Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Stop Liberal Lies! The Tea Party Is Not Racist!

I am outraged at the biased coverage of Tea Party events. The racist accusations against the Tea Party movement are false and do not portray the truth about a movement which is waking up Americans to the principles that founded this great nation.The fringe Media and Nazi Democrats are afraid of the truth. The Liberals policies do not work!
In response to the fringe media who are trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement as racist, I feel that it is imperative that the truth be presented by one who’s been there.
The article below is from a great American who attends Tea Party events and he happens to be African American.

It's the Media, Stupid!

By Lloyd Marcus
After being interviewed as a guest on two radio programs back-to-back, I was angry and frustrated. I had to endure radio talk show hosts and callers who have never attended a tea party tell me how racist the rallies are. Not only will this false accusation of racism not go away, it appears to be growing stronger.

Angry callers said they saw racist signs on TV and shared stories from black friends who claimed to have experienced racism at tea parties. I told one caller, "Ma'am, with all due respect, your friend is a liar." I am a black man who has attended well over two hundred tea parties across America traveling on three Tea Party Express tours. I know the tone of the rallies and the types of people who attend them.

The tea party attendees are moms, dads, kids, grandparents, and yes, mostly white, but they are not racist. Many even voted for Obama. They are decent, hardworking Americans who love their country and do not want it "transformed" into Europe. For the gazillionth time, I will state this truth: The tea parties are not about race!

So how has the "tea parties are racist" lie become so solidly branded into the minds of many? Then, it hit me: "It's the media, stupid." Last year I appeared on CNN fielding accusations that the tea parties are racist gatherings. During my interview, CNN showed the same sign of Obama as a witch doctor several times. Meanwhile, 99.9% of the signs on display at the rallies expressed opposition to Obama's policies only.

The liberal mainstream media attempts to put and keep us tea party patriots on the defensive. They scream, "You should denounce those people carrying racist signs!" Well, who died and made the "agenda-driven" liberal mainstream media the final authority on what is racist? According to them, anything short of fawning approval of Obama is racist.

The liberal mainstream media's hypocrisy is stunning. While chiding us to denounce questionable racist signs, they clearly favor and hide real hatred and violence coming from the left. A few years ago, after performing at a troop support rally in Washington, D.C., I walked a few blocks away to witness a so-called "peace" rally by the left. At least 1,200 peace protesters marched down the street chanting, "F--- George Bush, F--- George Bush!" Their signs spewed hatred for Bush, our troops, and America. And yet, not one sign or any footage of the "peace rally" was featured in the liberal mainstream media.

More recently, signs at Arizona Immigration Law protest rallies which threatened to "shoot more police" and other hate-filled anti-America messages are ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

As I stated, I know the caliber of the patriots who attend the tea parties. If anyone displayed a truly racist sign or made a racist comment, that person would be verbally attacked by the crowd.

This is why I know the black Democrat senators who said they were called the "n" word while walking through a crowd of tea partiers were lying. Not to mention the fact that if the incident really happened, the video would be viral on YouTube.

Here are a few of my personal tea party experiences. Keep in mind I have performed at well over two hundred tea parties across America.

Before singing my "American Tea Party Anthem," I say, "Hello, my fellow patriots! I am not an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" The crowds go wild. Many tearfully thank me. They say hyphenating divides us. Would racists make such a statement?

I've seen numerous signs in the crowds which read "Lloyd Marcus for President." Why didn't CNN show any of those signs on TV during my interview?

At a tea party in Texas, a white cowboy approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies. The proud new dad said he and his wife, who was also white, asked God to give them babies who needed their love. They felt blessed to adopt two babies from Africa. Could this couple be classified as redneck racists protesting Obama because he is black?

An incident happened at a tea party in Traverse City, Michigan which ripped my heart out. A white woman in a wheelchair saw me approaching. She yelled, "Oh my gosh, it is Lloyd Marcus. I listen to your music. I read your columns. I love you. May I have a picture with you?"

The woman's adult daughter confided to one of our staff members, "My mom is dying. She said all she wanted to do is meet Lloyd Marcus." Wow! Now, do you understand why I am so outraged when the liberal mainstream media and ill-informed radio talk show callers attempt to portray the tea party folks as a bunch of racists?

On numerous occasions, I have been approached at tea parties by patriots who have emotionally thanked me for my participation in the movement. Because we share values and principles, they call me "brother."

The "racist" accusation is an evil lie designed to control and shut up decent people who simply disagree with our president's agenda. White racist skinheads do not care if you call them racist. They probably wear it as a badge of honor. But the decent white folks who attend the tea parties are devastated by such charges.

Partners with the liberal mainstream media spreading the lie about the tea parties are Hollywood and the liberal Democrats.

Here is a shameful misrepresentation of the tea party patriots by NAACP President Ben Jealous: "A group of White males wealthier than their peers called the Tea Party has risen up in the land. They say that they want to take the country back. And take it back they surely will. They will take it back to 1963 if we let them."

Folks, ask yourself this: Would white people who one year ago voted in record numbers for a black man to lead our country suddenly have a desire to "take America back to 1963"? Ridiculous. Jealous's comments are hate-inspiring, manipulative, and evil.

As long as God gives me strength, I will keep shouting from the rooftops, "the Tea Party Movement is not racist!" God bless.

- Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American!

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 27, 2010

How Obama got into Harvard

Living in South Florida there are more and more Liberals moving down here. They spout off how brilliant Barry Soetoro is. Brilliant at Marxism maybe. However read the article below and hear how Barry is still a fraud. His wife, Michelle always comes across as an arrogant person. It is her way of fronting, as she is not as great as she tells us she is. Her big fetish with weight is due to her own personal weight problems. Yet she attacks her own daughters and slams them for weight issues. Give the kids a break, they are not that overweight. Though this takes away the questions of Michelle's problems or so she thinks.
To top it all off, Barry was only voted in because of Political Correctness!

This portion below is by Jack Cashill.
Two years ago I inadvertently began my exploration of the authorship of Barack Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father," with an inquiry into how Obama got into Harvard Law School in 1988.

In the summer of 2008, I was tipped to a story that the media were scrupulously ignoring. It involved the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton.

A Manhattan borough president for 12 years and a credible candidate for mayor of New York City in 1977, Sutton had appeared in late March 2008 on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall."

When asked about Obama by the show's host, Dominic Carter, the octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been "introduced to [Obama] by a friend."

The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama] ... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that a crazed anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally bonkers Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama's career perhaps for the last 20 years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.

The definitive documentary on the red-hot eligibility story: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"

The books that might have shed some light on this incident have not done so. John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's comprehensive look at the 2008 campaign, "Game Change," does not so much as mention Percy Sutton.

Nor does David Remnick. His new book, "The Bridge," stands as the authoritative book on Obama's "life and rise," but he only inadvertently addresses the question of how Obama got into Harvard Law.

The reader learns from Remnick that Obama was an "unspectacular" student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school.

A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, "I don't think [Obama] did too well in college." As to Obama's LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa's body will be unearthed before those are.

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants' LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.8 and 4.0 is a subject Remnick avoids in the section of his book dealing with Obama's admission.

In his 2007 book, "Obama: From Promise to Power," David Mendell is likewise silent on the mystery admission. This surprises because Mendell, a Chicago Tribune reporter who saw more of Obama than Michelle often did, writes objectively and intimately about Obama's ascendancy.

Mendell traces Obama's sudden itch to become a lawyer to the model of the recently deceased Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, but Washington went to Northwestern's very respectable law school in Evanston, Ill.

The thought doesn't cross Obama's mind. In "Dreams," he limits his choices to "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." Writes Mendell as casually as if the honor were deserved, "Obama would soon be accepted at the most prestigious law school in the nation."

Whether or not Sutton helped Obama get into Harvard, Michelle Obama's experience suggests that he could have gotten in without that help.

"Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren't good enough for an Ivy League school," writes Christopher Andersen in "Barack and Michelle," "Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway."

Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, "Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well."

She did not write well, either. Au contraire. One of my correspondents, a college drop-out, found Michelle's senior thesis at Princeton online and concluded, "I could have written it in sophomore English class." Mundy charitably describes it as "dense and turgid."

The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observes, "To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be 'read' at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language."

Hitchens exaggerates only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:

The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Harvard Law. One almost feels sorry for her. She was in so far over her head that the anxiety had to have been corrosive.

Obama was sufficiently self-deluding – some would say narcissistic – that he felt little of that anxiety. Later in his book, Remnick lets slip into the record a revealing letter Obama had written while president of the Harvard Law Review:

I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

Bottom line: Had Obama's father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O'Hara not Obama, there would have been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia. Barry O'Hara would probably be chasing ambulances in Honolulu and setting his political sights on the Honolulu City Council.

Written by Jack Cashill
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

Submitted by Conservative Chuck of Chuck On The Right Side.

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

It is amazing how many times George W. Bush was called a Racist for warning America of current threats. As he warned that 2 of the biggest threats to America should be faced with. One threat being TERRORISTS and the other being the Fannie Freddie sub-prime Mortgage problem. If you are a Nazi Left Winger than these are reasons to call someone a Racist. If they criticise a Minority type person who walked off with Millions of Dollars and left America reeling from his disastrous reign. That being former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines.
Back to reality and what are two of the largest problems for the USA today (other than Barry Soetoro and Thugs)? Radical Islamic Terrorists and the housing crash!

Hat Tip to Neil

Bookmark and Share

Friday, June 25, 2010

"TOTUS" Soetoro Continues To Trash Our Troops

McChrystal's aides are quoted as saying that he was less than impressed by Obama from the start. The general is described as believing the president looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" among senior military officers. Obama has continued to trash our Warriors even before he was elected TOTUS (TelePrompter of the United States). Did the Fringe Nazi Media forget all of that?
McChrystal was also "disappointed" that the president "didn't know anything about him" during their early meetings. Barry Soetero has for years spouted about what our Military should do. This coming from a Community Organizer, ACORN Leader. Let's ask the question again today. What did 52% of America do to us? Blood on your hands, to all those who campaigned for Barry.
Please read further for a great article by Jeannie DeAngelis.

McChrystal's sacrifice?

BY Jeannie DeAngelis
Over the past few days it's been difficult to understand how a soldier and man of honor like Army General Stanley McChrystal could let his guard down in the presence of left wing Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings. McChrystal is a trained officer, disciplined to abide by a code of honor that does not include sloppy disregard or behavioral lapses that destroy lifetime accomplishments or topple generals from the pinnacle of military careers.

One of the big questions people are asking today about Rolling Stone's stunning story about General Stanley McChrystal is this: How could he have said all that to a reporter? Rolling Stone maintains absolutely that all comments were on the record. So honestly: What was he thinking?

It's difficult to believe a man who proudly served for 34 years in the military would recklessly chance being disgraced and dismissed by a President he secretly disrespects. How could a decorated General allow himself to be humiliated before the nation he loves and serves? Unless McChrystal's supposed blunder was actually a planned tactical maneuver.

Viewed by most as poor judgment, many remain puzzled. Confusion abounds because it's "mysterious why McChrystal chose to cozy up to a magazine that strove to maintain a countercultural DNA and hard-hitting reputation. Some suggest it may be a reflection of [McChrystal's] boomer status and respect for an old brand. Others remain baffled."

General Stanley McChrystal is weighed down with decorations, commendations, and military achievements including being credited with hunting down and killing the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Yet the courageous General was summoned from Afghanistan by a man-child playing Commander-in-Chief, like a naughty juvenile, for a face-to-face talking to. Is the nation supposed to believe a 4-star general who's been called Obama's "true warrior" is nothing more than a loose-lipped frat boy?

Don't buy it.

Could it be that as a military general McChrystal sees Obama as a peril to America's freedom and security? Though appearing disgraced, in truth, being dispatched by a vindictive, oversensitive Obama may have handed McChrystal a decisive victory in an important strategic battle. By allowing the enemy into the camp, the General may have shrewdly used Michael Hastings as a courier to send a message heard round the world.

Army General McChrystal may have willingly forfeited his stellar military career to alert America they are being led by a disappointing imposter who, in the midst of a war, isn't all that concerned or "engaged" in anything but position, power and prestige.

If Stanley McChrystal's statements to Rolling Stone magazine were preplanned, the disapproving comments about the President made by the General and his aides may have been a premeditated vehicle used to confirm for the uncertain what a feeble, thin-skinned man Barack Obama is.

Even the left-wing media recognizes "the way Obama fired McChrystal was choreographed to humiliate the general and bolster the President's credentials as a macho man. So much for ‘no drama Obama.' The manner of the firing came dangerously close to putting political theatre and image-burnishing above the conduct of a war."

Mortified, dishonored, ruined? I think not. General McChrystal may no longer be commanding the troops in Afghanistan, but his act of valor may very well have won the war here at home. Army General Stanley McChrystal may have taken a bullet, but crawling through the trenches on his belly the wounded patriot managed to set off a warning flare alerting America it is presently under presidential siege.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Useful Idiots Elect The Worst POTUS Ever!

Below is an article from one of the great Conservative Writers of our time, THOMAS SOWELL. He knows what ails our Country. I have said it one hundred times. Soetoro's rise to fame is very much like Hitler. The comparisons are eerie. This is why I can not figure out how 52% of the people could be so wrong. All they had to do was listen to Barry's own words or try and read some of his book were he babbles on how he "reads minds" and everyone White is out to get him, and on and on. After reading the article below you will picture how 52% of America are "useful idiots"!

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Bookmark and Share

Jon Voight's Open Letter to Barry

This is what America needs! Jon Voight is a real Patriotic Conservative American. We MUST SAY NO to the Low Life Tom Hanks and despicable Rosie O'Donnell types.

An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

June 22, 2010

President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Soetoro's Group ACORN, Takes Millions of Tax Dollars!

We have some more disturbing reports regarding Barry Soetoro's group ACORN. When will the rest of Americans (other than Conservatives) realize this guy and his Thug gangs are a bunch of crooks. Most of us are busy trying to make a living and these punks sit around, smoking their dope, rigging elections, committing crime after crime, and getting funding from USA tax dollars. RACE BAITERS ACORN, the SEIU Thugs and people pushing Global Warming Fraud, have to be stopped and de-funded NOW!
Let's not forget Barry's threats, of his Civilian National Security FORCE!

‘ACORN Youth Union’ Chapters Were Funded by Justice Department, Says GAO

By Terence P. Jeffrey

( - The U.S. Justice Department gave a group called the New York Agency for Community Affairs a grant of $135,130 in fiscal year 2005 to “provide youth leadership training to students at select New York City schools, form ‘ACORN Youth Union’ chapters, and coordinate student campaigns to address issues such as school funding, neighborhood safety, and school governance,” according to a Government Accountability Office report released this week.

The GAO report says that in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 the federal government gave ACORN and what the GAO calls “potentially related organizations” more than $40 million in federal funds.

According to the report, eight other agencies joined the Justice Department in providing federal funding to ACORN and “potentially related organizations.” These included the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Treasury Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), NeighborWorks, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

“Nine agencies—HUD, DHS, DOJ, EAC, NeighorWorks, CPB, EPA, Treasury, and NEA—have identified approximately $37.5 million in direct federal grants and at least $2.9 million in subawards (i.e. grants and contracts awarded by federal grantees) to ACORN or potentially related organizations, primarily for housing-related purposes during fiscal years 2005 through 2009,” says the report.

The GAO explains that for purposes of the report it asked 31 federal agencies that it queried about potential funding of ACORN and related organizations to use a list of organizations created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). “To enable the 31 agencies, for the purposes of this report, to determine whether they had provided funding to ACORN or any potentially related organizations, we suggested that they search their grant and procurement databases using the organizations identified by CRS as potentially having a relationship with ACORN,” said the report. “We selected the CRS list in part because counsel for ACORN identified the majority of organizations on the list as having some sort of relationship to ACORN.”

The Justice Department grant to the New York Agency for Community Affairs was initially reported by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General when it issued a report last November on Justice Department grants to ACORN and ACORN-affiliated organizations.
The IG report said the grant in question was the result of a congressional earmark, and specifically mentioned that one purpose was to form “ACORN Youth Union” chapters.

“In addition, we identified one direct grant of DOJ funds to an ACORN affiliate, the New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc. (NYACA),” said the IG report. “We considered NYACA to be an affiliate of ACORN because it acted as a fiscal agent for ACORN, engaged in substantial financial transactions with ACORN, and DOJ grant documentation showed that ACORN was a major partner in the grant program being funded. In FY 2005, NYACA received a grant of $138,130 resulting from a congressional earmark. The purposes of the grant to NYACA were to provide youth leadership training to students at select New York City schools; form “ACORN Youth Union” chapters; and coordinate student campaigns to address issues such as school funding, neighborhood safety, and school governance.”

The grant was given out by the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The application for the grant, according to the IG report, said the applicant intended to use the federal money in "building a base of trained student leaders."

“The NYACA’s program title identified in the grant award document was ‘ACORN Youth Organizing,’” said the IG report. “The award period for the grant was from September 1, 2005, to August 31, 2006. The grant program narrative submitted with the application described the program’s goals as: (1) building a base of trained student leaders, (2) winning specific improvements and policy changes, and (3) increasing post-high school opportunities for young people. According to the budget detail submitted with the application, the award funds were to be used entirely for personnel and benefits for the following positions: (1) a part-time Executive Director, (2) a part-time Brooklyn Schools Organizer, (3) a part-time Brooklyn Lead Organizer, and (4) two full-time Youth Organizers. According to OJP, NYACA received all the grant funds with the last draw-down in September 2006.”

Congress included language in its fiscal 2010 spending bills that block funding for ACORN. "Congress passed povisions restricting the funding of ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations in the fiscal year 2010 continuing resolutions, which were followed by several fiscal 2010 appropriations acts that prohibited any appropriated funds from being awarded to various ACORN or ACORN-related organizations," said the GAO.

Bookmark and Share

Global Warming Lies!

We have more news on the Global Warming Fraud. Mostly blowhards like Barry Soetoro and so-called Scientists who took a few to many hits form their pipes, spew their lies. These Liberals think that they are so powerful that everything they do can affect the World. Then you just have the dirty, low down people like Al Gore who use Global Warming lies to fill his pockets with Millions of Dollars. I have to say again, that Barry Soetoro was spewing these Global Warming lies during his campaign. These Liberal DEMs should be wearing Orange jumpsuits!

'Academic embarrassment': Prof. Jon Krosnick Exposed for 'faulty' climate polls

Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Stanford University's Jon Krosnick ( - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) has either been distorting climate polling to suit his ideological position for years or he is an utterly incompetent pollster. The solid bet is on the former.

Professor Krosnick's polling results are so woeful that both Pew Research Center Survey and Gallup polling recently took the time to harshly reprimand him for his shoddy work.

See: Warming propagandist Prof. Krosnick exposed: Pew research 'says that Krosnick's survey is marred by faulty methodology. ...used words that encourged a positive response'

Polling propaganda Prof. Krosnick slapped down by Gallup Polling! Recent polling 'shows demonstrable drops in Americans' acknowledgment of and concern about global warming')

Krosnick has been skewing polling results on global warming for years and has been getting caught every time.

See: Flashback 2008: Krosnick's long history of climate propaganda: 'Krosnick invents a consensus position: climate change is occurring. But this is a meaningless assertion, devoid of any scientific value the public can expect psychologists to be engaged in brainwashing them into accepting political propaganda' -- 'Krosnick conducted a poll amongst the public, to see if their beliefs match those of the scientists, but neglected to poll scientists to establish their views'

The latest Krosnick academic embarrassment started with his June 8, 2010 oped in the New York Times. (See: Huh? Stanford U. Prof. Krosnick: 'Huge majorities of Americans still believe earth has been gradually warming as result of humans & want gov't regs to stop it')

Krosnick's apparent eagerness to skew, propagandize and present intellectually dishonest and shallow polling analysis, simply stuns anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with recent global warming polls.

The Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon reveals some of Krosnick's tactics in a June 21, 2010 article. According to the Financial Post, Krosnick did not release his full report for public scrutiny nor did he show the public the context for his questions.

The Financial Post reports that Krosnick lumped the phrase “global warming” in with “the environment.” Here is the question Krosnick asked: “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” According to the paper, when put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” But Krosnick doesn't tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues.

What is most shocking about this point is that for two years running, all major polling has consistently revealed that not only is global warming/climate change the issue of least concern, but it is the lowest concern among all ENVIRONMENTAL issues!

Bookmark and Share

Monday, June 21, 2010

Cap & Tax will Destroy America! Stop Marxism!

Another great article below. This one was in the New York Post? I guess some more people are waking up to the fact that Obama and his Marxist Cap and Tax will further destroy America.

Bam's climate Rx: All pain, no gain

The cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last summer aims to force Americans to reduce those dreaded carbon emissions by 83 percent in less than four decades -- to the same per-capita level as 1867. Yet, even under the Al Gore-approved climate-science models, the bill would do nothing to stop global warming.

The bill is 1,000-plus pages of rules, regulations, handouts, subsidies and whatever else House leaders deemed necessary. Not one of the 435 members read the whole monstrosity -- because the leadership dropped 300 new pages on their desks the night before they voted.

Yet the central point is clear enough: The bill simply drives up the price of fossil-fuel based energy so high that the nation will have to somehow get along with only 17 percent of the gasoline and fossil-fuel-powered electricity that it uses today.

Don't ask how much it will cost. No one really knows, since you can't put a price on something that has yet to be defined.

Last Tuesday, President Obama cited the BP blowout as reason for the Senate to pass its version of the House bill. But senators know that expensive emission reductions are profoundly unpopular. Congress members found this out last summer when protests erupted nationwide within 24 hours of the bill's passage. Polls also suggest that a vote for the warming bill (especially on top of a vote for the health-care bill) is not a good way to keep a job in Congress this November.

And, again, the bills (neither the House-like Kerry-Lieberman tome, nor the climate-change lite by Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar) would do nothing measurable about climate change.

The median guess from the United Nations is that, if we do nothing to change our ways, the average world surface temperature will rise about 5 degrees Fahrenheit this century. (In fact, the trends in recent decades strongly suggest that this is an overestimate -- but let's accept it for the sake of the argument.)

Now, if only the United States does change its ways, by adopting something like the House bill, we'd prevent about two-tenths of a degree of that warming, according to the UN's climate calculator. That is, the temperature in 2100 gets reduced to what it would otherwise be in 2096. All pain, no gain.

Even if every nation that has "obligations" under the UN's Kyoto Protocol on global warming also adopts and enforces it, it would cut warming a mere 7 percent below the "business as usual" level, an amount probably too small to measure with confidence.

Why would such drastic action on the part of America, Europe and Japan do so little to change the world? Because the older industrial nations are fast becoming bit players when it comes to global CO2 emissions. America's been pretty stagnant in the last decade -- while China's have been staggering.

In eight years, China's annual totals will be equal to what they emit now plus everything we emit. So if we stopped emitting completely, China completely counters our effort.

Add to that a simple fact which no cap-and-trade bill admits: That legislation would push even more of our industry into migrating to China, India and other nations that have no intention of reducing emissions by making energy more expensive.

Bottom line: This legislation won't lower global temperatures -- but merely make life more expensive. It'll force you to buy things you don't want, like much more expensive cars, and to use energy sources you'd normally bypass, like ethanol, solar and windmills. All have to be massively subsidized -- with your tax dollars -- to compete with today's mix of coal, gasoline and natural gas.

Patrick J. Michaels is Cato Institute senior fellow and a distinguished senior fellow at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University.

Bookmark and Share

Liberalism Ruins Cities

To all the great Conservatives, please read below as we have an informative article on how Liberalism will ruin Cities.
To the Kool-Aid drinking Liberals who keep complaining about being called "Kool-Aid Drinkers", you should be lucky that is all you are called. You are upset about that? You Liberals can put on your Birkenstocks and expect a hug or for me to be all nicey nice with you? After you installed Barry Soetoro as the Leader of the Regime? Well you've come to the wrong place. This site is for a "call to Action" for real Americans to step up and to fight for Liberty. Don't think you can give me some Bible verse in between your Bong hits and expect me to allow you to subliminally push your Political Correctness. So you Progressives, Liberals or whatever you want to be called, you need to sit down, shut up and learn why Liberalism is bad for America!

This portion below is by Aaron Proctor.

Chester, PA: A Philly suburb and microcosm of Detroit

In today's previous article, an allusion was drawn as to what can happen to a City bogged down with machine politics. Hard-working, taxpaying people who care about their neighborhoods leave and cities are filled with crime and blight. One here in Philadelphia doesn't even have to look at Detroit for an example of this - simply travel some fifteen miles down I-95 South to a city in Delaware County called Chester.

Chester, Pennsylvania was once a thriving city with textile factories everywhere and even its own ship builder, Sun Ship. In recent years, a bit of a renaissance has been attempted there - with the addition of a Harrah's Casino as well as the erection of PPL Park - home to Major League Soccer's Philadelphia Union.

However, the Chester that the casino and stadium want you to see is not the real Chester that is there. Let's take a trip back to the 1970's when Liberal strongholds were growing all over this great nation. The Naccrelli family of the Mafia was making great strides hand-in-hand with Unions all over the City of Chester. By the 80's, Mayor Willie Leake, a Democrat stool pigeon, was placed in office by the thugs. By the late 1980's, Sun Ship was gone, textile factories were abandoned, rat-infested warehouses, drug dealing was at an all time high and shootings were a regular occurrence. Residents who worked hard and paid taxes were forced to pay for more and more handouts the City was providing so they moved to other suburbs in Delaware County.

The Chester-Upland School District - worst in the State - was once even taken over by the State of Pennsylvania and they couldn't handle the mess. Too much Liberal tax gouging, too many hand outs to the Mafia and Unions and - as we can see today - Chester has had four homicides in the past eight days. The Mayor has declared martial law and forced a curfew and a "state of Emergency" although an emergency has been happening in that place since 1985.

This is something that did not happen all over night. Liberals came in to a once vibrant town, raped it of its dignity, latched on to fellows like the Mafia, Unions and other folks without scruples - and pride and people moved away. Property taxes skyrocketed and the only housing left was Section 8 housing and projects. Nobody could pay taxes so there weren't enough police. Nobody could pay for anything so, soon, Chester became one of the few cities that doesn't even have one single supermarket.

As aforementioned, the idea of taxation and punishing people for a City's malfeasance led to people leaving in droves. Chester became a war zone. It's still a war zone - since all of the police protection surrounds the casino and stadium. It is not a safe City and not a great place to go side for the northwestern part of the City completely owned by Widener University.

There used to be a sign outside of the now completely blighted Chester SEPTA station that said "What Chester Makes, Makes Chester". What does Chester currently produce? Crime? Homicides? A corrupt government?

Chester is a microcosm for the ills of Socialism and what happens when Machine politics and Mafioso Unions run the show: Chester is also a crystal ball into the future of Philadelphia.

- AP

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Veterans Charities Ratings, Support Our Troops!

To all concerned:

Get this out to all veterans! Some veterans charities are taking 91% of the monies raised for administrative and paid solicitation. Do you homework before you donate your dollars.

Below is a partial list of Veterans Charities ratings and you will find the Link below to get the entire List.

Veterans Charities Ratings

Air Force Aid Society (A+)

American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation (F)

American Veterans Coalition (F)

American Veterans Relief Foundation (F)

AMVETS National Service Foundation (F)

Armed Services YMCA of the USA (A-)

Army Emergency Relief (A+)

Blinded Veterans Association (D)

Coalition to Support America's Heroes (F)

Disabled American Veterans (D)

Disabled Veterans Association (F)
Notice the similarity of the name to Disabled American Veterans

Fisher House Foundation (A+)

Freedom Alliance (F)

Help Hospitalized Veterans/Coalition to Salute America's Heroes (F)

Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (A+)

Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation (F)

National Military Family Association (A)

Please Click Here for with all the details.

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Support our Troops!

Hat Tip to Mr. I

Bookmark and Share

Friday, June 18, 2010

Stop Nazi DEMs & Obama and Oil: Greasing America's Decline

We have an article below from John Griffing. He points out the tremendous harm Barry Soetoro is doing to America with his stance on Big Evil Oil. The Radical Left is against Big Business but they currently allow no talent, so-called Actors and Actresses to make Millions for a piece of garbage TV show or Movie.

Obama and Oil: Greasing America's Decline
By John Griffing

President Obama has consistently pursued environmental policies designed to forward his socialist agenda at the expense of American economic power. Very few, if any, of Obama's environmental policies have anything to do with the environment, but instead, they all serve as a cover for economic sabotage.

As an example, the original cap-and-trade legislation favored by President Obama would have reduced U.S. GDP by $9 trillion and lowered emissions past a point where no industrial nation could endure. This is consistent with President Obama's pledge to bankrupt the coal industry, despite the fact that coal accounts for 50 percent of U.S. energy consumption. When combined with the no-sale Copenhagen Treaty, which sought to achieve global wealth redistribution under the banner of "climate debt," the Obama agenda appears to be about more than a clean environment.

But where climate change hysteria failed, President Obama will use the BP oil spill, an irregularity in a decade with a track record of declining spills, to attack American wealth and prosperity. As with cap-and-trade, the prevention of future drilling will force Americans to make unnatural choices, e.g. between driving and food, and cause a spike in unemployment. This is not hyperbole. In the 2008 gas crisis, Americans were forced to curb driving in order to save money. And current information indicates that President Obama's proposed ban on drilling of all kinds will cost as many as 20,000 badly needed jobs in Louisiana alone.

At issue is a simple matter of supply and demand.

Oil has been crippled by regulations that shrink available supply and drive up gas prices, which affects every area of the economy. Oil companies are barred from much of the Outer Continental Shelf, and known sources of oil are kept out of reach, e.g. ANWR, via government environmental regulations protecting organisms that have thrived in areas where oil is currently drilled. Government is at the heart of America's energy woes.

The same trend is apparent in America's dwindling refinery capacity. From 1981-2008, the number of refineries shrank steadily from a peak of 324 to an unacceptable low of 150. This dramatic decline mirrored a huge increase in demand for gasoline. In 1981, U.S. refineries could process over 18 million barrels per day at a time when Americans consumed an average of 16 million barrels per day. By 2008, this number had dropped to 17 million barrels per day, despite the fact that Americans then consumed over 20 million barrels per day. This gap in capacity forced domestic oil suppliers to import highly expensive pre-refined gasoline. Demand surpassed supply. Prices went up, and Americans suffered.

Why are Americans without a suitable number of refineries? The answer is simple: government-encouraged environmental radicalism. Every time an oil company tries to build a new refinery, environmental activists initiate lawsuits, even in cases where proposed refineries have passed every state and federal environmental test. In other words, it's not about the ecosystem. It's about a virulent, anti-capitalist, anti-prosperity agenda, and it is not presumptuous to say that President Obama and his minions are part of this agenda, as evidenced by their statements and actions.

Why else does Obama pursue crippling tax increases during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? Why else does President Obama pursue legislation that would more than halve U.S. GDP and raise electricity prices so that Americans would be forced to live like Europeans? Why else does President Obama advocate government-imposed compensation caps and, when he can, even go as far as to force certain executives to get permits for luxury items such as club membership and personal jets? It is becoming clear that Obama seeks nothing less than the eradication of the American Dream. Obama even wants to control air conditioner usage. As he said during the campaign, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

All of President Obama's environmental policies seem to be built on the shaky foundations of "spread the wealth." In other words, Obama has no problem with a serious reduction in the U.S. standard of living as long as all Americans share the misery. That is the inevitable result of Obama's policies. America, having been deprived of its once-vibrant economy, will turn to government for survival, joining the list of countries opting for a slice of government cheese over a chance at prosperity.

But beyond the economic insanity inherent in Obama's environmental policies is the fact that the supposed benefit of these policies to the environment is either superfluous or nonexistent. American air is already substantially cleaner than it was twenty years ago, and air conditioner usage has no tangible effect on the environment whatsoever. The ozone "hole" is by all indicators a seasonal event, at the end of which ozone is replenished. Global warming, the genesis of many of Obama's environmental policies, is a dead issue. The alleged link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and global warming has been exposed as a hoax, both by scientists from inside the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and by intercepted communications demonstrating substantial scientific fraud.

And then there's the legal problem with Obama's view. By what right does Obama presume to tell Americans how to live and drive? Where in the Constitution is the authority for this breathtaking assumption of power?

We should expect that the same radical agenda lurks behind Obama's self-righteous and sanctimonious platitudes regarding bans on future drilling. The BP disaster is likely just what Obama was looking for, the crisis on which to hang America's economic decline. To listen to Obama rant, the uninformed would think that large oil spills are a common occurrence, and that no technology exists to prevent them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Spills involving sea-based rigs account for only 2 percent of all oil spills, making the BP disaster indeed rare. And oil spills have dramatically reduced over the last two decades.

Surely President Obama is aware of this information. Therefore, his actions must be seen as those of an opportunist. But what opportunity is he pursuing, if the result is the destruction of American wealth and badly needed jobs? The answer: dependency. Just as the lack of refinery capacity was felt at the pump and all over the economy, a cessation in drilling will shift supply almost completely to foreign sources in order to meet demand, increasing gas prices to punitive levels and again affecting all areas of the economy. Obama knows this, and yet he proceeds at breakneck speed. Oil and gas well-drilling companies employ over 60,000 Americans, jobs that would surely be threatened if Obama's moratorium on drilling goes forward. High prices combined with the ripple of unemployment that will be the consequence of any ban on drilling will make yet more Americans utterly dependent on President Obama for their very sustenance.

If past behavior is any indicator, what is good for Obama is not good for America. Energy is wealth, and oil is America's primary source of energy. Eliminating drilling eliminates potential American wealth. Speak out in support of business and freedom. Reject Obama's thinly disguised attack on American prosperity.

Bookmark and Share

Oprah Winfrey's Racist Comments! She supports Barry!

This is a short video on Radical Oprah. Her goal growing up was to have "White Folks" work for her. Oprah has "Blood On Her Hands" as she knew darn well that Barry Soetoro went to that Racist Church. Oprah still promotes Barry Soetoro and his racist wife.
I would love to see the numbers on how Oprah became rich. I would bet when Oprah started on a young Chubby Girl (Michelle Obama's words) that Oprah's main audience was White women. The true Oprah came out after she took the money from others and now she can be the Racist she always wanted to be.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises?

Barry Soetoro has to blame someone. It is Politically Correct to blame Whitey so Barry gets a free pass. He must resign after this Oil disaster. The Liberal loons who helped put this Community Organizer in the White House, have BLOOD on their hands! Oprah should be fired. She of all people knew this Soetoro was involved in a Racist Cult with this Wright low-life.
These RACE BAITERS on the Left have to be hammered in the press not allow them to party in the White House.

This portion below is by Chuck Green.
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Repealing the Individual Mandate on the Health Care Bill

From Eric Cantor
Republican Whip's Office

The Republican Motion to Recommit H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act, would repeal the unconstitutional individual mandate included in the Democrats’ new Health Care law.

The Democrats’ recently enacted government take-over of Health Care requires every American to purchase health insurance or pay a new tax if they don’t purchase an “acceptable” form of coverage.

CBO estimates that by 2016, the individual mandate tax penalty will hit the middle- and low-income Americans the hardest with roughly 75% of Americans who pay this tax having household incomes below 500% of the Federal Poverty Level. Because of this, repealing the mandate will reduce the deficit - if individuals are not forced to buy insurance, then they will also not be forced to accept taxpayer-funded subsidies to help them afford the mandated insurance. (The MTR would reduce the deficit by $252 billion over the 2010-2020 timeframe)

Because the individual mandate is enforced by a tax penalty, the IRS will have to hire additional Federal employees to implement the law. Repealing the mandate thus reduces the thousands of IRS employees expected to be hired to enforce the new health care law (and reduces the Federal payroll).

This MTR is a vote for personal choice and deficit reduction. As Americans, we expect the right to choose what we purchase – we don’t need Washington telling us what to buy. With the debt now topping $13 Trillion, every opportunity to reduce the deficit and stop spending must be taken seriously.

While Members of Congress can vote on this common-sense motion on the House floor, Americans can vote on and read the proposal at

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless
minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

Bookmark and Share

Monday, June 14, 2010

Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk

Watch a New Nazi, aka Democrat when approached with a simple question. These New Nazi Representatives will assault anyone who questions their great Messiah, Barry Soetero.
Rep. Bob Etheridge (D - NC, aka New Nazi Party) assaults a student doing a project.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Marxist Whoopi Goldberg Defends Helen Thomas’ Anti-Semitic Remarks

Debbie Schlussel gets it. She is an excellent writer and takes no guff from these Lowlife Marxist Liberals. This disgusting Whoopi Goldberg protects Rapists. Then you have despicable Joy "Grayheart" Beyhar worried about why would Elton John play at Rush's wedding. She should be AXING Beyonce, Bejonce or whatever why she performs for Terrorists. Or why do these so-called Singers play for Racists like the Mexican President and Michelle (sat 20 years in Racist Church, friends of Khalidi and farrakhan) Obama.

Portion below by Debbie Schlussel

Just minutes ago, has-been, unfunny comedienne/actress and co-host of ABC’s hag-fest “The View” defended Hearst White House correspondent Helen Thomas’ urging Jews to “go back to Germany, Poland.”

To Goldberg & Helen Thomas:
Go Back to Muppet (and Ugly) Land!

And Goldberg–whose real name is Caryn Elaine Johnson and took the name to mock Jews and get noticed–lied in her defense of Thomas, saying

For many years, there were not Jews in Israel.

Oh, really? Like when, Whoopi? In fact, there have been Jews in Israel for thousands of years. There has always been a Jewish presence in Israel. To say otherwise is a lie, a falsity. But I’ll tell you who wasn’t in Israel for centuries: “Palestinians,” a fake ethnicity made up of Arabic nomads from throughout the Middle East who came to pre-Israel “Palestine” when Jews were the “Palestinians” and brought them paid jobs and resources they didn’t get in their own further outposts in greater Arabia and in their desert wanderings.

Goldberg/Johnson continued to defend Helen Thomas, saying:

It’s both parties’ land. . . . She’s [Helen Thomas] saying you have to talk.

Really? That’s an interesting interpretation. Does, “go back to Germany, Poland” sound like “you have to talk”?

And finally, she dismissed it with

Well, people always say, “Go back to Africa.”

Um, Whoopi, do you really think Helen Thomas would still be employed by Hearst if she said that to Black people? That’s the point. No one seems to have the same outrage for bigotry against Jews. There’s much more tolerance for such hatred.

All of this is no surprise, as Goldberg is a MARXIST, who said Roman Polanski’s sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl he drugged “wasn’t rape rape,” and doesn’t believe we actually landed on the Moon.

In case you’re wondering, the other ditzes on “The View” didn’t do much of a response to Goldberg/Johnson’s BS. Vacant faux-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck said nothing. Joy Behar agreed with Goldberg/Johnson’s false claim that Jews didn’t live in Israel “for many years” and said that Helen Thomas “could have said it in a nicer way.”

Hmmm . . . what’s a nicer way of saying, “Jews get out!”? I wonder if Behar, who is Italian, would like it if I said there’s a nicer way of saying, “Go back to Sicily.”

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, June 12, 2010

"WE NOTICED", so Stop Marxism Now!

Sherry Hackett, wife of the late Buddy Hackett, is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. One would think that many other Democrats share her position.

This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett's widow.

President Obama:

Today I read of your administrations' plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk. During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance
was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.
YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states.We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.
YES, "We noticed."

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.
YES, "We noticed."

Every time you apologized to other countries for America 's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country.. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, "We noticed."

When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America " and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.
YES, "We noticed."

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.
YES, "We noticed."

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.
YES, "We noticed."

You are 14 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.
YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American", "racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.
YES, "We noticed."

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.
And YES, "We noticed."

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.
YES, "We noticed."

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is, a disgrace.
YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
YES, "We noticed."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

Take notice.

If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not, I'm sorry!

No, that's WRONG !!! If you don't pass it on, YOU'LL be sorry!!!!!!

Hat Tip to George, a Real Conservative

Bookmark and Share

Friday, June 11, 2010

Ayers' Plan For Re-education Camps & The Need To Kill

This Video is from Larry Grathwohl. Mr. Grathwohl talks about Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions of Americans.
Barry Hussein Soetero and his so-called Wife, Michele, are personal friends and associates for many years, with low-life Bill Ayers and his disgusting degenerate wife Bernadine Dorhn. Bill Ayers and dirtbag Dorhn helped run the Weather Underground. They was dead serious about their intentions. In 1972 Ayers dedicated the Weather Underground's manifesto, "Prairie Fire", to Sen. Robert Kennedy's assassin, Sirhan Sirhan.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 10, 2010


There must be a reason!

City State % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.

Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.

Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.

St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.

Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.

Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952.

Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

William J.H. Boetcker

Hat Tip to George, A Real Conservative

Bookmark and Share

Monday, June 7, 2010

Ground Zero Rally against the Mosque

We would like to thank Pamela Geller for her courageous stance on fighting Radical Islam. Our TOTUS looks at Radical Islam with love in his eyes. Our TOTUS and his thug friends defend Radical Islam Terrorists any chance they get.
Let's fight to stop this Mosque at Ground Zero.
Pamela Geller of SOIA (Stop The Islamization of America) is a Hero.

Hat Tip to Mr. I, a Real Conservative

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Support Our Troops!

The things they carry in Afghanistan

Editor's note: David Fennell of Littleton is a major in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is stationed in Marjah, Afghanistan, as head of the Civil Affairs Group there. Before that, he served a tour in Iraq. His father, Denny, asked David to sum up his experiences as he nears the end of his deployment.

Although I've gotten used to things around here, this place can wear on you. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe in our mission and its importance to both the Afghan people and security back home. Still, southern Afghanistan is a hard place.

The question Marines ask themselves most when talking with folks back home is "Where do I start?" There are no easy answers.

Sand, moon dust, terrain, weather, enemy, Marines getting hurt, Marines taken out of action, high op tempo, 2 4/7, working with locals, working with civilians, working with Afghan government, working with Afghan police, working with Afghan army, working with international forces (ISAF), bad food, drinking tea with locals knowing you'll get sick, getting sick, watching for IEDs, looking for ambushes, suicide bomb threats, enemy murdering and intimidating the local population, local "friends" working with enemy, Marines getting killed, controlled IED detonations, wondering what caused an explosion, the kids, seeing bad things happen to kids, bad kids throwing rocks, bad kids taunting and making gestures that you're going to get blown up, locals gaming the system, locals complaining about everything, locals always want more, some locals step up and the enemy takes some locals down . . .

Sand storms, bad sleep, incoming rockets, burn pits, relieving yourself in a bag, reports, reports, reports, briefs, briefs, briefs, VIP visits (generals, ambassadors, Afghanistan officials, etc.), second-guessed by others, second-guessing yourself, media, interpreters, bad interpreters, not being able to find an interpreter, losing gear, getting gear stolen, keeping Marines motivated, rewarding Marines, punishing Marines, taking care of interpreters, patrolling through canals and irrigated farms, getting your only pair of boots wet, getting your camera wet, Medevacs, finding IEDs, waiting hours for EOD to detonate IEDs, acronyms, hearing Marines in a firefight over the radio, losing communication, incoming mortars, long days, short meals, dirty uniforms, making yourself sick from your smell . . .

Needing air support but not getting it, taught not to look at Afghan women, taught not to talk to Afghan women, not knowing how to react when an Afghan woman approaches, false claims of Koran burning, false claims of night searches, false claims of civilian casualties, lies, lies, lies, protests, riots, local leaders calm protests and riots for a few prayer rugs.

Taking malaria medication, flak jackets, Kevlar, bad feet, bad knees, bad back, bad haircuts, looking forward to firefights, dreading IEDs, sand in everything, too few computers, no printers, no scanner, generators go down, e-mail goes down, "where's your report?", cold winter, no heat, local gets shot, local comes to Marines for help, is local a Taliban who we shot?, Marines trying to be experts in crime scene investigations, getting mail late, getting mail stolen, not getting mail at all, being hungry, saving the last Ramen noodle, losing weight, bad shaves, hot days, no A/C, sunburned faces and necks, white arms and legs, trying to get contractors to start development projects, contractors getting intimidated and robbed by Taliban, contractors getting kidnapped by Taliban, workers being killed by Taliban, hoping a Marine "makes it," going to memorial services, hoping it's never your Marine, rules of engagement, escalation of force, taking small arms fire from house, having to let detainee go for lack of evidence, running out of wet wipes, running out of water, losing your flashlight, running into razor wire at night, living in the "gray," questioning how much corruption is acceptable, flies in your food, flies in your eye, trying not to be motivated by hate, broken-down vehicles, stuck vehicles, getting caught on an extended patrol without NVGs, did I do enough? did I do it right? and . . . did I mention the sand?

It's just a normal day or week or month out here, but Marines seldom bring up any more than a few of these things to complain about.

Hat Tip to Mr. I, a Real Conservative

Bookmark and Share

Friday, June 4, 2010

Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany

If you can't stomach looking at this low-life Helen Thomas, please at least listen to her. What a detestable, hideous troll she is. This is a White House Reporter? The fringe MSM have blood on their hands for helping Barry get in the White House.
People like this are the backbone of the Barry Soetero REGIME!
They must be stopped (Politically) Now!

Hat Tip to Mr. I, a Real Conservative

Bookmark and Share

Stop Marxism! Vote for Allen West!

We have an article from Allen West. Let me ask any of the Liberals or so-called Moderates who will read this post from Twitter or finding it online. Are you a Racist if you support Ron Klein over Allen West? Is that not the same argument you knuckleheads used with Barry Soetero? Let me borrow something from Mark Levin. You are a Moron and a FRAUD if you support Ron Klein over Allen West! There, I said it!

Recent developments in the State of Israel are disturbing, and unfortunately predictable

Dear Supporter,

Recent developments in the State of Israel are disturbing, and unfortunately predictable. Since 2009, the Obama Administration has shown an unprecedented disregard for the sovereignty of the State of Israel - America's strongest ally in the world. Whether browbeating Israel for building homes in their rightful capitol, or disrespecting Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House, President Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is no friend of the Jewish State.

Liberals in Congress, including Ron Klein, have provided nothing but lip service while the rest of the world continues to condemn a nation's right to defend itself against continued terror and aggression by Hamas - a terror organization whose very charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel - and its supporters. A blockade is a recognized and accepted means to mitigate specific threats from our enemies. This can be demonstrated by President Kennedy's blockade in October of 1962 off the coast of Florida, as well as by President Obama's call for a blockade of Iran. How would we react if these were U.S. Navy SEALs that were ruthlessly attacked?

In the days and weeks ahead, our friends in Israel - the only true and stable democracy in the Middle East - need more than words from America's leaders. Above all, the Jewish State needs stronger representation in Congress and a solid voice that will not be afraid to stand up to the Obama Administration's appeasement of Islamic Terrorism. As a Combat Veteran who has faced our common enemy, my commitment to Israel will rise above mere statements of support.

We are huge Allen West supporters. If you would like to support Allen West for Congress go HERE.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Hussein Obama Slips Up On Oil Spill Panel

This is a brilliant article below by Henry I. Miller. As so many Liberals are out screaming for more Government regulation, this article is counter point to the sicko Left Wing Nazis. I have heard this Oil Spill is V.P. Cheney's fault? I have heard left Wing Radicals blame President Bush also. Could it be Barry Sotero's fault? Or the environmental Nazi's fault for pushing to have Drilling so far off the Coast?
I guess we should not expect Barry to be too involved with the Oil Spill clean-up as he has to hold parties for Commie Paul McCarthy. I still have not forgotten Beetle Paul McCarthy was trying to push his No-MEAT RELIGION on England. What would happen if Sarah Palin or George Bush pressed for a religious holiday?
C'mon Commie Paul McCarthy was conned by a one-legged Hooker and we are supposed to listen to him?

I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government.

The latest example is the incomprehensible choice of William Reilly, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to co-chair the presidential commission to investigate the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

During Reilly's tenure, the EPA implemented policies that prevented the development of a high-tech method to mitigate the effects of the oil washing onto the magnificent beaches along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida.

During the 1980s microorganisms genetically engineered to feed on spilled oil were developed in laboratories, but draconian federal regulations discouraged their testing and commercialization and ensured that the techniques available for responding to these disasters remain low-tech and marginally effective.

They include methods such as deploying booms to contain the oil, spraying chemicals to disperse it, burning it and spreading absorbent mats.

At the time of the catastrophic 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, there were great expectations for modern biotechnology applied to "bioremediation," the biological cleanup of toxic wastes, including oil. Reilly, who at that time headed the EPA, later recalled:

"When I saw the full scale of the disaster in Prince William Sound in Alaska ... my first thought was: Where are the exotic new technologies, the products of genetic engineering, that can help us clean this up?"

Reilly should have known: Innovation had been stymied by his agency's hostile policies toward the most sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. The regulations ensured that biotech researchers in several industrial sectors, including bioremediation, would continue to be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers. Those policies remain in place today, and the EPA's anti-technology zealots show no signs of changing them.

The best way to prevent such accidents is, of course, to obtain energy from sources other than fuel oil. Bio-fuels have been widely touted as a possibility, but solutions to technical difficulties, such as breaking down plant materials so that they can be metabolized into ethanol, have thus far eluded scientists.

Ironically, EPA regulation has also inhibited the development of the genetically engineered bacteria and fungi that are needed. Thus, EPA's policies have for decades stymied safe energy production in two ways: (1) by preventing innovation applied to industrial processes that could produce biofuel, and (2) by obstructing the development and commercialization of oil-eating organisms that could be used in a spill.

Characteristically, the EPA didn't let science get in the way of policy. Its regulation focuses on any "new" organism (strangely and unscientifically defined as one which contains combinations of DNA from unrelated sources) that might, for example, literally eat up oil spills.

For the EPA, then and now, "newness" is synonymous with risk, and because genetic engineering techniques can easily be used to create new gene combinations with DNA from disparate sources, these techniques therefore "have the greatest potential to pose risks to people or the environment," according to the agency press release that accompanied the rule.

But science says otherwise. The genetic technique employed to construct new strains is irrelevant to risk, as is the origin of a snippet of DNA that may be moved from one organism to another: What matters is its function. Scientific principles and common sense dictate which questions are central to risk analysis for any new organism:

How hazardous is the organism you started with? Is it a harmless, ubiquitous organism found in garden soil, or one that causes illness in humans or animals? Does the genetic change merely make the organism able to metabolize and degrade oil more efficiently, or does it have other effects, such as making it hardier and more resistant to antibiotics and therefore difficult to control?

The EPA ignored the widely held scientific consensus that holds that modern genetic engineering technology is essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier, cruder techniques of genetic modification. In fact, the U.S. National Research Council observed in 1989 that the use of the newest genetic engineering techniques actually lowers the already minimal risk associated with field testing.

The reason is that the new technology makes it possible to introduce pieces of DNA that contain one or a few well-characterized genes, in contrast with older genetic techniques that transfer or modify a variable number of genes haphazardly. All of this means that users of the new techniques can be more certain about the traits they introduce into the organisms.

The bottom line is that organisms crafted with the newest, most sophisticated and precise genetic techniques are subject to discriminatory, extraordinary regulation. Research proposals for field trials must be reviewed repeatedly case by case, and companies face uncertainty about final commercial approvals of products down the road even if they prove safe and effective.

Government policymakers seem oblivious to the power of regulatory roadblocks to impair resilience. Experiments using genetically engineered organisms confront massive red tape and politics and require vast expense. The costs and uncertainty of performing this R&D have virtually eliminated them as a tool to clean up oil spills and other pollution.

While he headed the EPA, Reilly was one of those know-nothing policymakers. Obama's tapping him to investigate the Gulf oil spill exemplifies what Newsweek and Washington Post contributing editor Robert Samuelson has called a "parody of leadership."

• Miller is a physician and molecular biologist and a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. His most recent book is "The Frankenfood Myth."

Bookmark and Share