The Bush Inheritance? - Get Real Barry!

Hat Tip to Mr. I

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(By the way: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

Lowlife BARRY OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress

since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, disgusting Democrats in Congress took control of spending. Barack Obama loved these big spending bills which were nothing compared to his catastrophe.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from vile Democrats like himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

RICK SANTORUM SCHOOLS INCOHERENT BOB SCHIEFFER

The Lamestream Media or Main Stream Media as they wish to be called when they take off their BROWN SHIRTS have spun more dribble on about Rick Santorum. Santorum points out facts about Barry Soetoro supporting and ideology that is based on lies. The ideology that Gore and Obama and the Brown Shirts try and shove down our throats is ludicrous. Many Senior Citizens are dying in Europe the past two years due to the cold weather. The Green Movement started by Commies is just a means to control the masses further while eliminating the Old and the Poor.

Inhumane Treatment of Elderly Patients on UK Healthcare INFO HERE


Below is a rush transcript of "Face the Nation" on February 19, 2012, hosted by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. Guest is Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, did you hear what Rick Santorum said. He's the man of the hour in Republican politics and he's with us this morning. The latest leader in the Republican race at the top of the national polls and even in Michigan where Mitt Romney grew up. Yesterday, he was feeling his oats. In one twenty-four-hour-period he questioned the President's religious beliefs.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but none-- no-- no less a theology.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Said prenatal testing is really just the President's way to reduce costs in taking care of the disabled.


RICK SANTORUM: Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And questioned the value of public schools.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools frankly much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic.


BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll ask him about all of it this morning, then check in with our round table of Norah O'Donnell and John Dickerson, plus Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press.


This is FACE THE NATION.


ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning. Welcome, Senator.


You are the leader in the polls this morning. And I have to say you were very busy yesterday. The Associated Press led its story of your appearance in Columbus, Ohio, by saying, quote, "Rick Santorum questioned Barack Obama's Christian values." That was after you lashed out at the President's proposal on energy of all things when you said this.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's not about you. It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs.


MAN: Right.


RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.


(Crowd applauding)


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, I've got to ask you. What-- what in the world were you talking about, Sir?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I was talking about the-- the radical environmentalists. That's why I was talking about energy, this-- this idea that-- that man is-- is not-- is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a-- a-- is a phony ideal. I don't believe that that's what-- that's what we're here to do. That-- we-- that-- that man is here to-- to use the resources and use them wisely, to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And-- and I think a lot of radical-- a-- a-- a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside down.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, how does that translate into some sort of theology that the President's theology--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Well, it's-- it's a world view.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --is not based on the Bible. I mean that suggests that he's not a Christian.


RICK SANTORUM: No, I wasn't suggesting that President's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the President is a Christian. I-- I just said that when you have a-- a-- a world view that-- that elevates the Earth above man and-- and-- and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by-- by things that are-- that-- that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, that politicization of the whole global warming debate, I mean, this is just all-- all-- all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government. And-- and it's not questioning the President's beliefs in-- in Christianity. I'm talking about, you know, his-- the-- the belief that-- that man is-- should be in charge of the earth and should have--


BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): No, but once--


RICK SANTORUM: --dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I don't want to just spend the whole program on this, but was your--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Good.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --use of the word theology, perhaps, you could have had a better word than that? I mean, don't you know that-- that--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): It--


BOB SCHIEFFER: --or do you wonder that-- that might lead some people to suggest that you were questioning the President's faith?


RICK SANTORUM: Well-- no, because I've repeatedly said I don't question the President's faith. I've-- I've repeatedly said that I believe the President is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. But I'm talking about his world view or his-- the-- the way he approaches problems in this country and I think they're-- they're different than how most people do in America.


BOB SCHIEFFER: At another stop in Columbus, you took on the Pres-- President on prenatal care for expectant mothers. Here's what you said at this-- in this passage.


RICK SANTORUM: One of the things that you don't know about Obamacare and one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America. Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I-- I have to ask you to-- to give some explanation of that. You sound like you're saying that the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to-- to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country. I think there are any number testing, I think any number of people would-- would say that's not the purpose at all.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, Bob, that's simply not true. The-- the bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in-- in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions and in fact, prenatal testing that-- that particularly amniocentesis. I'm not talking about general prenatal care. You said prenatal care. I-- I didn't say prenatal care shouldn't be covered. We're talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a-- which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. In-- in which in many cases and in fact most cases a physicians recommend, particularly if there's a problem, recommend abortion. We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I-- I know you know what you're talking about. I know that well. I know you also had another child that was stillborn. But--


RICK SANTORUM (overlapping): And I was--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Didn't you want to know about that, just a minute.


(Cross talking)


BOB SCHIEFFER: Just hold on.


RICK SANTORUM: But what my-- my child was not stillborn. My child was born alive.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: --and he lived two hours.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: And by the way, prenatal testing was-- we had a-- we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, you know, you-- you should consider an abortion. This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on and in-- in medical rooms around the country. And yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions. That is-- that is a fact.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I stand corrected on the stillborn. You're absolutely right. I simply misspoke. But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?


RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You're not saying. Let me just ask you, you're not saying that the cause of this, that the President looks down on disabled people, are you? You're not accusing him of that?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, the President supported partial birth abortion and partial birth abortion is a procedure used almost exclusively to-- to kill children late in pregnancy when they've been found out to be disabled. The President voted for a provision that-- that said that children born alive as a result of abortions late in pregnancy who were-- who were otherwise viable should be allowed to be killed by the doctor. I think the President has a very bad record on-- on-- on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb. And I think this simply is a continuation of that idea.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, since you brought all this up, I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a clear understanding of exactly what you meant--


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And-- and how you feel about this. Another thing that raised a few eyebrows yesterday, Senator, you questioned the value of all things at the public school system. Now here's what you said about that.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly, much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home school or have the little neighborhood school and into these big factories. So we built equal factories called public schools.


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, there you are, Senator. I mean, are you saying that we shouldn't have public schools now? I mean I thought public schools were the foundation of American democracy.


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah, I think, I'm saying that-- that local communities and-- and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education, not the-- certainly not the federal government and to as I said before, as I said in that clip I think the state governments have not done a particularly good job in public education. I think public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run, that works with parents to provide the optimal opportunity for each child in America to get the education that they need, not what the federal government or the state government says that you should have. That's why I refer to it as, you know, going back to the industrialization of America when we had a-- we had a system in-- in this country with industrialization where, you know, you had one car produced. And, you know, you maybe got it in two colors. And-- and we haven't changed public education significantly since then. Every single car on a Detroit line is custom ordered. Why? Because it's designed to meet the needs of the customer. The education system, federally run, state run, is not designed to meet the-- meet the needs of the customer. It's designed for the purposes of the school not the children and the parents who are the customers of that system. And I think we need a dramatic change in that system.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Senator, if everybody could afford to home school their children that would be one thing but--


RICK SANTORUM: I'm not talking about home schooling. I'm talking about public education, Bob.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, there are little communities where the people couldn't afford to have a public school. And that's why you have states involved in the schools. And there-- there--


RICK SANTORUM: Well, there's one thing the state-- there's one thing for states to-- to help fund public education. It's another thing to dictate and micromanage and-- and create a "one size fits all education" system in states and certainly in the federal government what President Obama is trying to do. What we need is to have the same kind of change and dynamic change in the public school system as we've seen in the economy of this country. Customized. Everybody gets what they need. I have seven children. I can tell you each one of them learn differently. All of them can excel in different settings. And that goes with every-- every American child. And we can do better than a system that one in three children drop out of school. If that is the hallmark, Bob, that you talk about as a-- as a great society, when one of three children drop out of school and a lot of the folks who don't drop out of school still can't read at grade level, that to me is a failure and defending that failure is not something I'm planning on doing which is what the President does.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what-- what do you do to-- what would you do to fix it, Senator?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, as I said before, first I'd get the federal government out. I would, to the extent possible with res-- with respect to mandates and-- and designing curriculum and the like, I would get the state government out. I think that-- that the parents should be in charge working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential. And whether it's in a public school or a private school or a Christian school or whatever kind of-- and whatever kind of setting that is best that the people at the local level can determine, I think that's where we need to go in education. It's got to be a much more dynamic process. We are failing American children. We're failing our society with having these high rates of dropouts and the people graduating without the skills or frankly without the value structure that's necessary to be able to go out and work hard and to be able to-- to produce in our society and to build strong communities. And I think we need some really dramatic changes. And we're not getting that.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I want to thank you very much for being with us this morning. I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I'm-- I'm happy to make news about-- about important issues of the day that obviously don't get talked about a lot.

STIMULUS CHECK

Sometime this year, we taxpayers will again may receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment.

This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:


Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment?

A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.


Q.. Where will the government get this money?

A. From taxpayers.


Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?

A. Only a smidgen of it.


Q. What is the purpose of this payment?

A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.


Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?

A. Shut up.


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

* If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.

* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.

* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India, Taiwan or China .

* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.

* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.

* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.

* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.


Instead, keep the money in America by:


1) Spending it at yard sales, or

2) Going to ball games, or

3) Spending it on prostitutes, or

4) Beer or

5) Tattoos.


(These are the only American businesses still operating in the U.S.)

Conclusion:

Go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day!

No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help


Hat Tip to George Giftos writer of Faulty Material

Faulty Material

President Obama decided to cease operations in Iraq by the end
of the year even though our mission has not been completed there.
He added, "it will enable us to build up our country again", not
acknowledging his responsibility for having torn it down in the first
place, by his inept policies for which he blames others for.

Negative statistics have increased significantly since his tenure,
and positive progress has become stagnant or diminishing under
his administration's Chicago style political guidance; not Iraq,
not Afghanistan, not Bush!

Another four years of him will get us to a point of no return and
a hole we will never be able to dig ourselves out of.

Idiots voted him into office, and you know the old saying,
"Birds of a Feather Flock Together," because they understand
him and he speaks their language.

From the beginning his plan for our country has always been to
tear America down so that he can rebuild it with his own ideological
lumber and bricks; but it turns out the material and construction
methods he wants to incorporate are inferior and unreliable.

Europe's socialist nations, primarily Greece, are structured with the
same philosophical material and they are crumbling under economic
stress. We borrowed the theme of democracy from Greece. Let us not
borrow its destructive ways.

By abandoning Iraq now, we will be leaving an ember waiting to ignite
into a much larger problem to cope with in the future.

Conservative Commentary by George Giftos

Democrat Party Crushes America

January 3, 2007---Time for a reminder.

Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.


The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress

since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

Democrats Brought About the Financial Crisis

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for
and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Hat Tip to George Giftos

Soetoro and Holder Attack Legal Americans

Saul Alinski dedicated his "Rules for radical" book to Lucifer. So we should not be surprised at how Soetor0 and Coward Holder attack real Americans. They do support Traitors (Traitor Hassan), Terrorists, Hate Groups, ACORN and Black Panthers. The Liberals and so-called Moderates who put them in office are as guilty as they are. There was plenty of evidence this was the most Radical Left Wing candidate in the History of America, yet these Liberals and self-loathing Whites were too lazy to read about B. Hussein or just did not care. We will live with the results for years to come and 47% say they will re-elect him?



Obama DOJ Sues “Vocal and Aggressive” Pro Lifer

While Obama’s Justice Department dismissed a critical voter intimidation case against a radical black revolutionary group, it’s going after a pro life advocate the agency calls one of “the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protestors.”

Ironically, the administration claims that the pro life advocate, a Maryland man named Richard Retta, intimidated and interfered with women seeking abortions in Washington D.C.-area clinics much like members of the New Black Panther Party did to white voters during the 2008 presidential election. The difference is that the Black Panthers, clad in military attire, used weapons, racial insults and profanity to deter voters.

Judicial Watch obtained records that show political appointees at the DOJ ordered the Black Panther case dismissed after the administration colluded with leftwing groups. JW’s investigation also revealed that the official Obama appointed to head the DOJ’s civil rights division, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, lied under oath to cover up the Black Panther voter intimidation scandal.
Now Perez is pursuing a pro lifer for violating a Clinton-era law (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) that prohibits any sort of interference with a woman seeking an abortion. Retta physically obstructed a patient and volunteer escorts attempting to enter the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, according to a DOJ complaint filed a few days ago. He also “frequently walks very closely beside patients as they walk to the clinic” and he follows them into the street and oncoming traffic. Sometimes he yells at them, the feds claim.

In announcing the lawsuit, Perez vowed to pursue similar cases, saying that “individuals who seek to obtain or provide reproductive health services have the right to do so without encountering hazardous physical obstructions.” If one unarmed guy is considered such a threat, then a barrier of big, muscular, armed men intimidating voters during a presidential election certainly merits attention from the agency charged with enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. Yet that case got dismissed.

The Demise of One Time Icons

It is quite troubling for me to understand why so many editorial
boards of leading newspapers and other journalist media outlets follow the
liberal line. It's a dangerous road to take because through history, I have
learned their influence sways disgruntled masses into mobs giving rise
to totalitarian governments that take advantage of the turmoil to make
changes detrimental to our freedoms. Using the first amendment irresponsibly
will lose it for all of us.

It doesn't take long for the press to lose independence and become a tool
of government. Maybe a few proponents of drastic liberalism might retain
their positions because they tow the line of state run media. Patsies for
tyrants.

We know who the very liberal main stream media and publications patsies
are in this country, because their views are one sided biased commentaries
that won't allow fair and balanced disagreement. I tried many times to have
my letters to the editor accepted for publication, including this one, to no avail.

My right to express freedom of speech is unacceptable, because it is contrary to
what they preach; therefore I am denied access to contrast my views against
theirs so that their readers and listeners can have a broader opinion view to
judge for themselves. An occasional conservative commentary is sometimes thrown
in to obviously quell criticism.

Publishers and producers do not realize the implication this one sided,
liberal left position can take for their very existence. They are
shooting themselves in the foot. As it is, dwindling circulations
and audiences are taking their toll on these left of center vehicles.

In a similar state is the mainstream broadcasters, CNN and MSNBC. Combined,
they do not enjoy the audience Fox News commands. What do some of these names
have in common? Leslie Marshall, Steve Murphy, Mo Elliethee, Doug Schoen, Lanny
Davis, Alan Colmes, Kristen Powers. Bob Beckel, Michael Brown, Penny Lee, Charlie
Rangel, Al Sharpton and Tamara Holder. They are just a small list of Liberal
Democrats that have appeared on Fox to defend their position. Also employed
by Fox are Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera and Greta Van Susteren. The full
list would be impossible to fit in these pages. No member of congress is
denied access to Fox and many have taken advantage of it.

Some members of congress are fighting to pass a fairness act;
George Soros and a tax exempt organization Media Matters, funded
by him and the broadcasters mentioned above all want to destroy
Fox News for broadcasting what they choose to ignore because it
is contrary to their agendas and exposes the flaws of the
current administration.

Conservative Commentary by George Giftos

Progressives War on Food?

We have another repose from Chuck On The Right Side to the Left Wing Marxist so-called Main Stream Media. We have the Food NAZI Michelle Nobama out there attacking Chubby Kids. The Food Nazi even did a semi-Alec Baldwin and attacked her Daughters. The wannabe Alec Baldwin, Food Nazi Michelle told millions of People that her daughters were chubby. Those poor kids! They have a Father who subjects them to people like Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, rashid khalidi and is destroying their Country. Then they have a Mom who calls them overweight for all to hear.

Well the Left Wing Marxist cannot make up their minds, as they say this week the 15 Million kids have no food?


Dear Rachel Patron:

Isn't it amazing that your column entitled, "Can America sacrifice 15 million hungry kids", can come up with the figure that there are 15 million hungry kids in America? Where did you get this "assumed" figure, from one of the "loony liberal" left websites? Could it not have been 5, 10, 20, or 25 million, or for that matter 100? Who determined that figure of "assumed" hungry children, some Saul Alinsky acolyte trying to put America in a bad light? C'mon Rachel, you should know better than that. Most people are not that gullible or stupid enough to believe that crap.

With all the government help that's available to people and poor people in particular, it is almost impossible to have starving (hungry) children in our midst. We all have been hungry at one time or another in our lives, but to imply that we have a vast army of hungry children is preposterous. Have you seen the size and girth of the children in poor neighborhoods lately? They don't have an under nourishment problem, they have an obesity problem. Many of those "hungry" children come from families that have cars, LCD T.V.'s, cell phones, $150 Nike sneakers, and tattoos to go along with their "empty bellies". I know I'll be classified as being heartless and callous by pooh-poohing your claims of sacrificing hungry children by society, and by politicians who are only looking out to balance the damn budget as these millions of children starve. Hogwash! I will not succumb to the "political correctness" norms put forth by the liberals and neither should you.

Your liberal (or is it Progressive?) slant on this matter is typical of the continuous liberal attack on Republicans, Conservatives, and common sense. The canard that only liberals have the sensitivity and compassion to understand the plight of the poor is downright insulting. It has been your policies starting back in FDR's time and the start of LBJ's "War on Poverty" that has added to our social problems by making more and more people dependent on the government for handouts. Your rant in this column is just that - another anti-American bashing with no basis in fact except some pulled out of the air erroneous figures to justify a non-existent problem.

Is this the kind of rhetoric we can expect from the liberals in this upcoming election season? Already the "class warfare" banner has been unfurled by the Democrats as they can't possibly run on their dismal economic record and failed foreign policy. Make as many of the people dependent on the government to gain their votes, and make the successful (the rich) their oppressors, will be the modus operandi of these self-styled hypocrites called Democrats. I predict that this tactic will fail and we will have a change in leadership for the better in 2012.

Sincerely,

Chuck On The Right Side

Listening To Progressives Is Torture

Dear Professor Robert Watson:

I guess you couldn't resist bringing in the Bush Administration when you were describing the horrible conditions at Andersonville prison during the Civil War (S/S June 19, 2011).

How can you equate the "shocking" revelations about the so-called enhanced "torture" at Guantanomo with what went on at Andersonville? The military detention center at Guantanomo is an example of our commitment to being humane to our enemies, and should not be used as a political hammer against your political adversaries (the Republicans and Conservatives). The military prison (detention center) at Guantanomo is the epitome of how a prison should combine punishment (detention) and at the same time being humane. You, supposedly being an objective historian (who heads up a liberal progressive group called, "Think, Act, and Lead"), should not try to compare apples and oranges as you did with Guantanomo and Andersonville.

You never mention that your buddy (Obama) has continued these supposed un-American detention policies, but you always equate them with the Bush Administration. Your bias is blatant and overt, especially troubling for an objective professor of American Studies at Lynn University (or so you claim to be).

As an aside, you liberals (progressives) use the word torture as something that we, as a country, do on a regular basis. To me, torture is cutting off fingers, arms, legs, ears and tongues, putting electrical wires on genitals, lashing people with whips, stoning political opponents etc., etc., as opposed to our enhanced techniques of waterboarding (no one has died or had permanent injuries as a result of this procedure), sleep deprivation and other psychological methods. Granted, these are not pleasant techniques, but do they rise to the level of what should be called torture? I guess if a Republican does it it is torture, but if a Democrat does it it is not torture. The hypocrisy of the left (of which you are an "esteemed" member) is on display almost daily in the biased media. Shame on you and your other fellow travelers.

Sincerely,

Chuck On The Right Side