Friday, July 24, 2009

Please Forgive Me, To My Children, and My Grandchildren, And Un-Born Grandchild. Gary W. Halsey Sr.

My Dear Children and Grandchildren,

First of all, let me start this letter by saying to all of you, that I love you with all of my heart, and that each and every one of you mean the world to me, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I felt compelled to apologize to you for my behavior, and for the rest of my generation's behavior, in our decision making for the last 63 years. Life seemed so simple when I was your age. My parents disciplined each and every one of us kids, with a firm hand, coupled with lots of love, and devotion to help make our lives a little bit better than their hard lives that they had to live back in their daythings weren't so simple way back then. We learned responsibility early in those days by discipline.

Somewhere within the sixty-three years of my life, our values and morals have changed from the way we were initially raised. Those were the days. Most of us believed in God, we had steadfast morals that would never ever change, and we all were raised with the standards of being proud Americans. We had that "All for One, One for All" attitude, and stood united "In God We Trust". Somewhere along the line, we lost that concept. We voted Democrat, not for the issues, but mostly because we were "Democrat", and the same for the Republicans. When we voted, we didn't learn about the candidates that we voted for, it was popularity votenot the issues at hand. We didn't do our homework before we voted, we didn't "read the fine print". That is why our government wants to take the word "God" out of everything, because there are those cowards in government, that WE voted for, that have no values, or morals, or back-bone. This is because we didn't do our homework.

I apologize to you about our failure to believe in God. I apologize to you for breaking every one of the Ten Commandments that God has given us, and to this day, I still pray and repent for forgiveness. No longer will our kids experience, and enjoy the Morning Prayer at our public schools, to thank God for another glorious day. I experienced this in school, and I loved it, your kids won't. There are those spineless cowards in our local and Federal governments that would soon like to just "Forget" God entirely. Their vanity has gained momentum, thinking that all we need is "The Government", not God. They have already taken God out of our schools, now they want to take it off of our money, off of any government buildings, they want to take God out of EVERYTHING, and I voted for them without knowing. I trusted them. There was a day when you could trust you leaders, yesactually TRUST your leaders. Now, you can trust no one in government. I apologize for possibly ruining your chances to enjoy Social Security Retirement, which I am now doing, because of our inability to plan ahead for our children, and now there are to many fingers in the till of our Social Security funds, that really should not be there. Your kids will now have the burden to save for their own "retirement", and I apologize for that too.

I want to apologize that our local, and federal governments, took your rights away as being responsible citizens and parents. We set in motion they ability to inflict heavy consequences for disciplining your children, now it's called "Child Abuse", so for teaching your children the difference between right and wrong, no longer exist, because you can go to jail for it. You have no values of going to church anymore, because we as parents didn't take you to church when you were growing up. Oh yes, we took you to the fun things like the Christmas ceremonies at our local Catholic church, but we didn't go every Sunday like I had to. But you know, when I had to go, it exposed me to the ways of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I learned why our people were raised "Under God", One Nation "Under God" and we learned about our creator and this was called values and morals. I apologize for making you embarrassed to bring up the word God in public, making you ashamed to talk about him with your friends. Me, and my government did that. It's not you fault that so many young people do not like to work now, because we let them think it was easier to take as much time away from work as they want, and that it's okay, because we now have a thing called Welfare. It's okay to be irresponsible, because the laws have stated that you can go in to get free pregnancy test, without your parents knowing after all, they're just your parents. I apologize for making that okay to do. I could go on and on, about the things that could have been different, but I won't. Perhaps this will give you an insight as to where to start changing some of these things that an not right, and hopefully, you will make them right. If you can see the errors of my ways, perhaps you can rebuild your life, to give YOUR children a fighting chance to be a caring society. I apologize for it all, I wish I could have had this insight 63 years ago; perhaps this would have been a better world today.

Is there hope? I hope so. Can it be fixed? It can if you fix it. Can God be brought back into our schools? Only if you believe, and demand that he is put back into our public schools. Can we fix Social Security? Only if you make demands to your government to keep their fingers out of it, and stop doing things with it that they shouldn't, its not their money, its yours. How about our morals you say? Go to church, learn about God, and find out what morals really are according to the word of God, not according to man. Unfortunately man has been tainted with his/her own greed, and can no longer be trusted, believe only in God, and the good book, that is your salvation. Learn it, live it, and never sway from its truth. As far as greed, as the old saying goes "You Can't Take It With You", its true, but God will be there for you. I love you, and I pray for your forgiveness, don't be irresponsible like some of my generation has been, (not all, but some), I am ashamed of it, and pray we will be forgiven by our children, and by God. I will say, that every generation has there "Up's And Down's, and we hopefully will learn by our mistakes, and I am hoping you will learn by our mistakes.

Love, Your Dad, and Grandpa,

Gary W. Halsey Sr.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, July 4, 2009

The left is deathly afraid of Sarah Palin.

Every chance they get there are hammering her and trying to destroy her.
Hmmmmm........... I wonder why..........
Could it be that she truely relates to the American people and has our interests at heart?
Could it be that she will be the next Reagan like figure that the true Conservatives are looking for?

Ahhhhhhhh,,,While I am at it: A word of warning to you good for nothing Mcain Republicans....We concervatives have yall's number and if you think that you will win elections ....You best think again! We will move heaven and earth to defeat those of you who are always trying to discredit conservatives...Sarah Palin being one of them.....and then kowtowing to the left every chance you get.....

Yes! We are watching and biding our time and we will defeat those who are trying to distroy Conservatives! WE ARE WATCHING!

Sarah go for it.....Conservatives are 100% behind you girl!
Posted by at No comments:

More Tax Oppression

http://www.cato.org/

by Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

Added to cato.org on July 2, 2009

This article appeared in the Washington Times on July 2, 2009.

Sans Serif
Serif

Share with your friends:

ShareThis

Why did a bare majority (219-212) of the members of the U.S. Congress vote for the largest tax increase in American history this past Friday, under the claim it was a vote to save the climate?

Before you answer the question, consider the following facts. The proponents claim this tax bill will reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, which are purported to cause global warming. First, despite the claims of President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many in the media, there is no consensus in the scientific community about how much climate change, other than the normal cycles, is taking place, nor how severe it will be, and how much man-made CO2 is responsible. None of the climate models predicted the unexpected global cooling of the last decade.

It is known that the legislation will have a negligible effect on global CO2 emissions, particularly since the big polluters, such as China and India, are not playing ball. It is also known that the "cap and trade" system that the legislation calls for has been a failure in Europe, where it has been in operation for the last few years, in that it has proven to be far more costly than envisioned, has not met the CO2 reduction targets, and has been highly susceptible to corruption and abuse.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

More by Richard W. Rahn

In addition, because the legislation requires Americans to use more inefficient energy (wind and solar) sources, it cannot help but raise costs for American businesses and citizens, and hence will kill jobs rather than create them (as contrasted to what Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi have incorrectly claimed).

In sum, serious people understand the legislation will hurt the U.S. economy, reduce the standard of living and yet not accomplish its claimed intent; therefore, why were so many members of Congress willing to vote for it?

Are they idiots, or do they have another agenda? Yes, a few are not that bright, but many more see this as an opportunity to extract wealth from one group of Americans, give it to other groups of Americans they favor, and to their political cronies who will reward them in campaign contributions and in other ways — both seen and unseen. They are willing to engage in more tax oppression in exchange for more political power to themselves.

The tendency for political leaders — even those fairly elected — to look out more for their own personal interests rather than the greater good is not confined to America. The Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose 30 members are the major industrialized democratic countries, was formed half a century ago to promote policies to increase economic growth and free trade.

Unfortunately, political leaders in high-tax states (notably France and Germany) have captured part of the OECD and are using it as an instrument — by creating "black" and "gray" lists — to squash tax competition from low-tax-rate countries and financial freedom and privacy (which are important for global economic growth).

A European economic policy organization, Institut Constant de Rebecque, has just published an important study, "Tax burden and individual rights in the OECD: an international comparison." As part of the study, the author, Pierre Bessard, created a Tax Oppression Index by using OECD and World Bank data to measure the overall tax burden, public governance, and taxpayer rights. Italy and Turkey were judged to have the most tax oppression, while Austria, Luxembourg and Switzerland were judged to have the least oppressive tax systems. A sample of the major countries in the index can be seen in the accompanying table.

Those who advocate bigger governments and more repressive tax systems claim that the additional tax revenue is needed to promote the common good. In 2007, the government spending in Switzerland was equal to 35.7 percent of GDP (very close to the government share of GDP in the United States of 37.4 percent) while the Italians had a government sector equal to 48.5 percent of GDP.

The Italians and the Swiss share a long peaceful border, but Italy is far richer in natural resources and access to the sea than land locked Switzerland. Yet the Swiss are far more prosperous and do a much better job in delivering government services than do the Italians (or French with 52.4 percent of government spending) while, at the same time, engage in far less tax repression. The Austrian government spends 48.2 of its GDP, which is almost equal the size of the Italian government spending, but manages to raise the necessary tax money in a far less oppressive way.

The United States is in about the middle of the pack, but could have a lower score if it improved its public governance by reducing the corruption and inefficiency in Washington, and did a much better job in protecting taxpayer rights. (The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives citizens the presumption of innocence, but the Internal Revenue Service chooses to ignore the Constitution in this and many other matters.)

The world would be richer and more just if the low-tax-rate countries that protect taxpayer rights and privacy could penalize the states that engage in high levels of tax oppression, rather than vice versa, which is now the case.

The empirical evidence from the new Institut Constant study clearly shows (as have many other studies) that it is not necessary to have high tax rates or deny taxpayers basic rights and financial privacy for the government to obtain all of the revenue it legitimately needs. But as the vote on the "climate" (tax) bill in the Congress clearly showed last week, for all too many politicians, tax policy is not about revenue but political power and control.

Posted by at No comments:

North Korean Launches Affirm Need for Missile Defense

http://www.heritage.org/

North Korean Launches Affirm Need for Missile Defense
by Bruce Klingner
WebMemo #2522

On July 4 Pyongyang launched seven Scud missiles in a rebuff to international diplomatic efforts to deter North Korea from developing a missile delivery capability for nuclear weapons. North Korea’s blatant defiance of yet another UN resolution demonstrates the critical necessity for the U.S. and its allies to have robust missile defense systems—even as America does all it can both multilaterally and unilaterally to squeeze Pyongyang into abandoning its programs. Washington and Tokyo have deployed an effective, though still limited missile defense system, while Seoul has yet to upgrade its rudimentary defenses.

Fireworks on the Fourth

The barrage of Scud short-range ballistic missiles were an unambiguous violation of UN Resolution 1874, passed in response to North Korea’s May 25 nuclear test. The resolution “demands that [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology [and] decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program.”

The Scud missiles, which flew 300 miles prior to landing in the East Sea (Sea of Japan), come in addition to the July 2 launches of four anti-ship missiles with a 60-mile range. The latter missile launches were not technically a violation of the UN resolution since they were not ballistic missiles. Instead, they were likely a show of North Korean tactical military prowess in support of its escalating threats of renewed naval confrontation with South Korea over a disputed maritime border on the west coast.

Pyongyang’s refusal to abandon its provocative behavior is a stark demonstration of the looming North Korean long-range ballistic missile threat. As far back as 2001 a National Intelligence Estimate by the U.S. intelligence community assessed a two-stage Taepo Dong 2 “could deliver a several-hundred-kilogram payload up to 10,000 km—sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States.” The report projected that including a third stage could increase the range to 15,000 km, which would allow the missile to reach all of North America with a payload sufficiently large to accommodate a nuclear warhead.[1] North Korean capabilities have only improved in the interim.

An Insufficient Response

Despite North Korea’s continuing development of its missile prowess, the Obama Administration recently proposed cutting $1.4 billion from U.S. missile defense systems. These cuts include:

  • Capping the number of fielded ground-based interceptors for countering long-range missiles at 30 rather than 44;
  • Terminating a multi-kill vehicle program for defeating countermeasures in the midcourse stage of flight;
  • Eliminating a kinetic energy interceptor program for intercepting ballistic missiles in the boost-phase stage of flight;
  • Curtailing the airborne laser aircraft program; and
  • Eliminating funding for the space test bed for missile defense.[2]

In coming days Pyongyang may conduct additional test launches of No Dong medium-range ballistic missiles, which can target all of Japan, or the Taepo Dong 2. On July 4, 2006, North Korea launched six Scud and No Dong missiles as well as a Taepo Dong 2 missile. Current expectations for longer-range missile activity were heightened by reports in May that a long-range missile transporter was observed at two North Korean launch facilities, similar to preparations prior to Pyongyang’s April 5, 2009, launch of a Taepo Dong-2 missile which flew 2,500 miles.

However, on July 1, 2009, U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as stating that there were no indications of an impending long-range missile launch. Even after a Taepo Dong missile is placed on the launch stand, it usually takes several days to fuel and prepare it. Such a launch may take place later in July—rather than on the July 4 anniversary of the 2006 launches or the July 8 anniversary of the 2004 death of North Korean leader Kim Il-sung.

Eliminate UN Loopholes

The Obama Administration should recognize North Korea’s continued missile development and refusal to abide by international agreements as a clear signal for the need to reverse its proposed cuts to missile defense programs. In addition, the Obama Administration should use North Korea’s latest provocation to press China and Russia for agreement to a follow-on UN accord that eliminates the loopholes of UN Resolution 1874. That resolution included stronger language than its predecessors but Beijing and Moscow gutted proposed provisions that would have enabled nations to actually implement it.

The feckless pursuit of the North Korean trawler Kang Nam, suspected of transporting military contraband, shows the wisdom of including in the resolution reference to Chapter 7, Article 42 of the UN Charter regarding the use military means to enforce the will of the Security Council. The inability of the heavily-armed guided missile destroyer USS John McCain to deter the tubby unarmed North Korean freighter was a modern day manifestation of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver subdued by the Lilliputians.

Additional Measures

Because China and Russia will remain resistant to effective UN resolutions, Washington should implement a comprehensive program to independently impose U.S. sanctions on any company, bank, or government agency complicit in North Korean proliferation, particularly those in Iran, Syria, Burma, and China. Washington should also lead a multilateral initiative calling upon other nations to similarly target North Korean and foreign proliferators, as well as those engaged in North Korean illegal activities, such as currency counterfeiting and drug smuggling.

Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, June 14, 2009

This week's Obama outrage

David Limbaugh

Posted: June 12, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

 © 2009

During the presidential campaign, when some warned against Barack Obama's soft approach to the war on terror, I doubt they had any idea he would greatly exceed their worst expectations. But he has.

A common refrain of the Bush administration and its defenders in the prosecution of the war was that prior to the 9/11 attacks, the American government had been treating Islamo-terrorism as a law enforcement problem. The 9/11 attacks forced us, kicking and screaming, into the realization that the Islamo-jihadists were indeed in a war with us and that we would have to wage war against them, as well.

This new approach seemed to have been accepted as a necessity by both parties, and the nation united – temporarily, at least – around our new policy to adopt a proactive and comprehensive military approach to fight terrorism. For a time, we achieved a degree of bipartisanship on such ideas as breaking down the forced walls of separation imposed by the Clinton administration that discouraged our intelligence agencies from sharing information on terrorist activities.

Before long, though, Democrats reverted to their perennial practice of politicizing every exploitable issue and began systematically attacking and undermining our newfound war-oriented approach. They began their specious assaults, in the name of protecting the privacy of U.S. citizens, against the various programs we were using to monitor terrorists and prevent future attacks.

Their war against the war included criticizing the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, which they slandered as "domestic spying," the NSA's tracking and "data mining" of terrorist calls to and from the United States, and the administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. In all these cases, their claims were eventually shown to be overblown at best – and trumped-up at worst.

What can we learn about our new president by analyzing his personality quirks? Find out what the experts say in Whistleblower magazine's "Narcissist in Chief" edition

They also began a smear campaign against the administration, our military and the CIA concerning our treatment of enemy combatant detainees being held in Guantanamo Bay. This mania reached its nadir with Sen. Dick Durbin's likening our treatment of Gitmo prisoners to that of the Nazis, the "Soviets in their gulags" and Pol Pot.

But when four senators visited the prison – two Democrats, Ron Wyden and Ben Nelson, and two Republicans, Jim Bunning and Michael D. Crapo – they came back telling quite a different story. Nelson said: "Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different."

A House delegation made similar findings in 2005, with Rep. Joe Wilson reporting, "The detainees' meal was as good as any I had in my 31 years of Army Guard service, and I can see why the prisoners this year gained five pounds over last year."

But never mind the facts. Undeterred, presidential candidate Obama promised to close Gitmo (with little opposition from Sen. McCain), though he had no plans for the relocation of the prisoners. He also campaigned hard against the Bush administration's allegedly abusive war policies, though he vehemently denied he would return America to a pre-9/11 mindset or to having a law enforcement approach against jihadists.

But since taking office, he has done just that. I know, I know … even some conservative wishful thinkers have been led to believe Obama "gets it" because, despite his bluster, he has retained the NSA surveillance program and military tribunals with only cosmetic changes.

I have difficulty understanding their optimism, in view of Obama's encouragement of Iran's nuclear aspirations; his steadfast determination to close Gitmo, though still having no plan for prisoner relocation; his Cairo speech, evidencing his preferential sympathy for Palestinians over Israelis, with his cynical equating of the Holocaust with Palestinian dislocation; his refusal to denounce Islamic terrorism; his attempt to delegitimize the Jews' entitlement to their land; and his astounding sugarcoating of Muslim intolerance.

It is equally mystifying that Obama's apologists overlook his callously euphemistic substitutions of "overseas contingency operations" for "war on terror" and "man-caused disasters" for "terrorist attacks" and his release of classified CIA "torture memos" for enemy consumption over the objections of his own intelligence officials.

But this very week, Obama has outdone himself. There are reports that his Justice Department has quietly ordered the FBI to give Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured at war in Afghanistan. This, after Obama mocked Sarah Palin's campaign prediction that he would do this and his similar denial to "60 Minutes'" Steve Kroft.

Is this new approach to the war, er, overseas contingency operations, what Obama means by promoting our shared values? Do our shared values include treating terrorists like victims and putting Americans' security at risk?

What in the world is Obama thinking? What evidence is available to him, other than perhaps a hyper-narcissistic delusion that he can tame murderous terrorists with a speech, to justify his radical softening of our life-and-death struggle against Islamo-terrorism?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100822
Posted by at No comments:

Grassroots sign onto eligibility billboard campaign

WorldNetDaily
Sunday June 14, 2009
Posted: June 12, 2009
11:00 pm


Grassroots sign onto eligibility billboard campaign
Washington state 'Where's The Birth Certificate' sign appears

Grassroots Americans are signing onto a national billboard campaign that focuses on putting the question "Where's The Birth Certificate" in front of President Barack Obama and voters wherever it can.

WorldNetDaily founder and CEO Joseph Farah launched the effort only weeks ago, because he believes it is essential to force Obama to produce hard evidence that he is, indeed, a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires for the presidency.

He is calling upon Americans to donate money to the campaign, which has, thus far, raised about $75,000 for the cause.

Then this week a new sign, not part of the formal WND effort, appeared along Interstate 5 in Washington state.


Sign along Interstate 5 in southern Washington state

The sign says in simple block letters, "Where's The Birth Certificate?"

"It is a prime location, close to the highway and very big," said a trucking company spokeswoman who noticed the message. "It's priceless and looks great."

Farah had responded to an e-mail request for permission to post the message with authorization, and confirmed that the more messages posted, the better the campaign will fare.

The newest message in the formal WND campaign also has just been unveiled near Hamburg, Pa., along Interstate 78 eastbound.


On Interstate 78 eastbound near Hamburg, Pa.

Farah maintains Obama has not proved his constitutionally eligibility to serve as president as a "natural born citizen," and suggests the release of his long-form birth certificate showing the hospital of his birth, attending physician and other details can act as a starting point to help conclusively meet that test. Obama's presidential campaign released to select news organizations only what is known as a "certification of live birth," a document obtainable in Hawaii in 1961 by Americans actually born outside the country.

WND has reported that CBS, Lamar Outdoor and Clear Channel Outdoor all have rejected requests to post the message on their billboards. But Farah confirmed the decisions by three companies has not yet even dented the billboards available across America for the campaign, and the number erected will be limited only by the donations to the campaign.

(Story continues below)

{$googleSlotsSideBySide:WND_NWS_C0200,WND_NWS_C0201}

The WND founder said he stepped up because no one else has.

"WND's reporters have investigated this issue more extensively than the rest of the media combined – sending senior staff writer Jerome Corsi to Hawaii and Kenya in search of evidence," said Farah. "We have commissioned private investigators in Honolulu. There is simply no persuasive evidence to affirm Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth. There is no hospital on the island that will confirm the first black president of the United States was born there. It's all conjecture. And no controlling legal authority in this country has ever asked Obama to provide the proof."

Are you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?

The first WND sign went up in Louisiana:


Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.

Then came two signs in California:


"Where's The Birth Certificate" billboard near Buena Park, Calif.
And:


"Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard near the Santa Ana Freeway in Los Angeles

The campaign even has earned the approval of Philip Berg, one of the first attorneys to file a legal challenge to Obama's eligibility to be president, and who still has three lawsuits pending over the issue.

"WND sign campaign is terrific," he wrote on his website, although he thinks it should go further.

He suggested putting up signs specifically mentioning Obama and asking about "your" birth certificate.

"I want Americans to understand that this billboard campaign will be successful with or without CBS and Lamar," said Farah. "There are still millions of billboards available through other companies eager to take this business. The only barrier to success is money. And I am as determined as ever to keep purchasing billboard space as our budget allows."

Officials with Clear Channel Outdoor said in prepared statement it is a "politically agnostic" company and also rejects "a personal attack ad" such as the birth certificate question.

Lamar Outdoor, where a spokesman told WND he'd looked online and decided that the birth certificate issue was "settled," has begun losing business for dissing the advertising campaign's question. A Florida businessman confirmed to WND's he's dropping the billboard company and will be advertising his apartments through other channels.

The Outdoor Advertising Association of America already has prepared a policy regarding the new billboards.

It states: "In the situation of the Obama birth certificate billboards, there is no First Amendment question. The First Amendment applies to governmental restrictions on speech, not on the decisions of outdoor advertising companies. We strongly stand behind the right of our companies to reject this or any other copy."

Farah said the sensitivity by large public corporations like the billboard providers demonstrates how important this politically charged issue is to the future of the country.

"I never fully realized how dangerous it is that the media in this country are so afraid of government power," he said. "How are Americans supposed to become aware of controversial issues with this kind of heavy-handed self-censorship in place throughout corporate America? That is the reality of what we face, and the reaction to this campaign should illustrate it better than anything else I've seen in my lifetime."

The billboard campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect the names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.

The campaign got a boost recently when WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, why the president wouldn't release his birth certificate. Gibbs' response was covered live on C-SPAN and by Fox News Channel and others – excluding CBS.

It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."

Farah points out that congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."

Many have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.

"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.

"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.

Further, Farah said, the reaction to the campaign by billboard companies makes the point about how squeamish major media outlets are about questioning powerful political leaders – especially those with whom they agree.

"Imagine the problems we'd have finding billboard space if Obama's image or name was part of the message," he said. "CBS and Lamar are afraid of four innocent words!"

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

http://mobile.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100914
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 13, 2009

No more Evil?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/06/12/notes061209.DTL

A troubling lack of pure evil

Where to find a refreshing dose of vileness in the Age of Obama?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, June 12, 2009

Remember the good old days? When the air was thick like curdled paste and the days were long like sad, lonely sighs and evil -- sweet, dependable evil -- was like some sort of predatory perfume salesgirl and we were all trapped in the same apocalyptic department store?

It used to be so easy. Every day, every headline, every pronouncement or misunderestimation from Dubya brought a new opportunity for your colon to clench and your breath to turn sour and the universe's skin to crawl. A single glance at Karl Rove and you were instantly swarmed with visions of tiny worms eating through the flesh of a sweet little bunny until it turned black and rotten and Rick Santorum. You had but to utter the words "Trent Lott" in the presence of children and the screaming wouldn't subside for three straight days. Remember?

Oh, what a time it was. Evil was everywhere. Evil was a our global modus operandi, our de facto worldview, the way we brushed our teeth in the morning. Hell, evil was so prevalent, there was an entire axis of it. We had evil tyrants and evil dictators and evil mullahs, all lighting their Cuban cigars with a burning American flag, each hell-bent on out-eviling each other in some sort of wacky game of Pin the Tail on the Cheney.

But now, well, not so much. The Age of Obama has brought both a terrific upswelling of general positivism and a concomitant grand lightening up/toning down of outrageous verbiage and ranting extremism among the hotheaded-dictator set, and with it the strangest thing of all: an apparent global decline in overt, easily identifiable flameballs of tangible evil.

Just look around. The entire reptilian Republican party, our cherished font of evil ideas and evil intentions, is now just a cute, leaderless sideshow of circus freaks, all bluster and tantrum and Sarah Palin's kooky gams. It's quite a spectacle: One of the two major political parties in the United States is now entirely run by a blowhard talk radio cow, an insane Fox News comedian and a crusty bomb-thrower dug up from the vault of 1988 (Hi, Newt!)

And the evil tyrants? Struggling for relevance, mostly. Saddam's long gone, Kim Jong-Il is a batty coot, Iran's Ahmenijhad's bark is far worse than his bite, and even harmless thugs like Castro and Hugo Chavez are stunned to humble reverence by an American president who abides no such childish bulls--t and exudes actual integrity and preternatural calm.

(There are, of course, exceptions: Africa's Robert Mugabe is a true monster, but he's also something like 185 years old, a vile dinosaur mercifully not long for this world).

Hey, times have changed. The world is in flux. It's not so easy to be a cutthroat, greedy tyrant anymore, not in this economy. After all, evil is expensive, what with all the costumes and gleaming black Escalades and the aforementioned cigars. You think those goat skulls come cheap? You seen the price of sacrificial virgins lately? Currency devaluation is a bitch.

Do not misunderstand. Many nations are still astonishing breeding grounds of violent repression and torment and ignorance. From Sudan to Saudi Arabia to China, there is no shortage of nauseating news, battered civil rights, totalitarian lockstep groupthink psychobabble.

But let's try and keep it in perspective. Because as a proudly insular and terminally fearful nation, the evil emanating from other nations largely strikes the U.S. only in the abstract; we rarely feel it directly. Hence, as Bush worked so hard to teach us, it must not really be happening.

For Americans, evil still has to hit closer to home to make itself known. We must be able to reach right out and touch it (or, in the case of the GOP and its wild fetish for homosexuality, reach out and deeply fantasize about it).

So, where to look? Wall Street? AIG? Right wing extremist fanatics/O'Reilly Factor fans opening fire in abortion clinics and churches and Holocaust museums? A little.

How about religion? Strange to watch the Mormon church make a play for its little share of evil, by way of its sad, ferociously homophobic love of Proposition 8. It was a valiant try, but they have a long way to go before they can even approach the astonishing achievements of the Catholic church.

Really, how do you possibly top a story like the recent report from Ireland, the stunning tale of all those nuns and priests beating and raping, molesting and humiliating literally thousands of orphaned children in Catholic "reform-school" workhouses over a 75-year period? How can you even come close to that level of horrific brutality? All the Mormons have is a few years of strapping electrodes to gay BYU students to "cure" them of their homosexuality. Child's play, really.

I suppose the good news is, despite Obama's hippie socialist insistence that we all try to ease up on the hateful divisiveness and start cultivating some empathy and shared responsibility, and despite how he's guiding us through one of the most dramatic and perspective-altering transitions/redefinitions in our short history, it turns out classic, black-hearted evil still abounds in our culture. It's just a little less easy to spot.

Witness, say, the long-forgotten R.J. Reynolds tobacco company ("Passionately dedicated to evil since 1890"), currently struggling, like many supervillains of the past, to maintain its diabolical cred in this new era, especially given the drop-off in smoking rates and the company's diminishing capacity to bring death and disease to millions.

R.J. Reynolds has apparently been test-marketing a new tobacco product, some sort of melt-in-your-mouth pellet candy thing, called Orbs, tasty little lumps of toxic tobacco packaged in nifty metal tins, just like breath mints. No smoke, no inhaling, no spitting. Just pop one in your mouth and let the fresh, lethal goodness leech straight into your bloodstream. Cancer never tasted so good!

Pretty evil, yes? It gets better. How about the fact that the U.S. Senate is about to block the damnable product because it's so clearly, albeit subversively, aimed at attracting children? "Tobacco candy," they call it. "We're just giving undereducated, cancer-ready adults what we tell them they want," the evil corporation says. They're both right.

So there you have it. All told, I'm not that worried. This is America, after all. I know we can do it. We have the ingenuity, the imagination. Our megacorporatons and our neoconservative politicians and our gun-wielding sociopaths are famous the world over for innovating new and exciting ways to reek of pure evil.

Hell, we still have Monsanto, ConAgra, Halliburton, Exxon, Archer Daniels Midland, Yum! Brands, Wal-Mart, most of the coal industry, Tyson meats, Fox News and the everpresent Catholic church, plus a few dozen others who will happily stop at nothing to maintain their long-standing evil empires, no matter what that damnable do-gooder president says. Isn't that reassuring?

Posted by at No comments:

What is a Conservative?

A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1][2]

Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

  • Classroom prayer
  • Prohibition of abortion
  • Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
  • Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
  • Laws against pornography
  • The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
  • Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
  • The death penalty
  • Parental control of education
  • Private medical care and retirement plans
  • Canceling failed social support programs
  • No world government
  • Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
  • Respect for our military ... past and present
  • Rejection of junk science such as evolutionism and global warming
  • Low taxes, especially for families
  • Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
  • A strong national defense

Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. In the last 125 years the most prominent conservative presidents include:

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

  • The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
  • The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

Movement conservatives are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal hatred and baseless ridicule. Movement conservative thinkers include:

Partial conservatives include:

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 12, 2009

Letterman is a pervert!

Sarah Palin: Letterman owes women an apology

Email this Story
Jun 12, 10:46 AM (ET)

By DAVID BAUDER
Google sponsored links
David Letterman - Check To See Where David Ranks On xRank Celebrity!
bing.com/xRank

Sarah Palin vs Obama - Could Palin Be A Better President? Vote Yes Or No!
www.Opinionut.com


NEW YORK (AP) - Sarah Palin says David Letterman owes an apology to young women across the country for his joke about her daughter.

The Alaska governor appeared on NBC's "Today" show Friday, continuing a feud with the CBS "Late Show" funnyman over his joke earlier this week that Palin's daughter got "knocked up" by New York Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez during their recent trip to New York.

Palin also said she doesn't believe she should be automatically considered the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Asked by Matt Lauer whether Letterman owed her daughter an apology, the former vice presidential candidate broadened it.

"I would like to see him apologize to young women across the country for contributing to kind of that thread that is throughout our culture that makes it sound like it is OK to talk about young girls in that way, where it's kind of OK, accepted and funny to talk about statutory rape," she said. "It's not cool. It's not funny."

Letterman has said his joke was about Palin's 18-year-old daughter Bristol, who is an unwed mother (no name was used). Problem was, the Alaska governor was traveling with 14-year-old Willow. Palin said it took Letterman time to think of the "convenient excuse" that he was talking about Bristol instead of Willow.

Letterman said on his show Wednesday that he would "never, ever make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl." He said he was guilty of poor taste.

Palin said Friday that it was time for people to rise up against Letterman's form of humor.

"No wonder young girls especially have such low self-esteem in America when......... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98P6KCO0.html
Posted by at No comments:

Obama's Health Cost Illusion

The President's main case for reform is rooted in false claims and little evidence.


The main White House argument for health-care reform goes something like this: If we spend now on a hugely expensive new insurance program for the middle class, we can save later by reducing overall U.S. health spending. This "tastes great, less filling" theory could stand some scrutiny, not least because it is being used to rush through the greatest social spending program in American history.

What if this particular theory turns out to be a political illusion? What if the speculative cost savings never report for duty, while the federal balance sheet is still swamped with new social obligations that will be impossible to repeal? The only possible outcome will be the nationalization of U.S. health markets, which will mean that almost all care will be rationed by politics.

More on this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124442772329993085.html

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)