iraq and the overall "War on Terror." They  are of a mind that America owes the world an apology and Obama gave the world that mea culpa. Then Obama sold out Poland and the Czech Republic and caved to Russian demands to cancel the deployment of a missile defense system within their borders to fend off missile strikes from Iran (can you say "appeasement?"). The final betrayal came at the annual Meeting of the UN General Assembly when Obama pretty much shoved Israel under that well-known bus of his by not reading Iran the riot act about their nuclear program.

     He has compromised our national security, crippled our economy and castrated our country in the eyes of the world. If that is what got him the Nobel Peace Prize, by screwing his own country over, then by all means he has earned it. Congratulations, Mr. Obama (Now I know I will never address him as "Mr. President.").

"Enough Said!" 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ted Kennedy was NO SAINT!!!

Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:53:02 PM

 08-27-09

431 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

From Newsmax.com

Chappaquiddick Tragedy Mars Kennedy Legacy

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:56 PM

By: David A. Patten 

 

There's a tear in your eye,

And I'm wondering why,

For it never should be there at all.

With such pow'r in your smile,

Sure a stone you'd beguile,

So there's never a teardrop should fall.

-- Lyrics, "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling," a Kennedy family favorite

 

 

"On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 p.m., on Chappaquiddick Island, Martha's Vineyard, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown."

Thus began Sen. Ted Kennedy's written statement for police in Edgartown, Mass., on the morning after the disastrous wreck that claimed the life of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Kopechne was a "boiler room girl" in RFK's campaign who had accepted an invitation to a regatta party attended by five other women and six men, including Kennedy.

Shortly after she stepped into Kennedy's sedan, ostensibly for a ride home, she was trapped in the car, struggling for her life as dark saltwater relentlessly rushed into the vehicle after it careened off a bridge.

[Editor's Note: Read “The Last Lion of Camelot: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 1932-2009” Go here now.]

Kennedy's subsequent, detached explanation of the accident stated: "I was unfamiliar with the road and turned on to Dike Road instead of bearing left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately a half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger in the car with me, Miss _______, a former secretary of my brother Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom."

Kennedy left a blank after "Miss" because he wasn't sure how to spell the last name of the young lady whose life had been extinguished the night before.

"I attempted to open the door and window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt.

"I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."

In the days that followed, Kennedy would claim to be as mystified by his own experiences as everyone else was.

In a subsequent TV statement, Kennedy said his efforts to save Kopechne "succeeded only in increasing my state of utter exhaustion and alarm," adding: "My conduct and conversations during the next several hours to the extent that I can remember them make no sense to me at all. Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either on the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident or on anyone else."

Legally speaking, Kennedy did essentially escape responsibility. The judge gave him a two month sentence for failing to report an accident, and the sentence was suspended. But politically, the cost would be high indeed. Although Massachusetts voters quickly forgave their favorite son, public reaction to the largely unexplained incident caused permanent damage to Kennedy's reputation.

Author Matthew Smith's 2005 book, "Conspiracy: The Plot to Stop the Kennedys," delved into the many still-unanswered questions about the accident. Kennedy's statement to police only raised more questions, as Time magazine put it at the time "in the absence of an adequate explanation from Kennedy." For example:

 

  •  Why didn't Kennedy's driver, who had transported him to the party and was there, do the driving that night?

     

     

  •  If Kennedy was driving Kopechne to her hotel room in Edgartown, as stated, why did she leave her purse and her hotel key behind at the party?

     

     

  •  How was it Kennedy took the wrong turn when he had traveled to and from his destination several times that week?

     

     

  •  Had Kopechne survived for a time by breathing from a pocket of air trapped in the vehicle after it was submerged, as put forward by John Farrar, the diver who retrieved her from the vehicle?

     

    Those unanswered questions indicate that, although Kopechne's body eventually was extricated from the unforgiving depths, the full truth of what happened that night, still lies submerged beneath them. Kennedy author Mel Ayton has written that conspiracy theorists should keep in mind that amnesia is consistent with the head injuries Kennedy sustained that night. In a 1980 television broadcast, Kennedy said, "I know there are many who do not believe it but my testimony is the only truth I can tell because that is the way it happened."

    Time magazine would report that, immediately after the accident, a phalanx of 16 Kennedy wise men gathered at the Hyannis Port home. They included former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, adviser Arthur M. Schlesinger, economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and noted JFK speechwriter Theodore Sorenson. It is reasonable to assume the topic du jour was damage control. In April 1970, Judge James A. Boyle, who presided over the inquest that probed Kopechne's death, ordered that the 764-page transcript of that inquest be released. It revealed that Boyle did not believe Kennedy was disclosing the entire truth about the incident.

    "I infer," Boyle stated carefully, "that Kennedy did not intend to drive to the ferry slip and his turn onto Dyke [sic] Road was intentional."

    Based on the fact that Kennedy had passed over the bridge earlier that day, the judge said: "I believe it probable that Kennedy knew of the hazard that lay ahead of him on Dyke [sic] Road but that, for some reason not apparent from the testimony, he failed to exercise due care as he approached the bridge. I, therefore, find there is probably cause to believe that Edward M. Kennedy operated his motor vehicle negligently . . . and that such operation appears to have contributed to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne."

    The Globe reported that Kennedy rejected those findings as "not justified." Just a few days after the inquest transcript was released, Boyle retired from the bench.

    Kennedy reached a $141,000 settlement with Kopechne's parents, $50,000 of which his insurance company paid. That fall, Massachusetts voters re-elected him over Republican Josiah Spaulding, with 63 percent of the vote. Kennedy appeared to pay a price in January 1971, when Democrats opted to replace him as majority whip with Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

    In the months that followed, Kennedy would find the U.S. Senate to be his only true escape from an existence that, by then, had taken on at times a nightmarish quality. It was there that Kennedy gradually would build his formidable political legacy.

    'Nothing but the Truth'

    However, heartbreak wasn't even close to giving up its embrace on the senator from Massachusetts. In November 1973, close to the 10th anniversary of the assassination of JFK, the senator received the devastating news that his oldest son, 12-year-old Edward Jr., had cancer in his right leg. After consulting with numerous specialists, Kennedy had to look his son in the eye and tell him his leg would have to be amputated above the knee.

    The surgery was performed on Nov. 16, 1973. As told in "Last Lion," the senator escorted his son into the operating room at Georgetown University Hospital. From there, he rushed to Holy Trinity Church to walk niece Kathleen, RFK's daughter, down the aisle. Her wedding ceremony ended with a moving rendition of "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling," and more than a few eyes that day broke father Joseph's commandment never to shed tears. Then it was back to the hospital for the senator, to wait at his son's bedside.

    He would shepherd the boy through two years of chemotherapy, an experimental treatment at the time who side effects were even more devastating than they remain today.

    That experience would spur Kennedy's lifelong interest in healthcare. Years later, he attributed his passionate support for the patients bill of rights to watching less wealthy families struggle with the economic burden of caring for loved ones.

    Kennedy's appetite for philandering and robust parties apparently did not diminish. In 1992, Richard E. Burke, Kennedy's longtime personal aide, penned a book titled "The Senator: My 10 Years With Ted Kennedy." It presented a firsthand, sordid portrait of drugs, booze, and sexual licentiousness.

    Burke worked for Kennedy from 1971 to 1981, and the credibility of Burke's insider account has been called into question. In the early 1980s, Burke pleaded guilty to carrying a pistol without a license. In return, charges of filing false police reports were dropped.

    Burke blames his problems on his years of hard partying, much of it with Kennedy, which he says left him with a serious cocaine problem. Also, in 1991, Burke filed for bankruptcy, which led some to suggest his tell-all had a financial motivation.

    Burke's ends his story about Kennedy with the words: "Everything described in this book did happen. This book can't pretend to be the whole truth, but it is part of the truth, and it certainly is nothing but the truth." The Kennedy clan, of course, dismissed it as anything but.

    The question of exactly when, how, and why Kennedy experienced the personal reformation that propelled him to forge perhaps the most impressive legislative record of the past half century has been the subject of much speculation, if not myth-making. By all accounts, his bacchanalian predilections continued well into the '70s, and many biographers credit his 1992 marriage to lawyer Victoria Anne Reggie with stabilizing his life.

    One of the key experiences that contributed to Kennedy's personal evolution was his failed attempt to wrest his party's nomination from incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy's bid was burdened by the legacy of Chappaquiddick in a post-Watergate era that was increasingly intolerant of politico malfeasance and disco-era profligacy. But the greatest wound his campaign sustained came from Kennedy himself, when CBS newsman Roger Mudd asked Kennedy why he wanted to be president.

    "Well," the senator began, "I'm — were I to — to make the — announcement . . . is because I have a great belief in this country, that it is — has more natural resources than any nation in the world . . . the greatest technology of any country in the world . . . the great political system in the world . . . And the energies and the resourcefulness of this nation, I think, should be focused on these problems in a way that brings a sense of restoration in this country by its people . . . And I would basically feel that — that it's imperative for this country to either move forward, that it can't stand still, or otherwise it moves back."

    It was as if Kennedy's presumption of his divine birthright to America's political throne had led him to overlook the simple question of why he wanted to occupy it. His inability to articulate what he planned to do with the office magnified the underlying doubts about his candidacy.

    In another sense, however, Kennedy's defeat at the hands of a former peanut farmer from Georgia liberated him from the burden of higher office, perhaps also freeing him from the need to live up to the impossible Camelot myth his father and older brothers had fashioned. The Kennedy that emerged from the ashes of defeat in 1980 was suggested by his 1980 convention speech, which biographer Ed Klein says "ranked with the great convention speeches of the past."

    Among Kennedy's memorable lines: "And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our party in 1980 that we found our faith again . . . For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

    Kennedy Blazes Legislative Trail

    Although Kennedy's devoted foes might not wish to admit it, his character flaws did not prevent him from amassing one of the most impressive legislative records ever. Among his accomplishments:

     

  •  He won passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which abolished the national-origin immigration quotas that had been in effect since the 1920s.

     

     

  •  He played a key role in passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

     

     

  •  He helped shepherd Title IX through Congress in 1972, a major step in the battle against gender discrimination which precluded disparate educational funding based on gender.

     

     

  •  Other legislative accomplishments include the COBRA Act of 1985, the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which passed in 1997.

     

     

  •  More recently, Kennedy negotiated compromises with President George W. Bush that led to passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.

     

     

  •  A longtime advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants, Kennedy co-sponsored the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which failed following a grassroots backlash against lax U.S. border control policies.

     

    Kennedy's legislative accomplishments had a dark side as well. As he worked diligently in the back rooms that Senate deal-makers frequented, his years in the Senate saw a metastatic growth in the size of the federal government. Suggestions that Kennedy's progressive intentions could pave the road to disastrous outcomes were ridiculed as ignorant fear-mongering, even as they are today.

    In 1965, for example, Kennedy dismissed opponents of the Hart-Celler Act, who feared it would contribute to a vast flood of immigration into the United States.

    Kennedy insisted during a hearing: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

    Four decades later, with more than 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, Kennedy's lifelong drive to open up the United States to an influx of immigration has had serious — if not devastating — consequences.

    Historically, Kennedy's most tainted legislative legacy may be his vitriolic, personal attack campaign against brilliant originalist legal scholar Robert Bork.

    Former President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork the nation's highest court in 1987. Kennedy's tactics in defeating the Bork nomination have been blamed for indelibly staining the once-dignified process of Senate confirmation. Kennedy's scorched-earth opposition to Bork injected a spirit of bitter partisanship into the process of confirming the future nominations of both parties' presidents.

    "Robert Bork's America," Kennedy charged before those hearing even got under way, "is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individuals rights that are the heart of our democracy."

    Kennedy's broadside was so over the top, and so radical in the context of traditional Senate decorum, that it paralyzed the GOP and mobilized the left. Bork's nomination was defeated.

    "If there had been any question before the Bork nomination of who ran the Senate," the Boston Globe reported, "there was none after."

    Despite Kennedy's influence in the Senate, his reputation as a liberal lion there sustained heavy damage in the early 1990s. His oddly passive performance during the controversial confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received strident criticism from the left, with whisperers suggesting Kennedy's reticence to launch ad hominem attacks against Thomas stemmed from his own personal failings.

    Polls suggested that Kennedy's reputation also sustained a blow from the pending sexual-assault trial in a Palm Beach, Fla., incident involving his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who eventually was acquitted of the charges. Although the senator was not accused of breaking any law in connection with the case, the testimony revealed a seamy side to the Kennedy mystique that voters found distasteful.

    These concerns, as well as Kennedy's looming 1994 re-election campaign, led to the famous "mea culpa" speech he delivered at Harvard, in which he confessed, with wife-to-be Victoria Reggie in the audience: "I am painfully aware that the criticism directed at me in recent months involves far more than disagreements with my positions," said the senator, "or the usual criticism from the far right. It also involves the disappointment of friends and many others who rely on me to fight the good fight.

    "To them I say, I recognize my own shortcomings — the faults in the conduct of my private life. I realize that I alone am responsible for them, and I am the one who must confront them."

    Kennedy remarked that, unlike his brothers, "I have been given length of years and time. And as I approach my 60th birthday, I am determined to give all that I have to advance the causes for which I have stood for almost a quarter of a century."

    Kennedy went on in 1994 to defeat a tough Republican challenger election by the name of Mitt Romney — the future governor of Massachusetts and 2008 contender for the GOP presidential nomination — with 58 percent of the vote.

    Kennedy delivered one of the biggest blows to the presidential aspirations of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign on Jan. 28, 2008, when he rocked the political world with his unreserved endorsement of Barack Obama for president. His speech neatly cloaked Obama in the Camelot legacy of his iconic brothers:

    "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier," Kennedy said. "He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

    It was a reference to JFK antagonist Harry S. Truman.

    The senator continued: "And John Kennedy replied, 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do . . . It is time for a new generation of leadership.

    "So it is with Barack Obama," Kennedy concluded.

    However, Kennedy's deteriorating health would limit his campaigning on Obama's behalf.

    On May 17, 2008, Kennedy was airlifted to a Cape Cod hospital and received the diagnosis of malignant glioma: brain cancer. But those who thought even this setback would force Kennedy to retire from the public square were mistaken once again. His rousing appearance at the 2008 Democratic National Convention mobilized party faithful to unite behind Obama's candidacy.

    "My fellow Americans . . . it is so wonderful to be here. And nothing, nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight!" he declared to loud applause.

    After Obama won the presidency, Kennedy fought his declining health to do whatever he could to assist Obama's effort to yank the wheel of America's ship of state hard to the left. And when Obama visited Pope Benedict XVI in July, he delivered a personal letter from Kennedy, and asked that the Pope pray for him. And Kennedy continued to push for his lifelong dream of nationalized healthcare for all Americans.

    Whenever he could muster the strength, Kennedy ventured onto his sailing yacht Mya with family and friends, ever eager to resume his lifelong love affair with the wind and water off the coast of Cape Cod. To the very end, it was a fitting image: Kennedy at the helm, sailing into an uncharted history that would judge both his accomplishments and his failings.

    Kennedy was the second-longest-serving member of the Senate, behind only West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, and the third-longest-serving senator of all time.

    The passing of Joseph P. Kennedy's last living son arguably concludes one of the most noteworthy chapters in the nation's political history. The younger family members who grew up in Ted Kennedy's shadow — the children, the grandchildren, the nieces and nephews — all ensure that the Kennedy legacy will endure for generations to come.

    In one of his speeches, Joseph's youngest son spoke of carrying forward the legacy that comes with being a Kennedy.

    "Like my three brothers before me, I pick up a fallen standard," he said, "sustained by their memory of our priceless years together. I shall strive to carry forward that special commitment to justice, to excellence, and courage that distinguished their lives."

    [Editor's Note: Read “The Last Lion of Camelot: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 1932-2009” Go here now.] 

    © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.   

    COMMENT: While we remember Ted Kennedy's legacy as a man of the people, we cannot forget that he was in the end just a man. A man with demons thrust upon him both by fate and circumstance and by those of his own creation. No doubt his love for his country was beyond question and his efforts to improve the lot of the American people were sincere and  well-intentioned. Had he tempered his vision (as well as his political and personal life) with realistic discipline, perhaps more of his visions for America would have been fulfilled. His legacy will be one based more on speculation as to what could have happened if the Chappaquiddick incident had not occurred. What would have happened if Kennedy could have saved Mary Jo Kopechne that night in 1969? Could he have defeated Richard Nixon in 1972 and changed the history of the past 37 years? Could his vision of America have come true under a Presidency of his own? We will never know. What is certain is this. Ted Kennedy's mark on the American political landscape is indelible and the Kennedy name in American politics will go on. Rest in Peace, Mr. Kennedy.

    "Enough Said!"

    •
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Freedom of Speech: UNDER FIRE!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:33:47 AM
    08-26-09
    432 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    "Congress shal make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
     The First Amendment of the United States Constitution (1791).

    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
    Hillary Clinton (2003)

         It seems quite clear to Democratic lawmakers that dissent is no longer patriotic. In their view, dissidents who oppose the liberal agenda are evrything from "Mobsters," "Brown-Shirts," "Fascists"  and of course (in the case of opponents of Barack Obama) "Racists."  Whether the issue is that of health care reform, taxes, education, etc. The far-left has made it their policy to discredit and marginalize any disagreement with liberal dogma by any means necessary. Whether it was Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee's taking a cell phone call when she was supposed to be listening to a cancer survivor at one of their "Town Meetings" (Dog and Pony Shows are what they are) or  blanket accusations of racism from the likes of D-List actress Janeane Garofalo or jabs at Republican voters from hack comic Bill Maher, the rule is quite clear: Silence and  condemn anyone who stands up and speaks out against the Obama administration or it's policy goals no matter the source of that criticism. That includes moderate Democrats (Blue Dogs) who want more debate and open discussion of the issues before the American people. To back up their attacks on dissent, the Dems have brought in Goon Squads from groups like ACORN and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to both pack the meeting with Obama supporters and threaten Obama opponents with fear and intimidation. Those are the tactics of tyrants, whether they be Nazi or Communist. There is no room in the public debate for the kind of thuggery and manupulation going on today. Freedom of speech and dissent are vital to Democracy. For either side of the political spectrum to suppress that freedom in the name of their cause is totally counter to what the Founding Fathers envisioned when the First Amendment to the  Constitution was written and what Hillary Clinton spoke of in it's defense. I urge my fellow dissidents not to forget that freedom of speech, to challenge our elected leaders and call them out when they try to run roughshod over our rights as citizens is not only our right, it is our duty. 
     STAND UP, AMERICANS...STAND UP!!!
     DO NOT FEAR THE GOVERNMENT...MAKE THE GOVERNMENT FEAR US!!!  

    "Enough Said!"



    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    What Price Freedom?

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:02:11 PM
    08-20-09
    438 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    Here is something to think about during the debate over health care reform.

    A warning ... circa 1787 re  the fall of the Athenian Republic:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

    "The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence.

    From bondage to spiritual faith; 
    from spiritual faith to great courage; 
    from courage to liberty; 
    from liberty to abundance, 
    from abundance to selfishness; 
    from selfishness to complacency, 
    from complacency to apathy, 
    from apathy to dependency, 
    from dependence back into bondage."

    Translation: No matter what the government promises you, Nothing is free. The more dependent a people become on the government to take care of them, the more freedom they lose. Would having something like free health care be worth the cost of your liberty? What else would you give up in exchange for the state caring for you from cradle to grave?

    "Enough Said!" 

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    WAY TO GO, BILL!!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:25:21 PM
    09-06-09
    452 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    Let's hear it for the DRAFT-DODGING POTHEAD!!!

       Sometimes, even a cad like Bill Clinton can get it right. This was one of those times. This week, the former President brought two American journalists out of North Korea following a meeting with dictator Kim Jong Il, who then pardoned the women who faced 12 years in a forced labor prison for entering the country illegally (for the purpose of espionage). Euna Lee and Laura Ling, both reporters for former Vice-President Al Gore's Current TV Channel were freed just 24 hours after Clinton arrived on a private humanitarian mission to parlay for their release. Whether or not Clinton was working at the clandestine behest of Barack Obama as a back-door operative or was doing a favor for Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton (AKA, The Mrs.)  or Al Gore is subject for speculation, as is whether or not a deal was made with North Korea regarding that country's nuclear program. All that matters at this point is that Lee and Ling are free and safe at home. Could this rescue mission blow up in Obama's face and make him look like he made a deal with Kim Jong Il? Could this make the Clintons look like people who can deliver the goods better than Obama, and thus garner political collateral for Hillary for a possible Presidential run of her own in 2012? Maybe. I would not mind seeing another Clinton Vs. Obama showdown.  Stay Tuned.

    "Enough Said!" 

    P.S.: Good Job, Mr. Clinton.  Oops, I Mean Mr. President.  
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    More Chicago-Style Politics: The Law of the THUG!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:33:00 PM
    08-05-09
    453 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    If Rahm Emanuel weren't Obama's Chief of Staff, I'm sure he could find work...in the MAFIA.....


    From Newsmax.com

    Issa Slams Emanuel for 'Chicago'-like Attacks


    Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:37 PM

    By: Dave Eberhart 

    Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is upset that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been intimidating members of Congress and governors who bash the economic stimulus, according to a press release from the lawmaker’s office.

    Issa fired off a letter this week to Emanuel saying, “While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other members of the United States Congress.”

    “I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress, and the American people,” Issa wrote. “You’ve unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine,” the California lawmaker added.

    Last month, Politico reported that Emanuel had “launched a coordinated effort to jam” Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and other administration critics.

    “After seeing Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan] Brewer, according to two administration officials,” Politico charged.

    In his missive to Emanuel Issa levied his own charges: “The fact that the letters were coordinated by you to maximize the level of intimidation is supported by the timing, structure, and content of each letter. Not only were the four letters all sent the day following Senator Kyl’s remarks, but they were also remarkably similar in tone and sentence structure.”

    Following is some of the text of a couple of the letters lambasted by Issa:

     

  •  Letter from Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation:

     

    “On Sunday, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren’t presently under way. I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know . . .”

     

  •  Letter from Ken Salazar, secretary of the Interior:

     

    “Some key Republican leaders in Congress have publicly questioned whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working and suggested cancelling all projects that are not currently in progress. I believe they are wrong. The stimulus funds provided through the Recovery Act are a very effective way to create job opportunities throughout the Country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to Arizona, please let me know . . .”

    “At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official’s right to speak out in favor of alternative policies?” Issa asked in his letter. “The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Gov. Brewer and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future.”

    In order to assist the Committee with its investigation of the alleged intimidations, Issa set forth a shopping list of demands to Emanuel:

     

  •  Your response to Politico’s report that “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials.”

     

     

  •  A full and complete explanation of the development of the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Gov. Brewer, including but not limited to the role you or any other White House official played in writing the letters or encouraging the writing of the letters.

     

     

  •  All records and communications between you and Secretary LaHood, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Donovan, and Secretary Vilsack referring or relating to the decision to send the July 13 letters to Gov. Brewer.

     

     

  •  A full and complete explanation of the role of the Democratic National Committee and the White House Office of Political Affairs in authoring, encouraging, facilitating, or directing the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Gov. Brewer.

     

    In addition to the investigative demands, Issa used the letter as an opportunity to showcase his own criticism of the stimulus.

    “I thought the outdated and discredited Keynesian economic theory behind your effort was misguided and I opposed the stimulus,” Issa wrote to Emanuel. “Unfortunately, recent economic data has validated my opposition. The U.S. economy lost 433,000 jobs in June, bringing the unemployment rate to 9.5 percent. These job losses come on the heels of other declining economic indicators, and bring the total number of American jobs lost since President Obama took office to over 2.6 million.”

    Issa further noted a Politico report that in response to the letters, Gov. Brewer "knew she'd been thrown a high, hard one."

    The incensed lawmaker also noted that the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry felt the need to respond to these tactics by penning a column under the headline: "Mr. President: Don't Bully Arizona."

    In the final paragraphs, Issa challenged Emanuel: “The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Gov. Brewer and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future.

    “Since I represent a district in the great state of California, I hope that you will not take this letter as an indication of Gov. Schwarzenegger's position on stimulus funds dedicated to California nor his position on any other public policy issue. I can assure you that any attempt to intimidate me or silence my criticism of the stimulus through such Chicago-style tactics will be futile.”

     

     

     

    © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

    COMMENT: Al Capone, Frank Nitti and the rest of the Chicago Mob would be proud. Remember, folks. You wanted Change. Well here it is. Frankly, I'm hoping Eliot Ness is on the way.

    "Enough Said!"

    •


    • Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    CNN Reporter Shows Guts!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:24:48 AM
    08-04-09
    455 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections
    Here's one for the books... 
    CNN, that great bastion of liberal tought, is taking heat from the far-left because one of their own has the guts to address what is becoming an issue that just won't  go away. An issue that goes right to the character of "President" Obama.

    From Newsmax.com

    Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate

    Monday, August 3, 2009 9:48 AM

    By: Newsmax Staff 

    The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right.

     

    This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'".

     

    The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."

     

    And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.

     

    Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate." But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate.

    Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

    Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.

    This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.

    As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

    Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

    Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

    Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

    Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:

    • Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

    • Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

    • Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

    • Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

    • Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

    • Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

    • Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

    • During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.

     

    Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

    © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

    COMMENT: Lou Dobbs has it right. Not just about Obama's birth certificate, but about everything else being hidden or covered up. Obama promised transparency. What is he hiding? We who must suffer his socialist agenda have every right to know what kind of man is sitting in the Oval Office. As for Dobbs, if CNN sends him packing I'm sure Fox News Channel will make room for him. Keep it up, Lou.

    Enough Said!"

    P.S.: Happy Birthday, Mr. Obama. Let's see your birth certificate. 

     



    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    21 things you can't say to Obama

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:35:37 PM
    07-30-09
    459 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    From the Polotico

    21 things you can't say to Obama
    By: Roger Simon 
    July 28, 2009 04:40 AM EST

    A new feature: Ask Dr. Politics! You ask the questions; we feed your delusions. 

    Dear Dr. Politics: I am reliably informed that following Barack Obama’s last news conference, a list was circulated in the White House of 21 things the staff was not allowed to say to the president. The mainstream media refuses to publish the list. You are our only hope, even though we have the utmost contempt for you. 

    Reply: Glad to oblige. Here are “The 21 Things You Cannot Say to the President after a News Conference”: 

    1. Hey, we hear the Golf Channel is going to carry it next time. Well, actually, only the Golf Channel is going to carry it next time. 

    2. Don’t worry. We’ll get ’em next year. 

    3. Professor Gates called. He can’t find his house keys. 

    4. You want to take a mulligan on this one? 

    5. We did try to plant a question about Bo, but nobody would go for it. 

    6. Saying, “I don’t know all the facts ... but the police acted stupidly” is a little like saying, “I don’t know if there are weapons of mass destruction ... but let’s invade Iraq anyway.” 

    7. We’ve decided to call the whole news conference a “teachable moment.” 

    8. You want a cigarette? 

    9. Biden called. 

    10. William Henry “Bill” Gates is the Microsoft guy. Robert Michael Gates is the secretary of defense guy. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Harvard professor. They are not related and have never performed in Vegas together. Gibbs will walk this back in the gaggle. 

    11. Tape it over? But, Mr. President, these press conferences are live. 

    12. The reason we can’t put the questions on the teleprompter is because we aren’t supposed to know the questions in advance. 

    13. Those bunched-up clothes in the bed turned out not to be Douglas Elmendorf. 

    14. That reporter wasn’t from North Carolina; he was from North Korea. 

    15. Hillary called. 

    16. You want a blue pill? 

    17. We checked: After six months, they can’t fire you. 

    18. If nobody blogs about it, we think you’ll be OK. 

    19. Now, is somebody willing to rehearse more and play golf less? 

    20. The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day. 

    21. Rahm wants to see you in his office immediately.

    Dear Dr. Politics: I saw you make fun of the “birthers” on TV. You think we are a bunch of nuts and wackos. That just shows how pathetic you are. In fact, we are ordinary citizens — doctors, lawyers, teachers, plumbers, Pilates instructors — who are not afraid to speak the truth. We are Americans. We are your neighbors. Though once we gather enough dilithium crystals, we probably will be leaving your planet. 

    Reply: Why do the birthers waste all their time arguing that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, when a legal document clearly shows that he was? The only real argument, it seems to us, is whether Hawaii is legitimately a state or actually a sovereign kingdom that is not part of the United States. 

    Dr. Politics put his crack research staff (Wikipedia) on this. It found under the heading “Apology Resolution” that on Nov. 23, 1993, the U.S. Congress adopted legislation creating United States Public Law 103-150, commonly known as the Apology Resolution, and that President Bill Clinton signed it shortly thereafter. 

    Dr. Politics is not making this up. The law states that Congress “acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum.” 

    True, on March 31 of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.” 

    We are not sure what this means. But we think it means Barack Obama is still president. At least until there is a ruling from the United Federation of Planets. 

    Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

    Copyright 2009,Capitol News Company, LLC

    COMMENT: I have one more thing you can't say to Obama: Why won't you release your real birth certificate?

    "Enough Said!" 

     




    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    BORN IN THE USA: OBAMA HAD BETTER PROVE IT!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:49:11 AM
    07-29-09
    460 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    This one ain't goin' away on it's own...

        Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says it in NO uncertain terms: " No person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have atained the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Barack Obama might have a problem with that first part, about being a "natural-born" citizen. All he has to do to is release his birth certificate for public inspection and that problem will go away. For some reason, he is quite reluctant to do so and has had an army of lawyers all over the country challenging lawsuits demanding he fork over his birth certificate. Critics and commentators, both left and right, have decried these suits accusing so-called "Birthers" of being everything from whacked-out sore losers to outright racists. Even conservatives like Michael Medved and Ann Coulter have distanced themselves, fearing they would be grouped with "Birthers." Their main argument is that any public credence they might give to the allegation could be toxic to Republican hopes of regaining control of Congress in next year's mid-term elections. Granted it is a valid argument to be sure, but that doesn't make the issue go away. 

     Consider this.  In the six months he has been  President,  Obama has spent TRILLIONS of dollars we tax-payers don't have on the greatest expansion of government in history. The price tag for his vision of universal health care, economic stimulus and other socialist goals will haunt us for generations.Obama has compromised our national security to appease our enemies and crippled our economy to atone for our alledged crimes against the environment. If it turns out he is not Constitionally eligible to be President, every action he has carried out since his inauguration , every executive order he has signed and every appointment from Vice-President Biden to his entire cabinet (Which under the 25th Amendment would make up his line of succession) would be null and void. If that were to become the case, under the 25th, Nancy Pelosi would be the only qualified successor as Speaker of the House. Not to mention the kind of public acrimony such a constitutional crisis would trigger (Think Watergate on steroids). Then there is the matter of national security and Obama's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. There can be no question about the President's authority to send our troops into combat, let alone launch nuclear weapons (which only the President can order). One Army officer has already refused  a deployment order citing Obama's citizenship. What if the Joint Chiefs of Staff had doubts? We could very well see a military paralyzed in a time of crisis at best, a military coup at worst.  Obama needs to put an end to this before it gets too far out of hand. All he needs to do is release his birth certificate to settle the issue once and for all. For this country's sake.

    "Enough Said!"
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Friday, July 17, 2009 11:28:07 PM
    07-17-09
    472 Days to the 2010 Mid-Term Congressional Elections

    It's been two weeks since Michael Jackson died....ENOUGH ALREADY!!! 

        While the rest of the country has been mourning another drugged out celebrity with no self-control who could not keep his pants on (especially around little boys), while every major "news" outlet has been prostituting themselves trying to scoop one another for any dirt they can find to bolster their ratings, while conspiracy theorists are already screaming "Murder", we have been getting SCREWED OVER BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!! 

        While we weren't looking, the House passed the so-called "Cap And Trade" bill aimed at reducing carbon emissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in particular into the atmosphere by requiring heavy industry to pay penalties (TAXES) if their factories spew too much CO2, forcing them to either invest in cleaner but more expensive sources of energy to operate or shut down and leave hundreds (if not thousands) out of work. Electrical companies that use coal-fired power plants to provide electricity to cities would have to switch from cheaper (reliable)  coal to solar or wind power (not reliable). The cost of that conversion would (of course) be passed on to the customer with higher utility costs. If they choose to stay with coal, the government stricks them with higher penalties (TAXES) which then get passed onto the customer with higher utility costs. Looks to me like a BACK-DOOR TAX on those of us who don't make $250 thousand a year. So much for Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. 

       The Socialist-Democrats are trying to jam a healthcare bill down our throats that will, in effect set up a government-run HMO that would give bureaucrats the power to override decisions best made by doctors regarding the treatment of patients and ration out medical care based on cost-effectiveness. In essence, if you are over 50, you can forget about a heart bypass because you aren't worth the price of the procedure. People are coming down from Canada (where the government controls healthcare) to get proper care because  the government won't pay for the treatment needed to save their lives. How will this great step towards a more "enlightened" and wonderful society be paid for??  HIGHER TAXES!!! Obama keeps saying those who already have healthcare benefits can keep them. They will just be considered income subject to taxation. Employers will drop their healthcare benefits (or be penalized for not carrying medical insurance) and workers will be forced to enroll in the government plan. If an employer tries to maintain healthcare benefits for his workers, some of those workers will be laid off to cover that expense. Higher taxes, higher unemployment, rationing of services and waiting periods for treatment that could be a death sentence for those who would need time-critical care . Don't even try to convince me this is a good plan. This is GARBAGE!!!

        Of course nobody was watching, except those who truly care about this country. I guess most of us were more concerned about the passing of a pervert rather than the destruction of our nation. Such will be our fate unless we get our minds back on what is important today.

    "Enough Said!"
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    3 GOP JERKS AND A NATION IS IN PERIL!!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:24:26 PM
    07-07-09
    482 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections

    With people like these calling themselves Republicans, we might as well give Obama a second term now and forget 2012.

    1) Governor Mark Sanford (SC). He decides to go all the way down to Argentina for a tryst with his mistresss, telling his staff and family he was on a hiking trip on the Appalachian Trail. He does not transfer legal power to his Lt. Governor and sneaks out of the country. In essence, he went AWOL. Question: What would have happened if there was anatural disaster or terrorist attack in South Carolina and the only person with legal authority to muster the National Guard was in Buenos Aires with his girlfriend. The State Legislature has slapped him with a reprimand (Censure). I thought John Edwards was a sleazebag. All Edwards did was lie to his wife and try to pay off his paramour. Sanford lied to the people who elected him and left them hanging. This guy is worse.

    2) Senator John Ensign (NV). Ensign owned up to having an affair with a campaign staffer during his 2008 re-election bid. Ensign went public about his affair after his mistress' husband, a former administraive assistant, asked for a substantial sum of money. Isn't that what they used to call BLACKMAIL?  His only saving grace is that Nevada's other Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is more disliked. God help Nevadans.

    3) Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA). Granted, he did not get caught with his pants down. All he did was run his state's economy into the ground. $26.3 billion in debt, paying bills with IOUs, unemployment going through the roof. California is in worse shape now than it was in 2002 when "The Governator" was elected to clean up Gray Davis' mess. Either the steroids have finally rotted his brains or he's been listening to his in-laws (The Kennedy/Shriver family) for way too long. He might as well hand the state over to Jerry Brown now.

         To Paraphrase the late John Belushi, John Ensign and Mark Sanford were on the short list for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. They could have been contenders to run Barack Obama out of the White House and save this country from total disaster at the hands of Liberal Socialists. BUT NOOO!!! They could not keep their pants on and stay true to those who voted them into office. They let their libidos overrule their conscience and their common sense. Thanks, guys.

         As for Arnold Schwarzenegger, If he had kept true to his pledge to fiscal responsibility, stood up to those Democratic PIMPS in Sacramento and used the veto pen more often on insane spending, If he'd put a stop to social services for illegal aliens and maybe reduced (or eliminated) the state income tax, If he'd stood up to the Hollywood Environmental Diletantes like Ted Danson or Ed Begley and Ok'd oil drilling off the California coastline. California, the world's 8th largest economy, would not be in near-ruin. Danke, Arnold.

    With IDIOTS like these in the Republican Party, WE ARE DOOMED!!!

    "Enough Said!"


    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Here's a manefesto from some REAL RADICALS...

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Friday, July 03, 2009 7:20:52 PM
    07-03-09
    486 Days to the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections
     

    Here's a manefesto from some REAL RADICALS...


    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

    Column 1
    Georgia:
       Button Gwinnett
       Lyman Hall
       George Walton

    Column 2
    North Carolina:
       William Hooper
       Joseph Hewes
       John Penn
    South Carolina:
       Edward Rutledge
       Thomas Heyward, Jr.
       Thomas Lynch, Jr.
       Arthur Middleton

    Column 3
    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock
    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase
    William Paca
    Thomas Stone
    Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Virginia:
    George Wythe
    Richard Henry Lee
    Thomas Jefferson
    Benjamin Harrison
    Thomas Nelson, Jr.
    Francis Lightfoot Lee
    Carter Braxton

    Column 4
    Pennsylvania:
       Robert Morris
       Benjamin Rush
       Benjamin Franklin
       John Morton
       George Clymer
       James Smith
       George Taylor
       James Wilson
       George Ross
    Delaware:
       Caesar Rodney
       George Read
       Thomas McKean

    Column 5
    New York:
       William Floyd
       Philip Livingston
       Francis Lewis
       Lewis Morris
    New Jersey:
       Richard Stockton
       John Witherspoon
       Francis Hopkinson
       John Hart
       Abraham Clark

    Column 6
    New Hampshire:
       Josiah Bartlett
       William Whipple
    Massachusetts:
       Samuel Adams
       John Adams
       Robert Treat Paine
       Elbridge Gerry
    Rhode Island:
       Stephen Hopkins
       William Ellery
    Connecticut:
       Roger Sherman
       Samuel Huntington
       William Williams
       Oliver Wolcott
    New Hampshire:
       Matthew Thornton

    Courtesy: National Archives and Records Administration

    COMMENT: These "Radicals" put everything the had on the line for freedom. The least we can do this holiday weekend is remember what they did 233 years ago. While you're at it, take a moment to think about those who are defending these ideas and putting all they have on the line here at home and far from home. 

    "Enough Said!"  Happy 4th of July.  
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Obama's Henchmen eye 3rd Term; Can you say "DICTATORSHIP?"

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:17:29 PM
    07-01-09
    488 Days to the 2010 Mid-Term Congressional Elections

    Anybody for a new nightmare?

    From Newsmax.com

    Limbaugh: Obama Laying Groundwork for Third Term

    Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:04 PM

    By: Rick Pedraza 

    Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that President Barack Obama and his political operatives already are laying the groundwork for a third term.

    “You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016,” Limbaugh told his national radio audience. “I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment.”

    Limbaugh has a point.

    Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.

    Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.

    "We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.

    "With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"

    Limbaugh acknowledged that Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.

    “He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”

    Limbaugh said Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.

    “I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”

    Limbaugh said Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”

    Limbaugh described Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.

    “[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”

    During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.

    “You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.

    “I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”

    But Limbaugh disagrees.

    “Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”

     

     

     

    © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

    COMMENT: There is only one way to stop this nightmare from going down. The Republicans need to get their act together and we voters must run as many "Democrats" out of Washington as possible next year in order to shut down this leftist move for ABSOLUTE POWER. We need 20 seats in the Senate and at least 50 in the House to guarantee "President" Obama does not become "President-For-Life" Obama. We don't need our own version of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. The 2010 Congressional mid-terms will be the most important elections this country will hold. If the GOP fails to retake Congress, 2010 may be the last year we will have a say as to how our country is led. The 22nd Amendment safeguards us from would-be DICTATORS. To advocate repealing the two-term limit is idealistic naivete at best, TREASON at worst. But then again, DICTATORS have no respect for laws or constitutions except those they can jam down people's throats. Let your elected (for now) officials know any attempt to toss the Constiution into the shredder with this measure will not be tolerated and that they will be held accountable next November.   The choice is clear for the American people....FREEDOM OR TYRANNY!!!

    "Enough Said!"

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Michael Jackson's Legacy: COWARD & PERVERT!!!

    Posted by raymondr612001 on Monday, June 29, 2009 10:24:44 PM
    06-30-09
    489 Days to the Mid-Term Congressional Elections.

    In 1993, Michael Jackson was charged with molesting a 13 year-old boy and was sued by the boy's parents. Jackson chose not to defend his good name and paid out $22 Million in an out of court settlement to avoid bad press and possible criminal charges. That decision would haunt him the rest of his life.

    From the Wikipedia:

    1993 Child Sexual Abuse Charges Against Michael Jackson 

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     

    In 1993, Michael Jackson was accused of abuse by Evan Chandler, on behalf of his then-13-year-old child, Jordan Chandler. Jackson and Jordan had become friends in May 1992, to the father's disapproval and concern. The friendship became well known, as the tabloid media reported that Jackson became a member of the Chandler family unit. Under the influence of a controversial sedative administered by Evan Chandler, his son said that Jackson had touched his male organ.[1] Evan Chandler was tape-recorded threatening to damage the singer's music career,[2] and engaged Jackson in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue with a financial settlement.[3] Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation, and oral sex, as well as giving a description of what he alleges were the singer's genitals.[4][3]

    Jackson's home, Neverland Ranch, was searched, even though other children and family members had stated that Jackson was not apedophile. Jackson's older sister, La Toya Jackson, accused her brother of being a pedophile, but later retracted her statement.[5] Jackson became dependent on drugs as the stress of the allegations mounted,[6][7] and canceled the remainder of his tour. He went into rehabilitationoverseas, and began a relationship with Lisa Marie Presley. On his return to the US, Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip search, which was required to see if the description of his genitals provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities but it was not a definitive match. Jackson proclaimed his innocence, and criticized the media coverage. Jackson's friends and legal advisers took over his defense and finances, persuading him to settle the allegations out of court.

    Tabloid reaction to the allegations were negative towards Jackson,[8] and complaints about the coverage included bias and accepting stories of criminal activity for money, and engaging in illegal activities themselves.[9] Public polls at the time reported that a large majority of people believed Jackson was innocent.[10] On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled a civil suit out of court with the Chandler family and their legal team for$22 million. Jordan Chandler refused to testify in the criminal proceedings, the state closed its criminal investigation citing lack of evidence, Jackson was not charged with a crime. Jackson's support amongst the public then began to waver, and Jackson's own career and image was significantly damaged, which became a recurring theme in Jackson's future music. Prosecution evidence from the 1993 allegations would also be used against the entertainer in the 2005 People v. Jackson child sexual abuse trial, where he was acquitted on all counts.[11][12] 

     

    COMMENT: I learned a long time ago that all we have is our name and reputation, and that they must be defended at all cost. Even if it means having to destroy anyone who accuses you of wrongdoing. Michael Jackson chose not to defend his good name and settled out of court with the Chandler family. Why? Was he afraid he would be exposed as a pedophile? Was he afraid he would go to prison? We all know what happens to child molesters in prison.That settlement might as well had been a confession of guilt, that he was indeed a child molester. Jackson should have filed suit against the Chandlers charging them with libel, slander, defamation of character and extortion. He should have kept the heat on the Chandlers until they brokedown, admitted their conspiracy to shake Jackson down with false accusations and cleared his name.  Michael Jackson's legacy as both entertainer and humanitarian will forever be tainted by these allegations and his unwillingness to challenge them to the point of full exoneration. Because of his cowardace, he will carry the slur of PERVERT for all time.

    "Enough Said!"
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
    « Previous12345Next »