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.

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!

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.

PRINT PAGE

CITE THIS

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.

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.

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

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

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?

---

Mark Morford

• A troubling lack of pure evil Where to find a refreshing dose of vileness... 06.12.09
• How to stay relevant Technofreaky whipsaw culture leaving you in the... 06.10.09
• Nice try, Dick Your mumbled, half-assed support of gay marriage, Mr... 06.05.09
• Art Jazz Lit Obama The First Couple just might make America cool again... 06.03.09

More Mark Morford »

---

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?

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:

• Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
• William McKinley (1897-1901)
• William Howard Taft (1909-1913)
• Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
• George W. Bush (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

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:

• Phyllis Schlafly
• Jesse Helms
• Pat Buchanan
• Jerry Falwell
• Ann Coulter
• Rush Limbaugh
• Michelle Malkin

Partial conservatives include:

• Barry Goldwater - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
• Russell Kirk - Theorist & intellectual
• Irving and William Kristol - Notable neoconservatives
• Margaret Thatcher - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Ronald Reagan
• Milton Friedman - Chicago-school libertarian economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the Chicago School of Economics

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

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

They have no clue

This Administration has but US(American Citizens) in grave danger.
The policies of appeasement and of how America is to blame for those who seek to destroy US.

I am appalled that they the ( President and his Administration ) would kowtow to the tinpot Dictators of the world.

They have no CLUE!

I repeat they have no Clue!

N. Korea launches additional missile into East Sea: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/05/27/69/0301000000AEN20090527001300315F.HTML

And you thought you were taken to the cleaners............

And you thought you were taken to the cleaners............................Get ready to hand in your soap ..................................American people are gonna be taken to the CLEANERS....the Washers.....the give everything to your Government....Taxes out the noes, ears, toes, butt..In fact hang on to to your seats.....For taxes are going to come your way that you never thought that you could be taxed on.


President Barack Obama will unveil new fuel efficiency standards today in an effort to limit the release of greenhouse gases by cars and trucks.

The announcement is the result of the administration’s work with states, businesses and environmental groups on a deal.

California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them pass more stringent standards than the................................

Good example comes from this site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184486/The-end-great-American-gas-guzzler-Obama-gets-set-unveil-toughest-U-S-policy-fuel-efficiency.html

and of course this site where those that pay Credit Cards on-time will be charged Interest each time they use their cards now so they they can pay for those who are deadbeats and run their Cards up to the limit and won't pay!

Get ready:
Credit Card Industry Aims to Profit From Sterling Payers

By ANDREW MARTIN

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier............................
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19credit.html

Dems red-faced over veteran imposter

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12373595

Democrats are incensed over how a man duped the party and veterans during the '08 campaign.

By Michael Riley
The Denver Post

Posted: 05/15/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

Updated: 05/16/2009 04:25:01 PM MDT

WASHINGTON — Rick Strandlof, executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance and the man most colleagues knew as Rick Duncan, was front and center during the 2008 political campaigns in Colorado.

He spoke at a Barack Obama veterans rally in front of the Capitol in July, co-hosted several events with then- congressional candidate Jared Polis and attacked Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer in a TV ad paid for by the national group Votevets.org.

And the mostly Democratic candidates he supported — looking for credibility on veterans issues and the war — lapped it up appreciatively.

Now, politicians are dealing with news that the man they believed to be a former Marine and war veteran wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb, in fact, never served in the military — but did spend time in a mental hospital.

Many of the candidates he supported won their elections handily and now say they were defrauded as much as anyone else.

"His fraud is a slap in the face to veterans everywhere and a betrayal to us all," Rep. Polis, a Boulder Democrat, said in a written statement Thursday.

"It sounds like this man had a problem telling the truth and needs help," said Tara Trujillo, a spokeswoman for Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

There is little doubt that Strandlof had a remarkable ability to fool people, something aided by the fact that among his fabrications was his claim that he suffered a severe brain injury, which helped cover behavior that associates now concede was often erratic and strange.

But there were also plenty of signs during much of the time Strandlof was working on behalf of candidates for anyone watching carefully.

CVA wasn't registered as a political organization until well after the campaigns were over, and then only at the state level despite being active in federal campaigns.

And although he claimed to represent 32,000 veterans — the biggest post- 9/11 vets group in Colorado — Strandlof always showed up at events with the same small number of supporters, and there were few concrete signs he represented more than a close circle he had gathered around him.

"Nobody really fully trusted any of those numbers. . . . He had a few dozen people who were helping him out. He claimed to have a huge mailing list that no one ever saw. The VFW, the American Legion, none of those traditional veterans groups had ever heard of him," said one prominent veterans activist who worked for Democratic candidates during the campaign and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The veterans community was very protective over him because he had portrayed himself as a wounded veteran. This is someone who claimed spending 18 months undergoing physical rehabilitation after suffering debilitating injuries. . . . You don't go at somebody like that hard," the activist said. "Perhaps we learned a good lesson here."

Republicans say the candidates Strandlof supported are either disingenuous or incompetent.

"I think they owe the people in Colorado an apology," said Dick Wadhams, the state GOP chairman. "Somebody who took that kind of prominence in the campaign should have been vetted by the Democrats. Even if they have no idea he was a fraud, I think they bear heavy responsibility."

Strandlof did manage to fool at least one Republican.

Strandlof was on the veterans advisory board for Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs in 2007, and he resigned, saying he didn't support the Republican administration's stance on the war.

And Wadhams, who directed Schaffer's campaign, said that Republicans missed a chance as well to uncover Strandlof, conceding that if his fraud had been revealed during the campaign, it would have "severely hurt Udall and other Democrats."

Representatives for both Udall and Polis said Strandlof didn't directly work or volunteer for either campaign.

In Udall's case, Strandlof appeared in an ad paid for by an independent political group that was legally barred from communicating or coordinating with the Democrat's campaign. (Jon Soltz, head of Votevets.org., said in a statement that his group usually checks the credentials of veterans used in ads but didn't in this case "because he was already a well-established leader of a veterans group in Colorado.")

In Polis' case, the relationship was closer. Strandlof and his group co-hosted what his staff described as "a handful" of events with Polis, including a party highlighting a "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" held during the Democratic National Convention.

"There is a lot of hearsay, and Rick Duncan claims he's best buddies with Jared — which is not true," said Polis spokeswoman Lara Cottingham. She said Strandlof came to the campaign offering help, and they were glad to have it.

The Polis and Udall campaigns emphasize that Strandlof was a bizarre exception to the outpouring of help they received from veterans disillusioned with Bush-era policies.

"His actions in no way reflect on the credibility of real veterans who supported Mark's campaign or on the importance of their issues," said Trujillo, Udall's spokeswoman.

According to The Associated Press, CVA's board on Wednesday night decided that the group would disband in the wake of news that Duncan was actually Strandlof.

Rent-A-Husband

Well, ever since the terrible husband fire of 75', women just cant seem to afford husbands anymore. The number of good available men dropped, and the demand for husbands went through the roof. But now, thanks to rent a husband, every woman can get a good husband whenever they need one.

Well it is a thought anyway.......Chuckling

http://www.arlingtontour.com/place23.html

Ann Coulter.....One of top conservatives

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end............................... Read more: http://www.anncoulter.com/

Good riddance Sen. Arlen Specter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801523_pf.html

By Chris Cillizza and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:43 PM

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch parties and run for reelection in November 2010 as a Democrat, he announced today, a decision that could have wide-ranging consequences for the Senate and President Obama's agenda.

Specter told reporters that he received a "bleak" poll Friday from his advisers that showed virtually no chance of him winning in the GOP primary next spring against Pat Toomey, a former Republican House member who recently led the conservative Club for Growth.

He said that the loss of several hundred thousand GOP voters who left the party in 2008 to vote in the Democratic presidential primary left the Pennsylvania Republican Party too conservative to support a moderate such as him. "I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican Party," Specter said.

After more than 28 years in the Senate, Specter acknowledged he was "not prepared to have that record" obliterated by the conservative primary electorate. He reached the decision over the weekend in consultation with his family and top aides, many of whom are staying with him despite his party switch.

He said informed Republican and Democratic Senate leaders about dinnertime last night.

The move brings Democrats to 59 seats in the Senate, just one shy of the 60 they need to exert filibuster-proof control over the chamber. In Minnesota, Democrat Al Franken holds a 312-vote lead over former senator Norm Coleman (R), but Coleman has appealed the result to the state Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin in June.

Nonetheless, Specter remains an independent voice on many issues, opposing a union organizing bill that is key to many labor groups and rejecting Obama's choice to run a key legal advisory section of the Justice Department. "I will not be an automatic 60th vote," he said.

Specter's announcement, coming on the eve of Obama's 100th day in office, sent shockwaves through political circles.

Specter called the White House this morning to inform Obama of his decision but the president was busy getting his daily economic briefing. When he received a note shortly afterward that Specter was switching parties, the president quickly returned the call, recalled a top adviser who was in the room at the time.

Specter said he received the president's full blessing to run in the Democratic primary largely uncontested next April. "He said he would support me, come to Pennsylvania to campaign for me," Specter said.

Vice President Biden, a long-time friend of Specter's who had counseled him about switching parties, issued a statement late this afternoon saying, "I welcome my old friend to the Democratic Party. Senator Arlen Specter is a man of remarkable courage and integrity. I know he will remain a powerful and independent voice for Pennsylvania and the country."

Republicans immediately sought to cast Specter's move as nothing more than the politics of self-preservation. "Let's be honest -- Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Specter told him last night that he was likely to make the shift, then called the Democratic leader this morning to confirm that his decision was final. Reid credited Biden for playing an important behind-the-scenes role in softening Specter's resistance. Reid also said he and Specter "have had a long dialogue about his place in an evolving Republican Party" and praised his willingness to "work in a bipartisan manner, put people over party, and do what is right for Pennsylvanians and all Americans."

Specter will receive his seniority among Democrats as if he had been elected as a Democrat in 1980, when he rode into office on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's conservative revolution. That effectively means Specter will become chairman of a key subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, probably the one overseeing the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. Specter also acknowledged that becoming full appropriations committee chairman -- something that could take another six to 10 years -- "is something I'd like to attain."

As the Senate was wrapping up a procedural vote on popular anti-fraud legislation yesterday evening -- a vote forced upon the chamber by a bloc of hard-line Senate conservatives -- Specter stood by the doorway at the north end of the chamber leading to Reid's office suite on the second floor of the Capitol. According to a Democratic observer, Reid and Specter left the chamber together, entering the majority leader's offices for a private huddle in which Specter confirmed the party switch.

After making the announcement today, Specter turned aside all questions from reporters as he cast a vote on the Senate floor, then joined his wife Joan and son Shanin in the Senate dining room for lunch. He then made a five-minute appearance in the weekly Republican luncheon in the Lyndon Baines Johnson Room, off the Senate floor, where his entrance was greeted with a stony silence.

Specter's political standing in Pennsylvania has become increasingly tenuous in recent years. His track record as a moderate combined with the shrinking Republican base in the Keystone State were likely to make a general election difficult, and Toomey, who came within two points of defeating Specter in the 2004 primary, is running again. Polling showed him with a double-digit edge over Specter in a GOP primary.

The move was the latest blow to an already staggering GOP. Senate Republican leaders appeared ashen at a press conference this afternoon. "Obviously, we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Flanked by GOP colleagues who stared straight ahead, McConnell said Specter visited him in his Senate office late yesterday afternoon "and told me quite candidly that he'd been informed by his pollster that it would be impossible for him to be reelected in Pennsylvania as a Republican because he could not win the primary; and he was also informed by his pollster that he could not get elected as an independent, and indicated that he had decided to become a Democrat."

Grasping for some positive spin on an otherwise catastrophic setback, McConnell warned that Specter's defection could cripple Republican efforts "to restrain the excess that is typically associated with big majorities and single-party rule." He said the pressure would shift to Democrats from conservative states to provide the checks and balances that Senate Republicans would now struggle to provide.

McConnell rejected Specter's assertion that the Republican Party had shifted so far to the right that moderate lawmakers were no longer viable candidates in swing states. "This is not a national story. This is a Pennsylvania story," McConnell said. He said Specter "came to our meeting and talked to us, indicated to me yesterday . . . and again this morning, that he didn't have any problem whatsoever with the way he'd been treated by the Republican conference here in the Senate."

Other moderate Republicans acknowledged they, too, have been approached about changing parties. Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the Maine Republicans who along with Specter provided the three pivotal votes for Obama's $787 billion stimulus legislation, both said today they have been approached. Neither would comment about how recent the overtures were, although Collins said she has been asked roughly four times during her 12 years in the Senate to consider becoming a Democrat.

"It's something I would never do," she said.

Snowe called Specter's decision "devastating news" for Republicans, particularly Northeastern Republicans who have almost vanished in the Senate during the past decade. "Many Republicans feel alienated and disaffected from the party," Snowe said. "It just helps nourish a culture of exclusion and alienation."

Snowe recalled then-Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, who switched from being a Republican to an independent caucusing with Democrats in 2001. That was a more dramatic switch that flipped power from Republicans to Democrats in the chamber. "Frankly, the party never woke up from that event," she said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a prominent conservative who was John McCain's staunchest supporter in his 2008 GOP presidential campaign, warned that the party has become regionalized in its mentality. "We have to find places in the party for people who couldn't win in South Carolina," he told reporters.

In his remarks to reporters, Specter flashed one brief moment of anger when asked about the role the national Republican Party played in his decision, suggesting his rematch against Toomey will be one filled with a personal vendetta.

He complained about inaction by GOP leaders in Washington when social and fiscal conservatives -- largely funded by the group Club for Growth -- challenged moderate Republicans in primaries. He cited four different races in which the Club for Growth had weighed in and helped a conservative challenger. Each of those seats -- in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island -- is now held by a Democrat.

"There ought to be a rebellion, there ought to be an uprising," he said.

Senior White House officials said the decision to switch was Specter's, and he was not lobbied heavily by members of Obama's administration.

"Everyone wanted to give him the space to work things out for himself," a top White House aide said. "We did not dispatch anyone with a basket of goodies."

The one exception was the vice president. In the 10 weeks since the president signed the stimulus bill, Biden has met with Specter face-to-face six times and talked on the phone at least eight times, advisers said.

People close to Biden said the vice president has been urging Specter to make the switch for years. But they said the conversations intensified during the past several weeks as Biden watched political developments in Pennsylvania.

"They certainly talked about the fact that both the vice president and the president would be happy to go to bat for Sen. Specter in every way possible," a top adviser to Biden said.

As Biden pressed his case, aides said he "regularly informed" Obama about the conversations, telling the president recently that he was cautiously optimistic about the prospects.

" 'I talked to Arlan,' " Biden would tell the president, one aide recalled. " 'Still working on him. Still working on him.' [Obama] was obviously aware," the aide recalled.

Specter tried to call Biden early this morning to inform him before news leaked. But aides said the two were unable to connect because Biden was in Texas for an event at the National Domestic Violence Hotline Center.

They talked later in the day.

It was not immediately clear what Specter's decision would do to the Democratic field in next year's Senate race in Pennsylvania. Joe Torsella, the former head of the National Constitution Center, was already seeking the Democratic nomination and raised roughly $600,000 for his bid in the first three months of 2009.

Toomey becomes the odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee. Toomey held the competitive 15th district for three terms before giving up his seat to challenge Specter in the 2004 primary. He is a favorite of conservatives in the state, but it remains unclear how competitive he will be given the clear advantage Democrats now enjoy in Pennsylvania.

Assuming the court sides with Franken in Minnesota, it will mark the first time since the 95th Congress -- 1977 to 1979 -- that Democrats have controlled 60 or more Senate seats.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement that the GOP would seek to make the 2010 election a referendum on whether voters wanted Democrats to have unchecked control of Congress. "While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve," Cornyn said. Earlier this month, Cornyn wrote a letter to Pennsylvania Republicans urging them to rally around Specter, calling him the only GOP nominee who could hold the seat.

Fixing The Economy !!!!!

This is from an article in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday.

The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"

I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead

of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money

on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can

call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. - Pay them

$1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following

stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered - Auto

Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing

Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress and their constituents pay their taxes....