Fox News Channel employee, Steve Doocy of “Fox and Friends” is on the liberal hot seat when he “misquoted” Obama during an interview he (Doocy) conducted with Mitt Romney. Obama, continuing with his class warfare rhetoric spewing forth on his tax payer funded campaign tour to battleground states, said: ”Somebody gave me an education. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn't. But somebody gave us a chance." During his interview with Romney, Doocy asked Romney to respond to Obama's comment, quoting the president as saying, "Unlike some people, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth." If you are a reasonable person, I’ll bet you had to re-read both the Obama original quote and what Doocy mis-quoted Obama as saying. Are you kidding me that there is a flap over this? There goes that Liberal-Leftist double standard again. And then there is this butt wipe from the Washington Post, named Erik Wemple, who lambasted both Doocy and Fox News for the misquote, saying: ”Doocy might consider not only clarifying the real quote but also retracting the smirk that accompanies his false question." Whiny Wemple then wrote: "(The smirk) It's the sort of signal, so often seen on Fox, that lets Republicans interviewees know they're welcome here." Maybe Obama was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth but someone did give him an education,......those "someones" are Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright and a host of other anti-American, anti-capitalists, socialists bone heads.

Obama's Devious Medicare Plan

This was sent out on the conservative and patriot communications net, titled An $8 billion trick? by Benjamin E. Sasse and Charles Hurt. Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department. Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B. Here is how it works: The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians. But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program. For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage. But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program. Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day. Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party. Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls. It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election. This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history. But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid. The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market. That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years. Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.” Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests. Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs. A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project. Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them. If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected. Now that is some serious audacity. Benjamin E. Sasse, a former US assistant secretary of health, is president of Midland University. Charles Hurt covers politics in DC.

Large Cities in Trouble

The Entitlest Movement, Occupy Wall Street or Main Street, or whatever you want to call this movement or methodology is not just limited to the Federal Government or national unions. Several cities are also facing bankruptcy having much more obligations than they have the ability to pay for, especially for union negotiated retirements.

Other cities are faced with raising already high property tax rates in order to develop revenue to pay for big city deficit spending. Raising taxes will drive taxpapers away, further reducing revenue, especially in California , as the trends have shown for the past several years that business after business is leaving the highly taxed-highly regulated-big time anti-business California.

Seattle

Team tells City Council that Seattle can't afford pension plan. Seattle's generous employee-pension system, underfunded by $1 billion over the next 30 years, will require larger infusions from the city treasury or reduced benefits for newly hired workers, a study team told the City Council on Monday.

The $1.8 billion pension fund hasn't fully recovered from its $616 million loss during the 2008 financial crisis and is facing additional strain from the longer life spans of retirees.

The city has stepped up its contributions to the plan, as directed by actuaries, diverting millions of dollars from city utilities and the general fund, the Retirement Interdepartmental Team reported. This year's diversions into the pension fund are $5.5 million higher than last year, and 2014 diversions are expected to be $20.6 million higher than in 2011.

Los Angeles

Potential $50M Property Tax Shortfall Could Lead to L.A. Cuts. Los Angeles County could receive almost $50 million less than expected in property taxes next year, according to the latest estimates, which could lead to cuts in law enforcement, education and other services.

Last year, Assessor John Noguez estimated that the county property tax base would grow by almost $18.7 billion for the next fiscal year. But he revised that figure to $5.1 billion last week.

Property in Los Angeles County was valued at $1.1 trillion last year. Taxes paid on that real estate is the county's largest source of locally generated revenue and helps fund a variety of services and agencies, including the Sheriff's Department, county education office and Fire Department.

Los Angeles County supervisors are scheduled to begin considering their budget next week. The county has an annual budget of about $23 billion.

Supervisors questioned how Noguez's figures could change so drastically.
"I just know that everyone has never seen that kind of a swing in a three-month period," said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. "Something went wrong. Either [the assessor] was either dead wrong in December, or they're dead wrong in March."

The biggest drop occurred in properties that declined in value. In December, Noguez estimated that the tax base would drop by about $2.6 billion because of falling home prices. That number changed to about $13.5 billion in his latest report.

If L.A. wants to come out of this deficit, then I suggest they tax the rich Hollywood types,...after all, doesn't the rich need to pay their fair share?.....Oh, wait a minute, that only pertains to job creating, conservatie rich people."

Who Are The Terrorists That Visited the White House?

Who are the representatives from Egypt ’s Muslim Brotherhood who were invited to the White House by the Obama Administration?

Sondos Asem, Editor of the Muslim Brotherhood website Ikhwanweb.com.
She was responsible for condemning Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALS, stating in part “so long as occupation remains (Of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) resistance is legitimate and it (the Muslim Brotherhood) calls on the United States, NATO and the EU to end the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

She also has made claims that ” America actually creates terrorist states to have reasons to invade the Muslim world.”

Khairat el-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate for Egypt.
He has said ”that Shariah is his top and final goal and that he would work on forming a group of religious scholars to help parliament achieve this goal.”

Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, Muslim Brotherhood’s foreign relations committee.
He recently stated “We cannot forget the Iraq War”, “It was a wrong decision of oil vs. democracy”.

Author of the “Peace in Islam, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna called violent jihad, “one of the best virtues with which to gain the pleasure of Allah, the High and the Blessed, and death in His cause will realize glory in this life and in the hereafter. From this obligation no one is exempt except for those who are incapable of fighting, but they must equip others or guard their families when they are away, if they are able to do so.”

Former Supreme Leader Mustafa Mashhur, who wrote “Jihad is the Way”, Spoke to why violence is the only way to liberate Muslim lands. “Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,”

Disgraced New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, who works for Hillary Clinton’s State Department, has a close family member (her Mother) who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Kinda wonder where her loyalties reside with.

Yes, these are the types of people, avowed terrorists, that the Administration let walk into the People’s house. Shame on you Obama and Clinton.

Churches NOT Standing Pat

Most of you have read or heard about the U.S. Catholic Bishops getting spun up over the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional mandate for businesses, institutions and insurance companies to provide free birth control under their health plans. This, of course, goes against the First Amendment freedom of religion,…..much of the religious teachings and beliefs for many religious organizations in the U.S.,...and, not to mention, becomes another march towards entitlements.

Many Churches are getting involved in educating their parishioners on political issues that go against God’s teachings. I think what we’ll see this year in fact, is a Federal Government effort to try and quell this by holding Church tax free status over the heads of Churches that preach against the anti-religious regulations of the current Administration.

In fact, one small Church in Texas tried to lead a re-call effort against the City Council for granting health benefits to the unmarried (and sometimes gay) partners of city employees. The Southern Poverty Law Center then steps in and has the local Church listed as a “Hate Group”. No kidding.

If you want to see a real hate group how about the New Black Liberation Army who intimidated voters in Philadelphia and who Eric Holder has yet to investigate.

So it does us good to see a Preacher, in this case a Pastor of a this predominantly black church in Virginia linking historical events and biblical guidance to today’s anti-religious, anti-constitutional efforts of the Obama Administration. From Genesis 47:13-27, here is his sermon:

"Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis. We'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.

Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ... (reading) ... Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray. So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock - their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year. But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?

That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes... That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?

Yes. But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt , in the land of Goshen . And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one.

We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will...

Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day..."

And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government. Because it is in God that we place our trust and in the Protection of His Divine Providence."

Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment

This is from an article posted from the Blaze, titled: Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech Basically, the Democrats are puting forth the notion that the First Amendment is an indiviudual right and not a corporate or organizational right. Corporations, businesses, organizations, etc. are all people. With the Democrats proposal, we would see a tool that they could use against individual speaking for corporations and talking (or writing for that matter) against Democrat core beliefs,...socialism, rob the rich to pay the entitlement crowd, anti-Christian values, etc. The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment,” and its goal is to explicitly allow Congress to regulate corporate speech however it wants: Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons. Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution. Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable. Here are some quotes of the bill’s sponsors trying their best to explain the rationale behind the bill: Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.): “I‘ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,...it would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around.” Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.): "In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech, and so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn‘t within Congress’s constitutional–our constitutional purview.” I could see if now,...talk show radio commentators, such as Makr Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh all could be shut down because they work for radio corporations, which have no free speech rights. It is crazy what the Dems are suggesting, but I am thankful they have exposed themselves for what they are,....Anti-Constitutionalists.

Obamacare: Pass It To Find Out What's In It

Remember when Nacny Pelosi urged the passing of the Obamacare Legislation in order it find out what's in it? Who can forget? This was a pivotal moment in American Government when all doubt was removed about the inmates running the asylum. Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas - highlighted several completly egregious pages of HB 3200.

Page 50/section 152:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally.

Page 58 and 59:
The government will have real-time access to an Individual's' bank account and will have the authority to make Electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

Page 65/section 164:
The plan will be subsidized (by the Government) for all union members, union retirees and for Community organizations (such as the Association Of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Remember when Obama granted waivers and allocated grants to Nebraska and Louisiana to get delegations from those States to vote for Obamacare? In otherwords a bribe, and a thinly disguished one at that. Since then Obama has direct that hundreds of wiavers be granted to special interest groups that write checks to the Democratic campgain coffers.

Page 203/line 14-15:
The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Yet, the Adminstration's lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that this is a tax!

Page 241 and 253:
Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all Doctors's fees.

Page 272. Section 1145:
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. At age 76 you are not eligible for cancer treatment.

Page 317 and 321:
The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

Page 425, line 4-12:
The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (This is the infamous "Death Counseling")

Page 429, line 13-25:
The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to Members of Congress. Members of Congress are already Exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded Private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
- Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas

Nope! No Need for Voter ID Laws in the U.S.

You can't have a debate with someone if you are debating one thing and they are debating something else. Such is the tactics of the Left when it comes to all things, but in particular, the Voter ID issue.

Reasonable people believe that since you have to have an ID to purchase medication, drive a car, write checks, buy a house and do thousands of other common things,...that mandating that people who vote in elections should be required to have a picture identification is a reasonable requirements and one that will help protect the voting process against fraud.  Especially since voter fraud continue to become a large problem in this country.  Reports of some counties with 10,767 votes for a Democrat in a county with a total population of 8,143 are rampant.

Reasonable people argue that an ID is practical and non-invasive. Democrats however argue that this is a racist mandate designed to keep the poor black, hispanic folk and people on welfare down and eliminate their voting rights.  And I thought you had to have a ID to cash welfare checks. Plus, who say's black and hispanic's are pre-diposed not to have ID? Many states are making a State ID very easy and cheap (if not free) to faciliate the integrity of the voting process.

Anyway, the video below highlights this issue.

Bumper Sticker of the Week

I don't think there is anyplace else in the world, more so than the U.S., where people use their cars to impart their beliefs, political or otherwise, onto the general public. This of course is accomplished through bumper stickers.

Sometimes it's very useful as a defensive driving such as when you see a car with a "Obama-Biden 2008" sticker, then you know to give it wide berth as the driver is probably an idiot,...one who will change lanes without a signal,...because they are clueless.

While I don't personally have bumper stickers on my vehicle, if I did it would have to be the bumper sticker of the week:

Obama May Be In Deep Trouble.....

....with Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court

An article by Anthony G. Martin - North St. Paul News

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the US Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . ..

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Nice! Get In Line For Your Obama Bucks!

A video by Alexandra Pelosi showing people lining up outside a New York welfare office to get their "Obama bucks". Listen to the brazen entitlement mindset of these oxygen thieves. This is an affliction common to the Democrat party.

Things That Make You Mad, April 11th Edition

Obama Blaming George Bush for the GSA Scandal

When I first heard this I laughed because it was so ludicrous. But it’s real,…the White House is trying to push blame onto the former Bush Administration for GSA Debacle which of course was the report/scandal that not only did GSA spend more than $800,000 on a lavish conference near Las Vegas, but administrators in the GSA put together a “rap video” making light of the fact that they (the GSA) defrauds the people and wastes taxpayer money.

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, livid over the waste and abuse is investigating. I’m confident the transgressors will be held accountable,….hopefully even criminal charges applied. But the real justice, for the real person responsible, has to be held off until November of this year. And that responsible party is the President. Shame on you Mr Obama for trying to blame your predecessor for yet another act or inaction on your part.


White House Wages War on Women, Obama Meets with Muslim Brotherhood

With the Liberals lying (image that) about the “Republican War of Women’, the real war on women exists when President Obama meets with representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood who treat and/or advocate treating women like cattle. And what the hell is Obama doing polluting the White House by even allowing scum buckets from a terrorist organization from entering into the National House?

Of course, the Obama administration is defending its meetings with members of Egypt 's Muslim Brotherhood, by spinning that this organization is a Islamist political party. The Administration says the U.S. is engaging with a variety of Egypt’s emerging political actors…….if so, why is there not anyone else representing Egypt’s other political entities?

White House Propaganda Secretary Jay Carney described the meetings as "low-level." What is “low” is the level that Obama has stooped in order to curry favor with Muslims. I guess he doesn’t understand they won’t be voting this November. Or will they?

Gotta Love the U.S. Marine Corps

Since the Liberals have been pissing me off all week, I thought I would return the favor,…..

Did Thomas Jefferson actually say this?: "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".

The Truth Versus the Spin on Job Growth

If you could stand it, you may have heard President Obama trying to justify a second term by saying the economy is looking better with a recent number of 230,000 jobs created. Some of the quotes from back and forth on-line comments shows that many people aren't fooled.

Ahhh,...those statistics and damned lies again......! I mean really, 230,000 jobs is a bubble? Hardly makes a dent in the 7,500,000 jobs lost!

You missed the point. The government isn't supposed to make up the jobs, the problem is that there are 7,500,000 fewer people helping to pay for 230,000 more government positions.

So at an average salary of $67,691 with say a 70% overhead (benefits, office space, equipment, etc - probably low), so about $115K per employee. 203,000 means 13,741,273,000 spread out among the 106,000,000 that have to pay for those employees means each of the remaining workers makes $129 less per year.

Now since taxes are spread really unevenly and 50% of the population doesn't pay any, it means those of us that do have to support yet larger government bureaucracies which generally provide nothing and make doing actual work harder.

Most Americans are insulated from the rest of the world, this whole anti government thing I see on this site really is a US phenomenon. Nobody likes their government, but no other nation hates government like the US!

Let's see - out of control spending, bad foreign policy, imperialism, manipulation of the worlds currency, ........not to mention job killing over regulation, and sky rocketing gas prices without any strategy to produce more domestic oil.........we have alot of like about the Government!

"The States can best govern our home concerns andn the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore,...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. President, letter to Judge WIlliam Johnson in 1823."

Current Status of the Republican Presidential Candidate

With 1144 delegates needed to lock up the Republican Nomination to run against Barack Obama this November, former Governor Mitt Romney has 658, former Senator Rick Santorum has 281, with Newt at 135 and Ron Paul at 51.

There have been approximately fourteen national polls, if you give polls any credence, since the beginning of March 2012,....from Gallup, CNN, McClatchy, Ramussen, Fox News, etc. Romney came out ahead in 13 of these polls by margins ranging from 4 to 13 points, while Santorum was tops in one poll by a margin of 4 percent.

Santorum's slight to moderate slide since Feb and Romney's upswing in the same time period, combined with the curent delegate count would lead one to believe that in the interests of getting ready for the bigger and far more importance contest with Brack Obama, that Santorum, as well as Gingrich and Paul would concede, suspending their campaigns for the greater good. Yet attacks on Romney continue, mostly from Santorum, this is NOT in the best interest of the Republican party nor this Country.

I get it that Santorum is the more conservative candidate. He is largely more experienced in foreign policy and is certainly more conservative on the family values and morals - which incidentally does not make him more so that Romney, it's just that these issues are more important to Santorum. In fact, this is also Santorum's weakness as the Liberals deceive and outright lie about Santorum's and the Republican's platform,...and example is Obama's speeches about the "Republican War on Women". How the President can lay down to sleep at night when he spent the day lying, is beyond me.

Up until about three weeks ago I was a Santorum supporter. No more. We have to unite as a party in order to unite as a Nation. So now I am not only comfortable supporting Mitt Romney, I am excited about our chances of wining the White House and not only bringing a screeching halt to the collective socialism and anti-constitutional direction of the Obama Administration, but moving forward as a conservative nation with personal freedoms and market based capitalism as the focal point to restore the promise of this Country and our status as the beacon to the world.

Obama on Obamacare and the Supreme Court - Arrogance, Intimidation or Ignorance?

In the aftermath of closing arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of Obamacare and perhaps with the sinking feeling that his signature legislation is going down the tubes, on Monday 2 April President Obama said "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

Nevermind the thinly veiled attempt to chastise (or threaten?) the Supreme Court,.......now you be the judge,....Obamacare passed in Congress by a 219-212 margin,...this is "a strong majority?"

This comment of Obama prompted critics to accuse the president of trying to intimindate and bully the nation's highest court. One of those critics was Judge Jerry Smith, out of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who with two other judges on Tuesday to ask the Justice Department to issue a three-page, single-spaced letter affirming the federal court's authority to rule on the case.

Which we think is appropriate since Obama's Justice Department serves more like an Obama support group than an independent entity enforcing the laws of this country indiscriminantly like they are supposed to. But, adding fuel to the fire, regarding Judge Smith's request, Attorney General Eric Holder went public, defending the President's attempt at intimindating the Supreme Court by stating that Obama's comments were "appropriate."

I think Rusk Limbaugh got it right when he said Obama's strategy is to inflame the uninformed masses, using the theme that the Supreme Court is "taking away your health care rights" in order to get these hand out, entitlist's engaged (and enraged) for the November election.

P.S. I was going to mention how Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was totally inept in defending President Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, during press conferences, but this butt clown needs no flogging,....he did it to himself with the comment that what the president said was "the reverse of intimidation."

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." - Ben Stein

Obama's Chevy Volt - Busted!!

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." ~ Plato

Cost to operate a Chevy Volt. Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money crew) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors. For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so they looked up what the cost is for electricity.

The cost is approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more that 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.

REALLY?

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." ~ Margaret Thatcher

Checkpoints - Constitutional or Not?

I am a Law and Order guy. Most people reading this site are Law and Order people. In fact, I love Law and Order the television series, ha ha. But one thing I have a problem accepting are law enforcement checkpoints. I have seen these checkpoints set up to stop motorists and ask to see driver's license, insurance and vehicle registration and truth be told these checkpoints net many drunk driver's which of course is in the public's best safety interest,...but is it in the best interests of Constitutional rights?.

I have been taught and I also believe that law enforcement has to have a reason to make a stop, temporary and non-invasive as it may be. The reason for a stop can be "reasonable suspicion" the lowest standard possible where an law enforcement officer believes that the person he is stopping is engaged in or has just completed a criminal act. The officer's beliefs must be based on articulate facts not just "mere suspicion".

"Probable Cause" is a reason for a stop when the officer has seen a crime or violation being committed. This is the reason you are stopped when speeding,...the officer using a Doppler or Lidar radar gun clocks you at over the posted speed limit - hence the probable cause that a violation is or has been committed. Same thing when your tail or brake lights are out,...proof or probable cause that a violation has been committed.

I just think that vehicle checkpoints are unconstitutional, before there is no reason that you are being stopped, except to go fishing for a violation or for someone who is hot on warrants. I beliefs been "over ruled" of course by the courts who think that for the public good, a short non-invasive stop is in the public's best interests,.....all while Mexican trucks come through the ports of entry as a safety hazard with driver's and vehicles who do not get the regulated training and standards over sight.

While the below video is a set up for law enforcement, but I cannot help but think the Officer is thinking "Give me your DL or ID, I want to run you and see if you come up hot for warrants."

A local lawyer told me that lawyers who argue the constitutionality of a vehicle checkpoint stop resulting in an arrest, more often than not, get the charge reduced or dismissed. Perhaps there are some Constitutional loving judges out there?

From YouTube: In the video below, Teacher Abbie Newman was arrested for not submitting to an unconstitutional, random checkpoint. Narration by Alex Jones. This is of course a planned setup on law enforcement.