The Independence Post

All I can say is Thank you God for Chris Christie

2010-05-14T08:04:00.000-07:00

The quickly depleting nutrients within the soil that bares the tree of liberty

2010-03-25T17:02:00.000-07:00

With all the talk of violence against congressional member i want to make it clear that this is not a call to arms. But an outline of the consequences if the status quo of corruption is allowed to continue & flourish.

Anthony D Dolpies

An Almost Impeachable Phrase

2010-03-20T18:12:00.000-07:00

If You follow politics very intensely few things a politician says should leave you slack jawed. When it does happen it’s usually a result of some outrageous claim or highly exaggerated platitude. Obama does this more than most, but nothing he has said before has left my mouth gaping as when he told Brett Baier of Fox News, that he really doesn't care about the process by which legislation is passed.

Despite what our esteemed executive believes process is extremely important. The president was trying to be political slick, seeking to distance himself from what has been an overtly messy & corrupt attempt at passing the democrat health care bill. This is curious because this president seems to be extremely concerned about just about every other process than the one he actually has any real authority over. Whether it’s the way Americans buy health care, the way auto manufacturers build their cars, the way banks make loans and how they should be repaid or even the process by which whatever executive he seeks to demonize on a particular day gets paid. By admitting his disregard of the legislative process he inadvertently connected himself directly to it. But before we get into that lets look at why process is so important, not just in government but in all things.

Most of my adult working life has been spent in auto sales, about fifteen years primarily between two different dealerships which where polar opposites when it comes to process. The first was run by two Russian immigrants, at first this was extremely inspiring to me, the most visible partner, meaning the one who was always at the dealership was not more than ten years older than I and was now, in his early thirties a senior partner in a major Philadelphia dealership. It was soon very apparent that this gentleman was only interested in a quick buck and was more concerned with driving new Lamborghini's’s on the dealerships credit than he was with how business was being conducted in the showroom. The result was a free for all, and the dealership soon began having various legal problems as a result of dirty dealing and it’s franchise licence was eventually revoked. The younger partner (Serge) confidently split the scene back to Russia and left the more honest partner holding the bag. Serge did not care about process, the ends justified the means.

My next example is of a dealership where process mattered, it was a family owned dealership that has been around for about 80 years, still run by the same family. One of the partners who name is consequently on the dealership, still works the service department dressed in a mechanics jumpsuit, making sure customers are properly attended to he even makes keys for them. This honest ethic is enforced in every area of the business from the showroom to accounting etc. The result is a dealership with an excellent reputation, which pays off in tough economic times, in which they end up doing better than most, everyone benefits from principled executive leadership. The Presidents statement exposes his deficiencies as a result of inexperience in the private sector. Not every executive or industry seeks to rip off their customers, in fact most do not.

When the president admits he does not care about the process by which legislation gets passed, he admits that he is incapable or disinterested in providing principled leadership. The constitution provides us with a process by which our elected representatives are to govern, When you look at the presidents oath of office one could argue that providing principled leadership is probably his most important job. When Obama says he is not worried about the process the result is the overtly corrupt process which is now on display within our government. The President recently said that passing his health care plan is referendum on Americas character. Again this is a curious statement coming from a man who has all but admitted that as far as he is concerned the ends is justified by any means. This is not the character of the United States and consequently why so many Americans have rejected his vision.

Anthony D Dolpies

2010-03-19T09:53:00.001-07:00

Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies

EXCLUSIVE -- Democrats plan doc fix after reform

2010-03-11T04:04:00.000-08:00

Obama Says Health Premiums Will Go Down.....

Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed

Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010:

They are both

democrats

2010-03-10T08:45:00.000-08:00

March 09, 2010

Pelosi: We Have To Pass Health Care So You Can Find Out What Is In It

We Can No longer Afford to Hope

2010-03-06T09:54:00.000-08:00

The elitists dream

2010-03-04T16:26:00.000-08:00

2010-03-01T08:33:00.001-08:00

2010-03-01T07:42:00.000-08:00

CNN Shows Faces Obama Was Making During Healthcare Summit

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0gwMcvnsT

Not exactly a guy interesting in bipartisanship

2010-02-25T13:37:00.000-08:00

'I don't count my time because I'm the President' -- Obama on why Dems had double the speaking time... TIMES OF LONDON: Obama bores America into submission... RAHM-IT-THROUGH STARTS MONDAY -- DEMS DECIDE TO PUSH 'THE BIG BILL'... Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs 'Almost Immediately'... CNN Poll: Only 25% want Dems to pass their health bills.... McCain invokes 2008 campaign promise at summit... President scolds Rep. Cantor for bills on desk...

New Dem Party tool aims at flooding talkradio airwaves...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama, Republicans clash at heated health summit

2010-02-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

White House: If GOP Filibusters, We’ll Pass Health Reform Via Reconciliation

Whitehouse seeks to dictate insurance policy premiums.

Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers’ Rate Increases
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
President Obama will propose giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by insurers, as he rolls out comprehensive health care legislation.

2010-02-18T05:20:00.000-08:00

'Stimulus' Weatherization Program Bogged Down by Red Tape...$57,362 a house?Dems May Not Have Health Proposal Before Summit With Obama...

2010-02-14T11:33:00.001-08:00

The Jig is Up! Climategate U-turn as Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 -- Concedes possibility that world was warmer in medieval times

2010-02-12T08:02:00.001-08:00

Admitting that the nation rejected his preference for a civilian trial in New York City, President Obama will now decide where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and Attorney General Eric Holder even suggested a military commission was a possibility.

2010-02-11T11:17:00.001-08:00

Biden: Iraq Will Be One Of Obama's "Great Achievements"

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."...

More >>

2010-02-11T07:10:00.000-08:00

Pelosi aide says Democratic congressional leaders have settled on legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit? UPDATED

Bipartisan jobs bill short on making jobs

AP – Thu Feb 11, 6:02 am ET

APWASHINGTON - There's a problem with the bipartisan jobs bill emerging in the Senate: It won't create many jobs. Full Story »

Bank bailout watchdog warns of commercial real estate crisis

Reuters – Thu Feb 11, 12:07 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commercial real estate market has fallen more than 40 percent from early 2007 and a wave of loan failures in the next few years could threaten the economy just as it struggles back to its feet, a report from the panel overseeing the $700 billion bank bailout said. Full Story »

2010-02-10T06:31:00.000-08:00

Democrats' Cloture Vote on Labor Nominee Fails, 52 to 33

Nelson Will Join GOP Filibuster of Union Lawyer Nominee

2010-02-08T06:42:00.001-08:00

Sinking the Moral High Ground

2010-02-06T19:15:00.000-08:00

While speaking at the 2010 national prayer breakfast, President Obama invoking health care proclaimed; that “we may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on earth.” This statement was meant to be another of the Presidents’ toothpaste ad platitudes. (Nine out of ten dentists agree) But it actually exposed his extreme adherence to the Marxist ideology which has created such a chasm between the American people and himself.

It is certainly true that the majority of Americans have no interest in seeing innocent individuals struggle, financially or otherwise. Our nature however dictates that those struggles are a part of the human experience, and it is that very nature that limits our ability to address these struggles. I don’t know anyone who wants to see people go broke for any reason, but the question is, at what and who’s expense? It is for this reason that Obama tries to wrap his agenda in a cloak of moral superiority. But there is nothing moral about forcibly limiting the individual’s ability to provide for himself and his family for the sake of political expediency.

Obama suggests that we have this “moral” obligation as a result of being “the richest nation on the face of the earth.” This is an extremely ideological statement from a man who just days earlier declared that he is not an ideologue. While it is true that The United States is the home of a fourth of the world’s wealth, President Obama implies that this wealth belongs to the state. Our current deficits show that nothing is farther from the truth. The nation’s wealth in fact resides with its private citizens. It is extremely laudable for an individual to freely commit a portion of his wealth to the service of others, but there is however no moral obligation to do so. Finally, politicians seeking to use the iron fist of government to coerce the individual into the service of others or some dictated high virtue is not morality, it is tyranny.

Anthony D Dolpies

2010-02-05T07:46:00.000-08:00

The Senate health care bill wouldraise effective marginal tax rates on lower and middle-income singles and families up to 41%.

Windmills installed by Minnesota cities to meet the state's new mandated global warming renewable energy requirements arefailing to provide any power thanks to the snow.

The House voted Thursday to allow the federal government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt, an increase of about $6,000 for every U. S. resident.

Stocks worldwide suffered sharp losses as the cost of insuring Greek and Portuguese sovereign debtsoared.

2010-02-04T07:16:00.001-08:00

2010-02-03T09:39:00.001-08:00

Federal Watchdog: TARP Program Opens Way for Deeper Economic Meltdown
(CNSNews.com) – Neil Barofsky, the man tasked with overseeing the administration of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), told Congress in a report released Sunday that the bank bailouts have cleared the path to another financial crisis -- potentially even more grave than the 2008

White House Report: First Three Years of Obama Will Bring Three Largest Budget Deficits Since World War II
(CNSNews.com) - The historical budget tables released Monday by the White House along with President Barack Obama’s budget indicate that the first three years of Obama’s presidency—2009, 2010 and 2011—will feature the three largest annual budget deficits (when measured as a percentage of GDP) since World War II...

2010-02-02T06:57:00.001-08:00

Advisory: Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Rueters has curiously pulled this story, yours truly has a copy, I will break it down in detail during my broadcast today @ 3pm eastern

Listen to Dobbs on Blog Talk Radio

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

Stephen Dinan

Virginia's Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party's efforts in Washington to reform health care.

2010-02-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

Dem. senators spent weekend with bank, energy, tobacco lobbyists

The Obama Budget: Higher Taxes, Higher Spending and More Debt

Defending the secret negotiations and special interest deals used to advance President Obama's health care plan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told journalists: "The American people don’t care about process."

The United States will deploy amissile defense shield to protect American allies from a potential Iranian strike.

Since some states have already spent the money on the belief that President Obama's health care legislation would pass, the administration's budget includes an additional $25 billion in Medicaid funding for states - an amount that was originally part of Obamacare.

2010-01-29T14:02:00.001-08:00

Obama: Health Care Bill "Might Have Violated Pledge" On Keeping Some Doctors And Insurers

State of Confusion

2010-01-28T11:39:00.000-08:00

During the Presidents State of the Union Speech I was repeatedly overcome with the urge to look out of the window to make sure I was not living in some kind of a third world Banana Republic. From his Unpresidential Attacks on the courts and the private sector, to his condescending lecture of congress, to his obviously insincere attempt to praise the nations history and the resilience of it’s people. The President painted a picture of a country in dire straits. While it is true that our economy is stagnant, this country has made its way through far more tumultuous times, despite the assertions of our present executive.

The President seems to be becoming evermore detached from reality. Speaking of the recent supreme court decision regarding campaign financing Obama would do well to take a refresher course in American government, the executive is not superior to the other branches, the congress and the courts do not answer to him, this attempt to intimidate the court could very well backfire severely.

He credited the stimulus pkg with keeping two million people on the job. (He interestingly left out his trade mark phrase “created or saved”) but these numbers cannot be verified and the congressional budget office has said repeatedly that it is impossible to determine how many jobs would have existed without the stimulus. Fiscally the president seemed to be grasping at straws, calling for more aid to middle class families and at the same time calling for a freeze on discretionary spending. A spending freeze may sound good but it is important to remember that the agencies that would be affected have already seen a baseline budget increase under Obama. Even if the President can get congress to go along with such a freeze it would only amount to 1% of the deficit. If the President really wanted to get serious about the long-term fiscal health of the nation he would look at beginning a gradual rollback of Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security, these massive unfunded entitlements are sinking the fiscal ship, the president however is ideologically opposed to facing this reality.

Instead of using this address to reach out to the American people, the President seemed more disconnected, hunkering down behind his unpopular agenda instead of acknowledging the citizenries rejection of it. In the end Obama’s address was not an attempt too sure up the electorate; he wasn’t even speaking to them, it was an effort to convince congress to resume their commitment to the political death march he is leading.

Anthony D Dolpies

2010-01-27T07:11:00.000-08:00

Obama: 'I didn't sign off on those shady health care deals.' Really?

By: John McCormack

Misplaced populism

2010-01-24T12:17:00.000-08:00

It was not that long ago that a newly inaugurated President Obama, projecting an image of sure-footed confidence, stood on the steps of the capitol, chiding his critics about the shifting sand beneath them. Now with his poll numbers in free fall and reeling from election defeats where establishment democrats supporting his agenda were rejected despite the political clout he expended on their behalf, the president seems desperate to find solid ground.

Being a community organizer and Senator, Obama has had the luxury of being able to call both sides of the coin. As a community organizer Obama’s job was to marshal the mob against an economic or government institution in an effort to strong-arm an executive or politician into finding a solution to some perceived injustice. In essence create a problem and force someone else to solve it. As a Senator, much like other senators he could support a certain course action with his vote then act as a bystander if the results of that action are unpopular or unsuccessful. For example railing against “fat-cat bankers” and bailouts, but voting for the TARP legislation. Now he is President and the buck stops with him, there is no one left to organize against. Being President has exposed some serious flaws in the Obama image, for one he is visibly angered by the public’s opposition to various elements of his agenda. It is not just Health care. Cap & trade, his approach to national security, foreign policy or immigration, Obama’s Ideas are not inline with the electorate. In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos the President more or less said that the people just don’t get it.

In an effort to regain his footing and rally the pitchforks to his cause, Obama has renewed his attacks on Wall Street and the financial sector. The president has rolled out a new theme in his recent speeches saying repeatedly “that the people want their money back.” This is curious considering that the majority of the American people were against the TARP legislation and the uncertainty caused by his attacks over the past week has been a major factor in driving the markets into negative territory, that’s real money being lost, not just by “fat cat bankers” but fixed income retires and just about any worker with a 401k. Once again, as on his inauguration day Obama has fatally misread the political landscape with his misplaced populism. The rest of his agenda will offer no salvation from his political free fall and the incessant blaming of his predecessor will only endear him to a minuscule potion of the electorate, lashing out at the Voter will endear him to no one. Obama either fails or refuses to see that the forces behind his recent setbacks are pushing in the opposite direction. The people who determined the outcomes of the VA, NJ and Massachusetts elections, organized the massive march on D.C. and overflowed from tea-parties into townhall meetings are not interested in centralized government solutions, they seek a rollback of the overbearing bureaucracy that has stagnated our economy and set its aim on the individual liberty of the citizen.

Anthony D Dolpies

This story needs to grow some legs

2010-01-04T16:55:00.001-08:00

Executive Order: International Police Granted Full Immunity in US and Not Subject to FOIA Requests

Posted By Larry O'Connor On January 1, 2010 @ 9:59 am In Justice/Legal, Obama | 283 Comments

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order ^[1] which gave permission to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to operate within the boundaries of the United States. Reagan’s EO put INTERPOL under the same basic guidelines as the CIA, FBI, ATF and other Federal law enforcement agencies.

Two weeks ago, without any announcement, debate, discussion or inquiry from journalists charged with “speaking truth to power” President Obama issued an amendment to this EO ^[2]. The amendment removed part of Reagan’s order that kept INTERPOL ^[3] from having full diplomatic immunity while operating within the United States. In other words: Under Reagan and right up until two weeks ago, INTERPOL was authorized to operate within the USA but they did not have full diplomatic immunity and had to adhere to certain laws set forth for investigative agencies. Laws that prohibit authorities from violating our constitutionally protected rights.

This story has begun to make the rounds at some other blogs and web sites. Some scream about the on-set of the New World Order ^[4], some merely question the timing, motives and logic ^[5] behind such a move while we are still fighting foreign wars and under threat of attack from Al Qaeda and other international terrorist bodies. I certainly don’t walk down the New World Order/One World Government path, I don’t look good in tin-foil hats… but, I do wonder why this move was made so quietly and why the White House Press Corps has not made any hay about it.

I also wonder why my friends on the left, who screamed from the rooftops about phone companies conducting analysis of phone calls made from the US to known over-seas terrorists, about members of the Saudi family being allowed to leave the country in the days following 9/11, about the EVILS of the Patriot Act and how it would lead to the stripping of basic civil rights to anyone checking out a book in a library. I wonder how they feel about the President granting permission to an international organization to operate within our borders under full diplomatic immunity.

One other tasty tidbit: Due to the amended language created by President Obama, INTERPOL is now, no longer subject to Freedom of Information Act Inquiries ^[6].

I wonder if during his vacation in Hawaii if one of the intrepid reporters could ask the President:

“Mr. President, is it true that due to your amendment to Executive Order 12425, INTERPOL may break into a home without a warrant, seize private property of a US citizen, hold a citizen for questioning without the right of legal representation and not be subject to any legal or criminal repercussion?”

I’d really like them to ask that question. Wouldn’t you?

2009-12-29T04:27:00.001-08:00

Top 10 Most Ridiculous Uses of Stimulus Funds

2009-12-21T12:28:00.000-08:00

"He has called together Legislative Bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Senate majority leader Harry Reid has taken to scheduling controversial votes in the we hours of the Morning, most notably this mornings 1am vote to end cloture, on the government takeover of our health insurance industry. In his effort to secure the 60 votes needed, Senator Reid was handing out bribes galore. Senator Ben Nelson, secured a provision in the bill that would exempt Nebraska from the cost of the Medicaid expansion called for in the bill, setting up a scenario which puts all other state on the hook for Nebraska's Medicaid spending, forever. a few other Senators where able to secure similar handouts, Like Mary Landrieu's $300 million provision to cover her states Medicaid expenses. This is disturbing on many levels and should force you to ask yourself; if this was such a great bill why are senators, securing deals to more or less exempt their states from it's consequences.

Secondly is a provision in that Pesky little thing called the constitution which has basically been turned on it's head with this legislation.

Article 1 section 9 U.S. Constitution "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over an other"

Article 4 Section 2 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Anthony D Dolpies

2009-12-21T08:17:00.000-08:00

Our National Debt is Growing to Immoral and Unsafe Proportions

by Chuck DeVore

If you are under 30, you really need to read this column and pass it on to your friends. Your elected officials are dooming you to a new sort of bondage, a form of 21^st Century slavery, if you will.

First, some background.

On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln, then a former one-term Congressman, gave a three hour speech in Peoria, Illinois in which he decried the extension of slavery into the territories. The Republican Party was barely three months old. Lincoln warned that slavery was a “monstrous injustice” based on the raw principle of “self-interest” at odds with the “fundamental principles of civil liberty.”

Lincoln was moved to action by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, widely seen as a check on the growth of slavery in the territories.

At Peoria, Lincoln presented the economic, legal and moral case against slavery.

Today, we are faced with a similar and urgent crisis: a burgeoning debt at all levels of government that threatens our prosperity, our posterity, and our probity.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-214 to raise the debt limit to $12.4 trillion. Including all unfunded liabilities, such as Medicare and Social Security, federal obligations have reached $106 trillion.

Just the cost of paying back the borrowing from President Obama’s Stimulus plan, which I opposed, will cost you $280 per month for the rest of your life. Imagine buying and trashing an iPod every month for the rest of time – that’s the practical impact of just one of the many planned expansions of government from Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Boxer.

Meanwhile, garden variety federal spending – spending that grew too fast under our last president as well – is vaulting even higher, with Senator Boxer recently voting for a “routine” $1.1 trillion appropriations bill that spends 12 percent more than last year.

Paying for all of this federal spending will eventually force middle-class tax rates to double. For those in college that means you will likely have to postpone starting a family and buying a house, take longer to pay off your student loans, and have less savings for education, health care, and retirement.

This is intergenerational theft and it is immoral.

In fact, it has a certain parallel to slavery. In effect, your leaders are stealing from your future while you, those younger than you, and those yet born, don’t have a say in the process. It is, as Lincoln said, based on pure “self-interest.” Of the mounting debt and its impact on the 65 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 30 we can invoke Lincoln by saying that your, “sacred right of self government is grossly violated by it!”

In this, California is a harbinger, once again, for the nation. Our state debt and obligations are approaching half a trillion dollars. This has led to a plummeting credit rating that pumps up the cost of borrowing. This, in turn, diminishes the money available to fund schools, repair roads, and provide social services. That’s why, as a lawmaker, I have yet to vote for a general obligation bond that would be repaid by the taxpayers – our credit card has been maxed out since I arrived in Sacramento in 2004 and, no matter what the claimed urgency, I have resisted the temptation to add to debt that my 18 and 12-year-old daughters would have to repay for the next 30 years.

Our national debt also has profound and unsettling national security ramifications. Since Mr. Obama became president, the Peoples Republic of China has quietly sold their long-term U.S. government securities and shifted their entire $985 billion government debt portfolio to securities with six-month maturities. What might happen next spring when the Chinese simply let these securities mature and demand dollars for their debt?

Once upon a time, Americans were concerned for their children, for future generations. They saved and invested and built. Today, those in charge are taking the full inheritance from those whose turn at the helm is yet to come. In a sense, allowing their raw self-interest in massively borrowing for the present to bury the future. We are living better today at the expense of those who largely cannot vote. Why? Because we can.

The institution of slavery was also driven by self-interest. One man was able to live off the sweat of another man’s brow. Why? Because he could.

Perhaps America has become hardened to her children. Perhaps the generation in power today, a generation raised on self-interest, self-gratification, and self-actualization, cannot help but to steal from the future to bolster their present.

I can only hope that California’s youth will awake to the danger and reclaim their future before it is too late.

One last word. When Lincoln spoke at Peoria, the Republican Party was in its infancy. Today, the Republican Party is 155-years-old. In recent years we lost our way on the principle of fiscal discipline. Many current and former Party leaders either encouraged Big Government or idly stood by without thought of the economic, moral and future implications. This is why the Republican Party ranks lower in many eyes than an as yet unformed “Tea Party.” But, the debt crisis is too dire, and the stakes too high, to try to form a new party in the midst of this storm. Instead, those of us who care about America and its future must act now to fully reclaim the Republican Party and fashion it into a real alternative to the Big Government, Big Spending, Big Borrowing and Big Taxing ways of the Democratic Party. It is only by first being true to our principles that can we hope to successfully challenge Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies.

2009-12-19T16:25:00.001-08:00

SOLD: Sen. Ben Nelson to vote for health care bill; Secured favors for his home state...

2009-12-16T08:32:00.000-08:00

I usually don't post videos polls on my blog sites but I think this one is important, as it shows how quickly the image of Obama as created by MSM have severely collided with reality. What one should take away from such a poll is that Obama has sunk from being an "above the fray", "post-partisan" to being just an average politician.

2009-12-11T10:17:00.000-08:00

CBO: Reid Bill Forces 10
Million Out of Current
Health Care
Posted December 10th, 2009 at 2.36pm in Health Care.
You don’t hear President Barack Obama make this promise anymore, but when he was first selling his health insurance plan, Obama repeatedly promised the American people: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Lost in the November 18th Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) version of Obamacare, was the CBOs latest confirmation that Obama’s statement is blatantly false.
Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) asked the CBO to clarify their analysis of employer-based coverage changes and this weekthe CBO wrote back:
We estimate that between 9 million and 10 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal.
The plain English translation of the above CBO speak is: “Under Obamacare, employers will dump 10 million of their employees out of their current coverage whether they like it or not.” No wonder Obama has stopped making his “if you like your health care you can keep it” promise.

Watchdogs Say Bank Bailout Funds Cannot Pay for Obama's Jobs Program
(CNSNews.com) – Two members of the special oversight panel put together by Congress to monitor the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Thursday that leftover funds from the bailout of the financial industry cannot be directly used to fund new job stimulus programs planned by President Obama. New legislation will need to be approved by Congress and signed by the president for that purpose.

Boxer Compares Abortion with Viagra

Senator Boxer is really just missing the point here, but this is a classic example of Democrat debating techniques, pitting one group; men against another; women. They do this to avoid the real issue, which is that the American people shouldn't be forced to subsidize another individuals sexual practice's, or the consequences of them. I remember when the liberal mantra was keep your laws out of our bedroom & off of our ovaries, The mantra now seems to be, it's my bedroom, everyone must watch and pay for the video cameras, The ovary thing hasn't really changed, just make sure you leave your wallet on the dresser.

Sen. Landrieu Says She'll Let 'Lawyers on Our Staff' Figure Out If Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told CNSNews.com she would leave it up to the “constitutional lawyers” to explain exactly where Congress gets the constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, the central mandate in both the Senate and House health care bills.

Perspective of A Russian immigrant no.4

2009-12-10T07:31:00.000-08:00

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 4)

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 12/08/2009 07:02 PM ET

IBD Exclusive Series:
Perspectives of a Russian Immigrant

I look at the people who support the transformation of America in disbelief: They are destroying the very land that gave them so much opportunity.

Groomed, well-fed and educated, comfortably living in a prosperous society, they need a mission to give meaning to their lives. These "fighters for the less-fortunate among us" glaze over the fact that hundreds of millions of people from around the world desperately try to come to this country for all it offers, regardless of their economic status, race, class, or gender.

Immigrants rightly see this country as the best place to obtain a decent life for themselves and their families.

When I immigrated to America in 1980, I was overwhelmed with the amount of food and goods available at any store, at the numerous charitable organizations helping the needy, and even the government programs that helped people to obtain necessary skills to find a job.

Later, I realized that the country was in the midst of a deep recession. Compared to where I came from, it seemed like the pinnacle of prosperity.

As a secular Soviet Jew, my first Christmas in America was amazing. The proud display of religious symbols was a celebration not only of the holiday, but of a population free to express their beliefs without fear of oppression.

I understand why at the beginning of the 20th century Jewish immigrants in America wrote many beautiful Christmas songs; these songs were born out of grateful hearts. Churches and synagogues coexist without issues. Nobody is forced to practice or not practice a religion.

Soon, however, I noticed darker aspects underlying life in America. Political correctness had seeped into everything like cancer. Under the pretense of multicultural diversity, suppression and intolerance of uniquely American traditions such as liberty, private property, and e pluribus unum (out of many, one), became not only acceptable, but necessary in supposedly enlightened society.

Under the pretext of helping the needy, liberals eliminate people's drive to better themselves and their families. Instead, they obsess about events of the past and exacerbate the victim mentality in the very people they claim to help.

The stranglehold of political correctness has only grown stronger. I see in today's governmental policies a replication of the very things I escaped from.

In the USSR, representatives of the Communist party — partorgs (literally: party organizers) — were ingrained into every aspect of civilian, official and military life. These political organizers controlled public order by observing the behavior and speech of every citizen.

People who wanted a more secure and privileged life found it necessary to join the propaganda machine. In order to survive, citizens were silent out of fear of retaliation by the authorities.

Government-controlled medical care and poorly compensated medical personnel stimulated corruption at every level of service. People had to resort to bribery in order to get the help they needed, and underpaid medical personnel were open to the payouts.

Those who could not pay had to beg for help. The only hospitals comparable to American hospitals were in Moscow and a few other cities, where government officials were treated. In the rest of the country, medical care was substandard. This was the reality of free health care for everyone.

No one can dispute that America has issues with its medical system, and here too, some people struggle to get the help they need. But the solution to the problem is not more bureaucratic control. The quality of medical care will inevitably decline for everyone.

I came to this country in the middle of a recession, and I saw the economy revive and prosper when the government eased the tax burden on people and businesses. People were free to use their talents without the interference of central planning. Today the opposite is taking place, and we see the opposite results because central planning results in wasteful spending, corruption and the suppression of initiative.

I am afraid these transformers of America are destroying the future of our children. I hope the free spirit of America triumphs.

• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980. She now lives in Connecticu

The Verbal post

2009-12-08T16:55:00.000-08:00

Listen to Dobbs on Blog Talk Radio

Tune in at 3pm est to the show to witness the verbal beatdown of the progressive movement

2009-12-07T06:59:00.000-08:00

ok folks we had some tech issues during our last broadcast so we will continue with some of the issue we missed, also health care, climategate keeps heating up despite the msm best effort, but have no fear we are not only back but never backing down, 3pm est

The Conservative Republic Live, Where Liberty Lives

Dobbs

my Disection of Obama's West Point speech

2009-12-02T17:05:00.000-08:00

You Don't want to miss this, you will hear analysis that even the best have missed

The New York Times Trying to Provide Cover for Obamacare

2009-12-01T16:16:00.000-08:00

No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
The eagerly awaited report gave Democrats ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for most Americans.

This Article in the Times touts a CBO study claiming that individuals who buy health insurance under Obamacare would see significant reductions in premiums. This is extremely vexing considering the CBO released a report lat week that made the opposite claim, reporting that insurance premiums per family would actually increase by nearly $3000 by 2016. By now you must be wondering; how could both reports be true? The times headline is misleading. Premiums will go up as originally reported, only this time the CBO factored in government subsidies provided to families up to 400% above the poverty line. That translates to nearly 60% of the American people. This leaves 40% of the American people who do not qualify for a subsidy paying both the cost of higher premiums & the bill for everyone else. In a nutshell the Democrat health reform plan is to just force 60% of the American people into welfare.

Anthony D Dolpies

Howard Dean on Socialism & the permanent campaign

2009-12-01T06:57:00.000-08:00

2009-11-27T11:18:00.001-08:00

UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'

The Mind-set of Malcontents

2009-11-24T18:27:00.000-08:00

Every Obama speech seems to be constructed with one objective in mind, to reinforce the mind-set of the malcontent. Whether the venue is foreign or domestic he portrays an image of a world filled with injustice, populated with hapless inhabitants biding their time until some evil force devours them, with their only salvation being some international bureaucrat or government program that will fulfill their basic needs and change the course of an unjust human history selflessly guiding it toward some far off unreachable utopia.

Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.

Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.

Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.

In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.

Anthony D Dolpies

Hating Sarah

2009-11-24T08:19:00.000-08:00

The mainstream media and liberal establishment is absolutely frightened by Sarah Palin, here is the latest offering

So according to Tina Brown, whoever that is, the reason why thousands of people are camping out overnight in freezing temperatures to see Sarah Palin and buy her book, the reason why people seem to feel so closely connected and supportive of the former governor is because the American people are dumb, and we have finally found a politician who is as stupid as we are.

The real reason why the media is scared of Palin is because she is self made. People weren't lined up for blocks to get a glimpse of Barack Obama when he published his two autobiographies, nobody really knew who Obama was until the media latched onto him during the 2008 campaign and began carrying the water for him.

Obama is a creation of the media, an empty suit propped up by glamorous and supportive coverage. The mainstream media credibility is directly linked to Obama's success or failure and they can't afford his failure. Now that the American people are seeing the real Barack Obama and the disaster that his Presidency they are rejecting him.

Sarah Palin is the complete opposite, the media did not create Palin, therefore they cannot destroy her, no matter how hard they try.

Anthony D Dolpies

________________________________________________________________

Obama wasn't done with his bow to the Japanese Emperor, he went on to China and bowed before the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao

2009-11-22T08:05:00.001-08:00

Is Medicare the Real Target of ‘Health Care Reform?’

by Dr. Jane Orient

2009-11-21T16:37:00.000-08:00

Warmist Death Star has been destroyed? 'The Death Blow to Climate Science': Climatologist says scandal reveals 'deliberate fraud'

UK Telegraph: Climategate: How the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

Fox News: Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' Evidence of Collusion Among Climatologists and Manipulation of Data'

WSJ: Skeptics 'see blood in the water' -- Files reveal scientists apparently making references to things like 'hiding the decline' in temps

2009-11-20T07:22:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I posted a video of Senator Lindsay Graham grilling attorney General Eric Holder on his decision to try enemy combatants in civilian courts, Graham asked Mr. Holder if Osama Bin Ladin where captured would he be given the constitutional protections that american citizens enjoy, such as miranda warnings and an attorney before having to submit to questioning, Holder was perplexed by this question and really did not know how to answer it.

Here are a couple of our illustrious legislators answering the same question.

So Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to think about answering such a question, after all the speaker views the rule of law as such a secondary thing. Senator Leahy, believes we have so much evidence against Bin laden that miranda or interrogation is unnecessary. This is more or less the same argument Holder tried to mount yesterday. This is absolutely absurd, first are we to assume that regardless of guilt an interrogation of Bin Laden is unnecessary, Senator Leahy or the Attorney General is not the least bit curious about information Bin laden may have regarding additional terror cells, plans for future terror attacks, the details of the terror networks finances, connections to countries like Iran. That's just the tip of the Ice berg. But these government officials are also missing the real problem with this fiasco, we will now be setting precedent that the courts or the government can arbitrarily decide who deserves constitutional protections. The constitution was structured to protect the individual from a government that would conduct such a kangaroo court.

Anthony D Dolpies

A Leviathan of Land: Perspective on the

Size of the US Gov’t In Pictures

Posted November 19th, 2009 at 3.50pm in First Principles.

With the takeover of health care and frenzied government growth front and center, many are wondering when we will - if we haven’t already - reached a tipping point that fundamentally alters America. Much of what’s been done is described as a temporary fix. However, as President Reagan noted, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

With this reinvigorated discussion of how big is too big, it is worthwhile to remind Americans of just how massive the Federal government already was before our current woes began. There are few more striking measures of the government’s size than the land mass of the Federal estate. The vast majority of federal lands fall within one of four agencies: the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s US Forest Service. At over 258 million acres, the Bureau of Land Management alone is bigger than France and Germany combined. When combined with the other aforementioned agencies, the land area is equal that of ten European nations as shown in the accompanying graph (click it to see a larger version).

2009-11-19T19:52:00.001-08:00

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

The health care bill includes a $100 million section for increasing medicaid subsidies to the state of Louisiana.

Countdown to More Debt: Dems Considering "More Expensive" Plans for Next 'Stimulus'
Nov 17, 2009 - Washington Democrats are marking the nine-month anniversary of the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ by acknowledging it isn’t working and preparing another ‘stimulus’ of more spending and more debt to be piled on our kids and grandkids. The Obama Administration pledged the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ woul... More

2009-11-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

Graham get's one right for a change,

2009-11-18T07:42:00.001-08:00

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 3)

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 11/17/2009 07:27 PM ET

This is the third article to appear on these pages from an IBD subscriber who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980. Click here to read the previous two articles.

Whenever I speak about my experiences living in the USSR, my American friends respond that such things can never happen in a democracy like the United States.

They don't understand why I am repulsed when I hear the president talk about "sacrificing for the collective good," which sounds so compassionate, as opposed to greedy capitalism.

"Sacrifice for the collective good" is one of the founding principles of socialism, where the collective, not the individual, is the basis of society.

Revolutionaries in Russia did not go around boasting about destruction; they made inspiring speeches about fairness, equality, justice and the greater good. After securing power and their own access to material goods, government officials decided what to give and take from the masses, according to their definition of what is good.

When party leaders talk about the "collective good," what they are really talking about is their right to determine what is good for the collective. Government bureaucrats decide what level of sacrifice is needed and who needs to sacrifice. They replace voluntary charity with the forceful redistribution of other people's private property.

Why do people born into a free society accept a failed 100-year-old ideology? It seems Americans are simply unaware of modern history. They don't know the theory behind slogans such as "fairness and equality" and "sacrifice for the collective good," much less how it works when implemented. They buy into old utopian slogans masquerading as new progressive ideals for "Hope and Change."

In the USA, people move up and down the economic ladder all the time. In Western Europe, a milder form of a socialist-democratic political system resulted in higher unemployment, less innovation and less social mobility compared with the U.S. European youth face a continuing decline in their standard of living, as they are burdened with an unsustainable welfare state.

In the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba, a much harsher form of socialism led to mass murder and mass misery under the banner of "sacrificing for the collective good," "fairness and equality" and service to the state.

The USSR provides numerous examples of what an oppressive centralized government can lead to:

Millions of talented artists, writers and scientists were sent to prison because they did not conform to government standards. Government control of agriculture led to constant shortages of food in one of the largest and most resource-rich lands in the world.

Americans think they are protected. The Constitution is a uniquely American document that specifically limits the power of the government and protects individual liberties. But if all branches of government will ignore this unique document, and people will allow them to do so, there will be nothing different about America.

Americans are not different from people in Russia, Germany, China, Korea or anywhere else. It is human nature to seek power and control, just as it is human nature to seek profit. Deny profit and you destroy any incentive for people to produce and innovate. Give up enough of your liberty to any centralized power and the result is entirely predictable.

Compare North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany before the fall of the wall — these are examples of the same people living under two different systems: socialism vs. capitalism.

Laws are necessary in a civil society, and this includes laws that regulate the free market. But a government takeover of the economy will result in the transformation of the land of opportunity into a land of apathy and stagnation, a land in which individuals become cogs moving and turning according to government regulations.

In the USSR, they taught us in school that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. That they now teach the same in American schools I find strange.

2009-11-17T08:36:00.001-08:00

EXCLUSIVE: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

2009-11-16T06:00:00.001-08:00

So let me see if I have this right, According to The Speaker if one person does not have insurance they are preventing someone else from getting it, or they are adding to the overall costs because apparently all these people are deadbeats and don't pay the ensuing medical bill that accompanies the treatment, and therefore they must be imprisoned where they will then become an actual burden to the tax payer. The Speaker then mentions the insurance subsidies, those insurance welfare payments are going to come from tax increases, in essence creating the situation where one person receives a benefit and then passes on the cost to someone else. Didn't Pelosi just describe this as a criminal act?

Of course what is always missing is the question about how government adds to the cost of everything, from toothbrushes to surgery, with administrative and other regulatory fees, this cost of compliance is far higher than any other factor.

Anthony D Dolpies

2009-11-14T05:26:00.000-08:00

President Oba Mao Heads to China

China is gearing up for Barack Obama’s upcoming visit.

As pictures from Wen Xue City show, the T-shirt vendors are already warmed up, Mr President!

(While in Ireland this summer, people referred to the US President as O’Bama, as in O’Brien.)

My question: Will Obama meet with his half-brother Mark Ndesandjo who lives in Shenzhen?

2009-11-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

This is Senator Daniel Akaka trying to explain where congress gets the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance.

This is absolutely frightening. If I understand the Senator correctly, he is basically saying that the constitution, in his opinion is meaningless, that the only thing that really matters when it comes to making law is if that law has good intentions. Therefore there are no limits to the governments power as long as it's intentions are supposedly benign. He also argues that these penalties are for the benefit of those who do not have access to insurance. This is a ridiculous argument, one individual is not responsible for another not having health insurance.

This is the concept that some individuals have more rites than others or that one individuals liberty can be legitimately sacrificed for the benefit of whatever group congress determines. This logic is completely foreign to the countries founding principles and will only place this nation on a path of tyranny and outright oppression.

Anthony D Dolpies

Check out this video of Rachael Maddow tying herself in pretzel knots to make the argument that the Fort Hood shooting was not terrorism.

This would be funny if it were not so sad

2009-11-11T16:45:00.001-08:00

An Affinity for Tyranny

2009-11-10T18:55:00.000-08:00

An Affinity for Tyranny

President Obama has an affinity for the advance of tyranny, how else can you explain the various statements and policy decisions that often coincide with anniversaries that mark such events. For example, over the summer, on the anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland the President officially scraped the eastern European missile defense shield, leaving the polls and some of the other former soviet satellite nations who had lobbied extensively for the missile shield out to dry. Coincidently, an ever more belligerent Russia simulated the use of nuclear weapons during aggressive military exercises along the polish border that same day. He then celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall by declining an invitation to attend the ceremonies and basically phoned in some remarks. It would seem that flying off to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics, is higher on Obama’s list of priorities than marking one of the seminal events in the advancement of Human liberty.

On November 4, the 33rd anniversary of the siege of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Islamic fundamentalist which resulted a 444-day hostage crisis, Obama issued an absolutely sophomoric press release regarding Iran. In the statement the President describes the hostage crisis as an event “that set the U.S. and Iran on the path of sustained suspicion.” But the Islamic revolution was built on fundamentalist Muslim rejection of western culture. The hostage crisis was not the start of those hostilities but an end result. Glaringly absent was any reference to the American hostages whom Iran has had in captivity for four months.

The President Declared America’s willingness to develop relations with “The Islamic Republic of Iran based on mutual interest and respect,” He noted that his administration has condemned acts of terrorism on Iranian soil. He was referencing a suicide bombing on Iran’s revolutionary guard by Sunni militants. Now if only the president can begin to actually recognize a terror attack on our soil, maybe we’d have something. He also made it a point to mention that his administration will not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, not interfering with another nations internal affairs may be all well and good, but in this instance it is a rebuke of the Iranian people who have marched in the streets of Iran in rejection of the fundamentalist regime and gives credibility to an illegitimate government that is hostile to it’s people. How can we establish mutual interest and respect with a nation whose government is illegitimate in the eyes of its people? Obama did make a passing reference to the continuing uprising in Iran, “The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice.” This is the moral equivalent of saying your routinely a witness to the mugging of little old ladies, eventually you cease to be a bystander and become an accomplice. What mutual respect could we possibly share with a regime who would gun down its citizens in the streets for exercising their fundamental rites in the quest for a more representative government, not to mention its militant stance against other nations in the region. Should we seek relations with such a government just for the sake of relations, and if those relations are sought at the risk of alienating longtime allies what exactly have we gained?

The President also made reference to his willingness to negotiate in regards to Iran’s nuclear program, his acceptance of an IAEA proposal in which Iran would import low enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran has rejected this proposal, and it is becoming painfully obvious that Iran is only using these negotiations as a stall tactic, as they continue to advance their weapon’s program. And what of the diplomatic assistance we assumed from Russia in reciprocity for caving on the eastern European missile shield? That assistance has yet to develop, and don’t hold your breath, Russia is in no hurry for IAEA inspectors to find their fingerprints allover the Iranian nuke program, besides, a nuclear Iran serves Russian interest. A nuked up Iran is a threat not only to Israel, the Saudi’s and other Arab nations are extremely squeamish with the idea, these nations will have to negotiate through Russia, their economic and military influence with the radical regime in Iran will elevate them to the position of number one power player in the region. Russia could also use Iran to instigate conflict within the region, which would drive up oil prices, benefitting Russia economically.

When you throw in the Honduran debacle where Obama threw all of the United States diplomatic weight behind Zelaya the Chavez wannabe who sought to undermine his countries constitution, you begin to see the disturbing pattern of a U.S. President who is quite comfortable with the spread of oppression around the globe.

Anthony D Dolpies

2009-11-10T05:01:00.001-08:00

2009-11-06T11:16:00.001-08:00

BREAKING: ACORN’s New Orleans Office Raided by Louisiana Attorney General’s Office

Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

Congressional House Call

2009-11-06T05:04:00.000-08:00

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - AP
The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher. The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing.

_________________________________________________________________

The Congressional House Call

We have much to be inspired about, this crowd was amassed in very short notice. Whether Pelosi passes this bill in the House tomorrow or not, The message we have sent is quite clear, We are organized, we are motivated and we will move against any politician who denies the will of the people and we will vote you out. Take heed folks we must stay active, there are more of us than their are of them.

2009-11-04T05:07:00.000-08:00

ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama

GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ

AP – 1 hr 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.

Dejection fills Maine ballroom after marriage vote

AP – 38 mins ago

PORTLAND, Maine - Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible. Full Story »

The Big Tent Theory

2009-11-03T10:59:00.001-08:00

The congressional election in NY, where liberal Republican, DeDe Scozzafava was forced to bow out to conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, has prompted political pundits, mostly on the left, too once again advance the big tent theory.

What exactly is the big tent theory? It is the notion usually advanced by Democrats and John McCain types that Republicans must forsake their conservative foundational principles, and embrace far left progressive candidates in order to be a viable party. And of course establishment beltway Republicans like Michael Steele buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele constantly feels the need to play down the conservative base as they begin to define the direction of the party and assure the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.

But what does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of said “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles? How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? None expects to agree on everything, the role of government has been debated in this country since the founding, but if Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles. Namely individual liberties as defined in the bill of rights, limited representative government, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles. These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles, there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have only thrown in the towel, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.

While it is true that voters who refer to themselves as Republicans is at a low point, those voters however are not flocking to the Democrats, If that where they case why would democrats have to fight so hard in these elections? The fact of the matter is that Americans are rejecting the modern pressure group framework of progressive politics, The American people will no longer accept having to choose between the lesser of two evils, The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.

Anthony D Dolpies

2009-11-03T09:17:00.000-08:00

Go out and Vote!!

Don't let unions and special interest groups determine our elections.

Politics favor those who participate.

2009-11-02T08:44:00.000-08:00

School nurses give swine flu vaccine to kids w/o parents' OK

School nurses mistakenly gave the H1N1 vaccine to two students who didn't sign up for it -including a girl with epilepsy who wound up in the hospital.

CIT Files Its Bankruptcy Plan

CIT filed for bankruptcy in a high-stakes restructuring intended to keep the doors open at one of the U.S.'s largest small-business lenders.

'Fake' snow covers Beijing

Government seeded clouds in an effort to combat a lingering drought

Dede bails out

2009-10-31T20:50:00.000-07:00

Liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY district 23 congressional race today, citing dwindling poll numbers. Scozzafava's withdrawel bolsters the chances of conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. Tea Party organizers have been an essential part of Doug Hoffmans candidacy on both the fundraising and organizational fronts.

2009-10-30T08:14:00.001-07:00

The Pelosi Blueprint for Government Run Health Care

According to leaked House Ethics Committee documents, more than 30 lawmakers,including nearly half of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, are being scrutinized about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling.

Thanks to the fraud riddled homebuyers tax credit, and the $24,000 per car cost to taxpayers Cash for Clunkers program, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product grew 3.5% this summer.

2009-10-29T11:15:00.000-07:00

House health bill ceremony closed to public

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/29/house-democratic-bill-ceremony-closed-public/

Zombieland

2009-10-29T07:29:00.000-07:00

This video was the winner at barackobama.com for the best ad in favor of obamacare, you really need to see what the left considers a great commercial, and even more, what they think of the American flag. http://my.barackobama.com/hrvcrating?v=b5ZE8uQFM7o

There is something incrediblely creepy about the way Hollywood as sold its soul to the Obama administration, whether it's Ashton Kutcher who has pledged to be Obama's servant, Jeneane Garofalo erupting into angry tirades in defence of incompetency, or this latest tidbit from Edward Norton extolling the regular folkness of the First couple. Couple that with the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts comparing Obama to Julius Caeser. It would seem that all these artsie types, who I'm sure fancy themselves independent thinkers, are walking firmly in lockstep.

2009-10-27T13:34:00.000-07:00

Lieberman: I'll block vote on Reid plan

By: MANU RAJU

The Connecticut independent says he opposes any sort of public option, even with an opt-out provision

Obama Loves this guy

'Die Quickly' Congressman Calls Bernanke Aide 'K-Street Whore'

3 hours ago

Obama: Grayson an 'outstanding' congressman

By: JOSH KRAUSHAAR

This isn’t the first time the W.H. has given a boost to Grayson’s reelection prospects. See also: Grayson goes too far for colleagues

Deconstructing Platitudes, #1 In A Series

2009-10-25T21:57:00.000-07:00

There is seemingly nothing President Obama likes better than giving a speech. Unfortunately not many folks in the mainstream media seem to take anytime analyzing anything the President actually says, they seem to have volunteered themselves as stenographers as opposed to reporters, so in the absence of journalism I figure it is my civic duty to pick up the slack. I’ve actually been doing this for quite sometime but I have only recently committed to the title.

President Obama payed a visit to MIT this past Friday to give a speech about climate change. The timing of this appearance is a bit suspect, considering the Presidents views on climate change are well documented, but I doubt it has anything to do with the administration’s announcement later in the same day about how the President probably would not be attending the much heralded global waste of time, oh excuse me, I mean global climate summit in Copenhagen.

One thing you will notice is that the President was trying to play it relatively safe at MIT. This speech was also minus the usual plethora of first person pronouns.

“Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren’t built, but are grown — that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create — to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.”

Sounds really cool. It also sounds really expensive.

“And it’s a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation — not just here but across America — that has improved our health and our well-being and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America — it’s the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it’s the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail — but might also change the world.”

The President is exactly right about this, it is American innovation that has allowed not only America to prosper but just about all of western civilization. This is the most flattering statement about America the President has made in quite sometime, but Obama is a collectivist he doesn’t believe in the American ideal of individual achievement. He believes in the sacrifice of personal ambition in the name of the state or what he would call “public interest.” Which is why this seemingly innocuous paragraph exposes the weakness in Obama’s own political philosophy.

The great innovators and inventors throughout American history did not take chances or dedicate their lives to the purpose of advancing the U.S. economy, they were driven by their own self interest, even if someone believes that their fruition of their ideas will make society a better place, the engine of their determination was that a better society is advantageous to their own survival, they where not mandated by the state to reach some politically expedient goal.

Which leads us to where the President goes off the tracks,

“That’s why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America.”

And this is exactly why the stimulus is a failure, these technologies are currently impractical, this is not to say they will always be, but at the moment they need huge government subsidies just to be somewhat competitive with proven energy technologies, this steals money from other areas of the private sector that could have immediate benefit to the economy, I have nothing against alternative energies but the funding for research should be left largely to the private sector, good ideas don’t need government subsidies.

The President then gets a bit defensive;

“The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized.”

They are? Has the President been paying attention to the trend of public sentiment on this issue? Bottom line, skeptics are more prevalent than ever, the only one in denial here seems to be the President himself.

“ There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs.”

This is a straw man argument, no one suggests that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, only that cutting off access to proven resources through legislative stonewalling and massive taxation will. There have been more than 200 significant oil and natural gas discoveries this year alone, many right here on U.S. territory, the technology to extract these resources is highly advanced and environmentally safe, there is no reason to stop development of current resources while researching alternatives.

He then spoke a little about the Global scene;

"From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to produce and use energy,"

China and India!? China and India have already rejected the notion of accepting any global emission standards, even more recently China publically rejected the whole premise of man-made climate change and both countries open multiple coal fired power plants every month, the only race they are in is to provide electricity to the tens of millions of people in those countries who currently live their lives in darkness, And wind farms ain’t gettin it done. The Japanese have focused their sights on nuclear innovation which is a powerful and clean energy source that for some reason is a hex sign to American environmentalists. Either way it is difficult to grasp what the president was trying to accomplish with this speech, it had a very pre presidential campaign feel, and overall it was a colossal waste of time.

Anthony D Dolpies

OBAMA: SWINE FLU A NATIONAL EMERGENCY...

.FIRST DAUGHTERS NOT VACCINATED AGAINST H1N1

Top Senate Democrats are reportedly close to a deal on health care legislation and could submit the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate as soon as today, and make the legislation public as soon as Tuesday.

Contrary to leftist rhetoric, the Associated Press reports that health insurer profits are “anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.”

Health insurers are poised to reap huge profits when Obamacare passes thanks to mandates forcing Americans to buy health insurance and federal subsidies to help them do so.

According to Gallup, 40% of Americans now identify themselves as conservative compared to 36% who call themselves moderate and only 20% who say they are liberal. Independents are the fastest growing group of conservatives.

Compensation Questions

2009-10-23T19:18:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama attended a Democrat fundraiser this week in which the POTUS raked in about 3Million bucks, thanks to the ritzy attendees who forked over 30 Grand a plate. Bailout recipients, like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase were all in attendance. Now isn't that something, The Pres has a problem with the way these companies pay their executives but no problem with them using those taxpayer funds to donate to a partisan fundraiser.

Anthony D Dolpies

"So-called Founders"

2009-10-23T10:06:00.000-07:00

Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts

Posted By Michael Ledeen On October 21, 2009 @ 6:46 pm In Uncategorized

I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools ^[1] reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:

“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”

That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.

Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?

_____________________________________________________________________________

My opinion; The Above quote cannot be verified, it is important that I point that out,

Even tho this quote may not be accurate, Obama did give this interview in 2001

I actually addressed this back in May of this year I will post the article below. This shows an extreme lack of intellectual curiosity or outright intellectual dishonesty, simply for the fact the founders addresses the subject of wealth distribution at length and I call attention to this in my article. Most importantly how can someone who is so ardently opposed to the constitution and the founding principles be trusted to fulfill his oath to protect and defend them.

Barack Obama, The Anti-founder

This article was written on May 7th 2009

New York Times magazines published an interview in which President Obama claimed that "Wall Street will no longer play a dominant role in our economy." He also stated that lower salaries on a wall street as a result of regulation imposed by his administration are in fact a "healthy thing." His logic is that it will drive talented workers into different and in his opinion more noble professions. True, but aside from the arrogant assumption that the United States will be following his economic blueprint for time eternal, I’ve learned to Expect that level of conceit from this man, what was even more disturbing was this statement; "We don’t want every college grad with an aptitude for mathematics to become a derivative’s trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design." First, I would love to ask the president, who is we, exactly? What I do know is when Obama says we he is not talking about you and me.

Like all of Obama’s focused grouped statements, this seems innocent enough on the surface.After all who would have a problem with their son or daughter becoming a scientist or engineer. But just because someone has an "aptitude" for math doesn’t mean they mean they will seek a career in one of these fields, and even if they do it doesn’t mean that they will end up in that profession. People for the most part don’t aspire to be wall street traders when they grow up then settle into a career in engineering. In fact it is usually just the opposite, and to go one further if someone did have a passion for science or engineering that person could fund an endowment with some of those evil wall street profits, in turn benefitting society many times over.

The Reality is that draconian government regulation and statist attempts to mandate demand only create more of the bubble and burst economic events that Obama is claims he is trying to stamp out. This approach will also drive down salaries overall. The laws of economic are a lot like the laws of gravity, absolute. If workers migrate from one profession, because of diminished salaries, that creates a surplus of workers else ware in the market, Therefore, driving down wages.

When Barack Obama speaks in terms of we, he really means I, and even more he means government. Obama is the quintessential Marxist, he believes that it is governments role to determine the winners and losers of society. In every way Barack Obama is the anti founder. In his own words he views the constitution as a flawed document of negative rights. He rejects the limitations it places on centralized government, and he faults the founders for not addressing "economic justice." Economic justice is the Marxist euphemism for wealth redistribution. But as much as Obama Wraps himself in hope and change, his ideas are old and stale.

The founders recognized his type long ago. It was Samuel Adams who said this; " The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional." The founders were intent on preserving the natural rights of man, and not the distribution of "economic justice", which is by definition arbitrary and subject to rationing. The founders did not believe rights were the governments to distribute. Obama believes rights are the provinces of the state, to be rationed as he sees fit.

Obama loves to speak of equality. The founders addressed this as well. Ben Franklin often wrote that kingly government seizes power under the illusion that it will somehow establish equality among citizens, and it was John Adams who said "That all men are born with equal right is true. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as was ever practiced." The founders new that men who made false promises of equality would only lead the nation toward tyranny.

President Obama is walking briskly down that despotic road, by arbitrating the recent Chrysler bankruptcy he exceeded the bounds of the executive and assumed the role of the courts. He has shown a complete disregard of fiduciary law. He deploys the Treasury Department as a means to reward his political allies, by encroaching further and further on private property and industry. With this style of governing you always need fresh domestic bogeymen to trot out in front of the public. Eventually he will have none left to blame.

Anthony D Dolpies

Where is The Authority?

2009-10-23T09:25:00.000-07:00

Members of Congress were recently asked where congress gets the authority to force Americans to buy insurance. And as yet none really seems to have an answer, Rep. Steny Hoyer claims congress has broad authority under the general welfare clause, “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” But this is wrong congress' authority is clearly defined in the enumerated powers, The general welfare is also defined by the constitution, if congress had such broad authority why would the framers have specifically defined the powers of congress, the enumerated powers would be meaningless because congress could do whatever they wanted as long as they thought it was the right thing to do.

2009-10-22T08:08:00.001-07:00

Service.gov And Its Soviet Similarities

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 10/21/2009 08:42 PM ET

USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.

The story of young pioneer Pavlik Morozov is required reading. Pavlik reported his father to the secret police for disobeying government regulations. His life exemplified the duty of all good Soviet citizens to serve their government.

From the first year in school, all of us are made aware of our ethnicity (ethnic Russian, Jewish, Asian, etc.) and class (proletariat, intelligentsia), around which society is structured. This inherent divisiveness makes it easy for the government to stir ethnic and class tension and in this way distract from economic failure.

Newspapers and TV transmit government-approved news. Any critical voice is immediately suppressed and publicly denounced.

My parents, as all citizens of the USSR, work for state-run companies. All workers are unionized — another way the state controls the citizens. There is no private enterprise in USSR.

Whatever small private farms or shops that existed before 1930 have been taken over by the state. All medical care and schools are state entities. The government regulates what kind of technology, service and compensation are allowed.

From school age through adulthood, citizens are called to public service four to five times a year. Activities such as farming, cleaning places of work, and paper/metal scrap collections are mandatory.

Religious symbols are forbidden in schools or on state property. Most old religious buildings are transformed for secular use.

The Soviet government imposes the Iron Curtain. The state has strict control over our ability to travel abroad. This prevents us from realizing the discrepancy between the media's image of the great socialist country and the reality of our low standard of living.

USA, 2009: "Progressives" control the government. Children in some public schools sing songs about the president and study his directives.

Progressives view people not as unique individuals, but as groups. They play on class envy, or divide people by ethnicity (African-American, white, Hispanic, etc.). From early childhood they remind children of their ethnic identity. The idea of a color-blind society united under the American flag is not politically correct.

The mainstream media are aligned with the government. Those media outlets critical of government policy are publicly criticized by government officials and are in danger of suffering repercussions.

Government seizes a majority stake in two major auto companies and, through TARP money, has control over major banks. Congress discusses capping salaries in private businesses and is in the process of increasing its control over the health care industry.

Big labor union leadership is fully aligned with the progressives in government. There is strong pressure to eliminate the secret ballot in order to increase union membership.

Cap-and-trade, if passed, will drive a lot of small businesses into bankruptcy and create a fruitful soil for favoritism and government control over private entities.

Sept. 11 is declared a day of national service by the administration. It is no longer a day of remembrance for the horrific attack perpetrated by terrorists.

The American Constitution protects the separation between church and state. Atheist zealots pervert this ideal in order to force out religious symbols and traditions from public space. It is fashionable in progressive circles to ridicule religion and religious people. "Tolerance" is applied only to anti-religious values.

As a former citizen of the USSR, I heard and experienced all of this before. I listen to the speeches by the president asking people to sacrifice and serve. So what are we to sacrifice? For what? And to whom? I think I get it now.

Citizens of America, sacrifice your elders and forget your selfish aspirations of prosperity for yourself and your family! Sign onto Service.gov and serve your government!

• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 and now lives in Connecticut. She wrote "The Perspective of a Russian Immigrant" that ran on the op-ed page Sept. 8-11.

Obama's Real Vision of Change, Part Two, Scarcity

2009-10-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

Like all demagogues Obama wraps his true agenda in soaring rhetoric and over generalizations, but when you look behind the dark vale of vague platitudes about individual sacrifice for the greater good, you begin to see the real vision Obama is offering to America, very simply it is one of scarcity. Wether it is scarcity of jobs, which according to the media, we must accept as the new norm, scarcity of resources, Obama chastises us for using too much of the world’s resources in relation to our population, therefore we must sign global treaties and pass domestic legislation, it does not matter if the resources we use power the engine of the global economy America must atone for our immorality and excesses.

We must accept higher taxation in every area of life, whether it is energy or health care, It doesn’t matter that all taxation regardless of its target only leads to less profit, less profit leads to lower wages and fewer jobs, which means less disposable income and a lower standard of living, Obama wills that we must make these sacrifices for the global collective. This is the common theme of any Obama speech, the individual must sacrifice his ambitions and liberty, he must hitch his wagon to a larger purpose, the greater good. Not only is this a common theme for Obama but it is the common theme of every authoritarian regime to scar the history of humanity. And like the oppressed populations of those regimes Americans must now accept scarcity as the rule. This is Obama’s real vision of change.

Anthony D Dolpies

2009-10-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

1. SENATE HEALTH BILL 1,502 PAGES...

2. ...READ IT HERE

Financial Giants Donating Little to Obama Party
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
The Wall St. giants that got a financial lifeline from Washington are reluctant to deliver “thank you” gifts to President Obama and Democrats in the form of political donations.

Higher jobless rates could be new normal

AP – Mon Oct 19, 2:29 pm ET

WASHINGTON - Even with an economic revival, many U.S. jobs lost during the recession may be gone forever and a weak employment market could linger for years.

Big Wall Street bonuses "offensive": Obama aide

Reuters – Sun Oct 18, 2:05 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top White House aide lashed out on Sunday at Wall Street firms that are handing out huge bonuses while the rest of the economy struggles and small businesses cannot create jobs because of a lack of credit.

2009-10-19T18:50:00.001-07:00

Finance Committee bill has been filed

2009-10-19T07:09:00.000-07:00

Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly.

The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before.

You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama’s gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he’s supported over the years.

It's only the first step...

...but it's a HUGE step.

H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner -- for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system.

But that’s only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place!

And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find youself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too.

The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment.

You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.

It gets worse though.

Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are "fit" to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

I'm outraged by this, and I know you are too.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere.

In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes.

But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America.

The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

Taken right out of Sarah Brady's Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases.

In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, H.R. 45 also requires you to:

Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm.

Release your medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the government to get your "fitness" to own a firearm approved.

Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.

Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry.

The list goes on and on. It's enough to turn your stomach.

I know I don't have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" might as well say: "You have no rights."

If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!

Even the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a firearm doesn’t hamper Barack Obama’s agenda one bit.

In fact, it emboldens gun grabbers to pass legislation taxing ammunition, increasing registration requirements, and drastically limiting when, how and where you can use your firearm.

That’s why I’ve decided to stand with the National Association for Gun Rights fight back against this radical scheme. They're fully committed to stopping the efforts of the gun grabbers, but they need the help of grassroots gun owners like you.

With liberals calling the shots in Washington, all supporters of the Second Amendment must join together, draw a line in the sand, and fight this battle to the end.

We must make this gun-grab expensive and politically painful for the enemies of freedom. If we do, they'll flinch ... and LOSE.

By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of grassroots gun owners across the country, the National Association for Gun Rights can put anti-gun politicians on the hot seat.

Are you opposed to national gun registration?

Are you opposed to a written examination to buy a gun?

Are you opposed to a new $25 gun tax?

Are you opposed to a total ban on private firearm sales?

If you said "Yes" to these questions, click here to fill out a special survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST Barack Obama’s gun control package.

Stopping un-Constitutional gun control bills like H.R. 45 may be NAGR’s top priority, but they need your help.

Along with your signed survey, please send the National Association for Gun Rights a generous contribution to help finance this battle. You will have the opportunity to donate right after you fill out the survey.

The truth is, H.R. 45 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won't stop until they've reached their ultimate goal: A virtual ban on private, individual firearm ownership.

That is why NAGR simply must hear from you immediately.

Please take a moment to fill out NAGR's H.R. 45 survey, and, if at all possible, send a contribution of $200, $150, $100 or maybe just $25 to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight H.R. 45 and Sarah Brady's gun control wish list.

I know this is a lot to ask, but inaction could very well lead to defeat and the loss of our right to keep and bear arms.

Whether you can afford $200 or a lesser amount of $50 or $25, please contribute what you can.

It's critical we do all we can.

Thank you in advance for contributing your time and money towards defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom and Liberty,

Paul Broun
U.S. Congressman (R-GA)
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The anti-gun extremists who helped put Obama in power are itching for pay-back -- and here it comes.
H.R. 45 is the most sweeping gun control proposal ever offered in America. And under this administration, it might just pass -- so please act today!

2009-10-16T07:17:00.000-07:00

Could Politically Incorrect Speakers Be Charged With Aiding and Abetting Hate Crimes?

Jacob Sullum | October 15, 2009

White House: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive”

A previously undisclosed April 15 meeting at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee between corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups in favor of Obamacare.

Obamacare Puts You on Welfare

2009-10-15T09:34:00.001-07:00

Troop funds diverted to pet projects; $20M for Ted Kennedy institute...

2009-10-15T09:29:00.001-07:00

List of ‘Organically’ Created iParticipate Television Programs
by Big Hollywood

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

Part II: Obama Controls Your Televison Set — Search and Ye Shall Find…Left-Wing Advocacy

Part III: Obama Controls Your Television Set — Serve.gov or Serf.dom?

More TARP, more bailouts

2009-10-14T08:54:00.000-07:00

H.R. 3766:

111^th Congress

2009-2010

Main Street TARP Act of 2009

To use amounts made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury for relief for homeowners and affordable rental housing.

2009-10-11T20:15:00.000-07:00

Obamacare Invades Your Wallet

Posted October 12th, 2009 at 9.36am in Health Care.

This Morning Bell is the first in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.

Throughout his campaign, and even in to the first few months in office, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan would reduce their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It has been a while since President Obama made that promise, and any honest look at the health legislation being considered in Congress explains why.

The Senate Finance Committee bill written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (the Baucus bill) first drives up the cost of health insurance for all Americans and then forces everyone to buy it or face tax penalties or jail time. While the Baucus bill does cap out-of-pocket costs based on a person’s income, the effect on American families is still staggering. According to the Center for Data Analysis, the Baucus bill would:

For individuals making $34,140 (three times the Federal Poverty Level) the Baucus health care proposal could mandate up to $4,097 in annual premiums, a sum which could have been spent on over nine months of food, almost four months of housing or well over a year of utilities.
For a family of four making $69,480 (300% above poverty) the Baucus bill mandates annual health insurance premiums of $8,338, which would be worth the equivalent ofover ten months of food, four months of housing or almost two years of utilities.
For individuals earning $45,520(400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $5,462 for health insurance, or over a year of food, four months of rent or a year and a half of utilities.
For families earning $92,640 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $11,117 in health premiums, the equivalent of over a year of food, five months of housing or two years of utilities.

And those numbers include the subsidies for health insurance in the Baucus bill. To pay for all this new health care spending, plus the massive expansion of Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will collect $4 billion in fines from those who do not purchase insurance, $200 billion taxing health insurance companies with generous health plans, and $25 billion in taxes on employers. Not to mention the billions in cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals which will result in significant cost shifting to consumers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has done a study on what all these new taxes and regulations will do to Americans health insurance premiums and the results are not pretty. Instead of reducing the average family’s health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, the Baucus bill would actually raise them by $4,000 more than they would have been without reform.

The Baucus bill spends at least $1 trillion, fails to cover all Americans, taxes employers for creating jobs, and inflicts higher out-of-pocket health care costs on all Americans. We can do better.

Dollar facing 'power-shift': analysts

Dollar Reaches Breaking Point at Banks Shifting Record Reserves Into Euro

Gore upbeat on climate bill banks flush with record reserves are increasingly snubbing dollars in favor of euros and yen, further pressuring the greenback after its biggest two- quarter rout in almost two decades.

The Welfare State, Obama's Real Vision of Change

2009-10-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

The Demoralized victims of more than fifty years of central planning and empty promises came together last week in Michigan. In a scene reminiscent of Soviet style bread lines, more than 65000 people filled out applications, hoping for a share of 15.2 million dollars appropriated by the Obama stimulus pkg to help low income families pay bills, stave off eviction or find temporary housing. Only 3500 people will actually receive aid from the program. This latest incarnation of the Obama recovery act only adds to the evidence that the stimulus was never about job creation, Instead it was merely a tool for the expansion of political power through the welfare state.

The long slow moving lines and ill-prepared city welfare workers agitated the desperate citizens who began to trample and fight one another for a shot at the limited number of applications. This is the end result of Obama’s redistributionist economic policy. Sold under the guise of compassion, social justice, economic justice, egalitarianism, the individual is reduced to a budget item, viewing his fellow man as a threat, competition for his slice of an ever shrinking communal pie.

Redistributionist or socialist policy, call it what you will, can never produce the economic or social equality that those who champion it promise. In fact such a political and economic system only advances the creation of an inescapable binary class system they claim to oppose, the very rich and the very poor. It advocates the notion that the bureaucrat is more equal than equal. The bureaucrat in the welfare state is given the arbitrary authority over the validity of what he views as the needs of the citizen in relation to the immediate needs of the state. In the end redistributionist policy only advances the ultimate immorality, slavery, first by enslaving the producer to the non-producer, then though dependence the non-producer to the state.

Anthony D Dolpies

More White house propaganda

2009-10-06T07:49:00.000-07:00

Progressivism? Not so fast, folks

By: REP. JOHN LINDER

In an Ideas piece, Linder wonders if we believe only a powerful central government can fix problems.

White House hands out lab coats at press conference

WASHINGTON -- President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet -- and handed out doctors' white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message. In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care... Read Full Story

Afghan Paralysis Update

2009-10-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting White house spin starting to develop in the press in regard to Afghanistan in the last few days. What really peaked my curiosity was this excerpt from a U.K. times article;

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether Mc Chrystal is being naive or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

It is true that Generals usually don’t go public to this extant, And the General is clearly frustrated by the Presidents paralysis, but I find it nearly impossible to believe any General with Mc Chrystal’s credentials would be unfamiliar in the ways of Washington, he may not like it, but I’m sure he knows the game. Which leads me to question why administration officials would describe him as an upstart. An upstart in what regard? Are they speaking of political aspirations? Then I found an article in the New York Times that mentioned Petreaus being marginalized by Obama during strategy sessions because the White house feels he has Presidential ambitions. The White house seems to be painting these generals as political opponents, I have a feeling this will become a trend in the press as this situation develops.

My prediction, Obama will not send more troops to Afghanistan. Although he will not take this position publicly he will use administration operatives in the press to make the case that he rejected the recommendations of these Generals because Mc Crystal and Petreaus are politically motivated. I do hope I’m wrong about this.

Anthony D Dolpies

Michelle on Sesame st

2009-10-05T09:51:00.000-07:00

The Agony of Conceit

2009-10-03T22:19:00.000-07:00

If you think it’s a bit ridiculous to link the credibility of a U.S. President to a vote by the International Olympic Committee you would normally be right, normally. But welcome to the abnormal, the ever expanding sideshow that is the Barack Obama presidency. Wether it’s the affairs of a Massachuset police department, the first day of school, or an effort to secure the Olympic games to line the pockets of a few Chicago slum lords, Barack Obama has the uncanny ability to create a self-absorbed boondoggle out of what would seem to be irrelevant events in the scope of presidential politics.

Obama loves to insert himself into what should be meaningless issues, sure it would have been nice to get the Games, (again) but we are not some obscure emerging power that needs such an event to highlight our advancement. I also understand that the Olympics would have given a bit of a jolt to the windy city economy, but if Chicago is waiting for some E.U. bureaucrat to help out their economy, where the Olympics are held should be the least of their concerns and from what I’ve been seeing this really wasn’t high on the list of the average Chicagoan’s priorities.

But this really wasn’t about the United States or getting the games. It was about Barack Obama securing the games for Chicago in an attempt to puff up his already overinflated ego. Therefore what should have been some non issue turns into a fiasco that damages the Presidents “Image of success” and calls into question his self-proclaimed credibility in the world.

In an attempt to spin off some of the embarrassment, Obama’s chief political adviser David Axelrod made the statement that it is always worthwhile when the President sells America to the world. Maybe so, but that’s not what this President does, Obama doesn’t sell America he sells himself. In Obama’s world view America’s only redeeming quality is that he is the President. He even waxed philosophic to the IOC judges about the night he was elected. It’s hard to decide what was a more pathetic pitch that or Michelle Obama’s assertion that Chicago deserves the Olympics because that’s what her father would have wanted. I really can’t remember a first lady who was as out of touch with the American people as Michelle Obama, but I digress. In the end the Obama’s came off as arrogant, much as they do too many Americans.

Barack Obama doesn’t sell America well because successful selling comes from a belief in your product, a conviction that what you have to offer will best represent an image, or make an individual life or business exponentially better. Closing the deal requires a transfer of that enthusiasm, this is impossible if you believe your product needs fundamental remaking.

Anthony D Dolpies

Overpaid Celebrities

2009-10-02T06:51:00.001-07:00

The Independence Post

All I can say is Thank you God for Chris Christie

The quickly depleting nutrients within the soil that bares the tree of liberty

An Almost Impeachable Phrase

Pelosi: We Have To Pass Health Care So You Can Find Out What Is In It

We Can No longer Afford to Hope

The elitists dream

Pelosi aide says Democratic congressional leaders have settled on legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit? UPDATED

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/With-absolute-power_-Team-Obama-grows-stupid-83945567.html#ixzz0fFo5UNf5

Sinking the Moral High Ground

State of Confusion

By: John McCormack

Misplaced populism

This story needs to grow some legs

Perspective of A Russian immigrant no.4

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 4)

The Verbal post

Tune in at 3pm est to the show to witness the verbal beatdown of the progressive movement

my Disection of Obama's West Point speech

The New York Times Trying to Provide Cover for Obamacare

Howard Dean on Socialism & the permanent campaign

The Mind-set of Malcontents

Hating Sarah

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 3)

An Affinity for Tyranny

Congressional House Call

The Big Tent Theory

Dede bails out

House health bill ceremony closed to public

Zombieland

Deconstructing Platitudes, #1 In A Series

Compensation Questions

"So-called Founders"

Where is The Authority?

Service.gov And Its Soviet Similarities

Obama's Real Vision of Change, Part Two, Scarcity

List of ‘Organically’ Created iParticipate Television Programsby Big Hollywood

More TARP, more bailouts

The Welfare State, Obama's Real Vision of Change

More White house propaganda

Afghan Paralysis Update

Michelle on Sesame st

The Agony of Conceit

Overpaid Celebrities

List of ‘Organically’ Created iParticipate Television Programs
by Big Hollywood