F.A.I.R. - The Free American Independent Rant

In The Spirit of Reagan

2011-06-14T09:15:00.001-07:00

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose your job.

A recovery is when Mr Obama loses his job.

Sharks Under the Bus

2010-12-17T08:18:00.000-08:00

Have you ever noticed that when conservatives stick to their fundamental principles, (and when liberals break from theirs) the country prospers, and vice versa?

It's been fun watching the liberal pack fall on each other like a bunch of blood-smelling sharks. Surprisingly, the Republicans in Congress have stuck to their guns, forcing a weak president to cave and agree to a compromise. Mr Obama isn't good at much, but he is very good at throwing people under the bus at the first sign of trouble. Mr Obama realized that he's lost the rubber-stamp congress that he had for two years (during which time he failed to show any positive results from his socialist playbook), so he's suddenly decided that he has no choice but to cave. (Just like Mayor Quimby from the Simpsons "I have decided... to waffle!") He agrees to a compromise with the Republicans and expects his liberal friends to follow along. Surprise, he suddenly meets something none of us expected, liberals with principles. And what does he do? He shows his true colors and throws them under the bus, but not without calling the Republicans hostage-takers first.

Okay, Mr Obama. I understand that you lectured constitutional law when you realized what a failure you were at community organizing (still haven't gotten that right, have you?), but did you happen to read the document at the time? Because amongst everything else, it says nothing about the president having a vote in Congress. In case that isn't clear, sir, you aren't in a position to compromise on a funding bill. You could try to negotiate a position that Democratic leaders have put forth, but you have no say over what gets written in those hallowed halls built so appropriately on a swamp. In case that whole constitution thing is a little confusing, talk to Mr Reid. He told us on Thursday that the constitution is their rule book. Who knew?

And something else. All this talk about 'paying for tax cuts' is missing a few vital facts (just like most things that come from the liberals and their Newspeak Thought Police drive-by media... I know it sounds dramatic, but really, they are in the business of telling us what to think, aren't they?). I'll put it simply. You don't have to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves. Look at it this way. Say I'm managing a household budget (something your average community organizer apparently never does), and I'm making two kinds of purchases. Buying groceries to eat tonight, but also buying seeds to plant a vegetable garden. I might spend a dollar on a packet of, say carrot seeds, but spend a dollar on a one pound bag of carrots. It might take a dollar out of the budget to buy seeds that won't give me carrots to eat for a couple of months, but eventually they'll give me much more than a pound. Wealth works the same way. If people are allowed to keep more of the money that they've earned, they will put it back into the economy. Businesses will boom, and not only pay more taxes, but eventually hire more people, who will pay more tax and spend more money. And of course, those businesses are owned by people who will buy more houses and cars, hire more domestic workers, and maybe even expand their businesses. And as an added bonus, the ranks of the unemployed and welfare dependent will shrink, and the government will have more money to blow. That is simple proven economics that worked before. (Remember when they stopped calling it Reaganomics? When it started working.) The only problem is that a prosperous independent people don't need Uncle Sam to dictate and provide their needs. And liberals, for some reason, don't do well in those circumstances.

At the same time, some Republican senators have already started to add earmarks to this monster spending bill that our Prime Minister... er, President has negotiated, after campaigning on a "no Earmarks" platform. Keep that up and we'll throw you under the bus.

Burning Issue

2010-09-09T10:17:00.000-07:00

Pastor Terry Jones, like so many extremists, just doesn't get it, and he is likely to get a good talking to from God some day. As many people have said, just because you have a right to do something, that doesn't make it right. (Imam Rauf, you listening?) You don't make the world a better place by burning books. You don't do it by encouraging hate and ignorance. Read the book. Read the bible. Talk to the Lord about what you should be teaching your flock. Then apologize. You will be forgiven.

"The Real Racist"

2010-09-02T10:49:00.001-07:00

Dr Martin Luther King Jr spoke quite eloquently about the need for us to stop seeing and judging each other, not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. I think he would be greatly disappointed that the Reverend Al Sharpton has claimed the 28th of August and the Lincoln Memorial, for 'us'. For 'our day'. How is it, Reverend, that your shouted words are not racism? How do you honor the memory of Dr King by closing off the date, the historic place, the celebration of that date and speech and the ideas of Dr King to all but you? The rally wasn't political, as reported even by the leftwing media. It wasn't racially motivated, as evidenced by the presence of Dr King's niece. For that matter, the Tea Party itself, which was a force behind the event, has many many African Americans. I'd say they are doing a better job handling (or tossing out) the race issue than you are. Be honest with yourself. When you are, you'll realize that the problem in this situation is in fact you. You are displaying racism and spreading hate. You are willing to ignore the spirit of a great man and his great work to satisfy your own agenda. At that point, maybe you'll see the light. If you are truly serving the Lord, that should be your only interest.

The dilemma of the Reverend Al Sharpton in fact reminds me of a very sad thing that happened to someone in my apartment complex. This man is an African American who, though he is obviously quite healthy and competent, manages to live his entire life on disability benefits. This has enabled him to life rent-free (the money is given to him), sit around all day long smoking pot, drinking beer, and barbecuing steaks. That is his life. Or rather, that was his life. He apparently could no longer stand the stress and strain of his difficult life, because a few days ago, he grabbed a knife and started running around, spouting the "N -word" more times that Dr Laura ever tried, looking for someone to kill. First off, wrong for me is wrong for you. Stop saying it or stop being offended by it. If you want to be treated with respect, you have to treat others with respect. And maybe, just maybe, despite everything that Big Brother... oh, excuse me, I mean Mr Obama says, you won't feel any sense of satisfaction or self respect without earning your keep. Eventually, 'empty' won't sustain you, and dependency will let you down. And Reverend Sharpton, eventually racism and lies will come home to roost.

Headlines From the Edge: "Obama Issues Primary Challenge to Self"

2010-08-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

Finally winding up the last few stops of the campaign that landed him in office almost two years ago, President Obama has already started setting his sights on the 2012 election.
He didn't let his vacation, (now in its sixth week), stop him from making carefully choreographed surprise stops. In one, the President took time out to address the nation. "If the previous administration thinks they're going to get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people, they've got another thing coming," Obama said. "Are you better off than you were when I walked in here? Heck no! What you really need is for me to come in and fix this mess we've inherited. And how many times are we going to hear 'hope and change' before it becomes 'hope things change'? You can go back to the failed policies of the past, or you can stick with me." The unscripted tirade which capped off the rare Obama press conference lasted more than ten minutes before the broadcast was cut and replaced with a rerun of "I Love Lucy". TOTUS, the official Presidential Teleprompter Of The United States could not be reached for comment.

A Letter to the President

2010-08-19T09:40:00.000-07:00

Sir:
I would like to speak to you as a fellow American citizen. As a conservative. As someone who didn't vote for you, and as someone gravely distressed with the job you have done as President of the United States. I would like to speak to you, at the same time, as someone who respects the office of the president.

I wonder, sir, if you truly understand why it is that so many people disapprove of what you have done since taking office. I cannot speak for the people who once supported you but don't anymore, but I can speak for myself. I think it likely that what troubles me about your job performance also troubles many others.

Firstly, sir, I don't care about your race. That doesn't come into it, but people who call me a racist because i disagree with you are in fact racist themselves. I'm not a racist, and I greatly resent being called one. As a white male, I have been subject to both racism and gender discrimination. They are both evil practices, and none of us are immune from them. Don't allow yourself the luxury of thinking that people who disagree with you must be racist.

Before I talk about your work, I'd like to briefly talk about the previous administration. As president, you certainly inherited big problems. That is obvious. But I'd like to simply point out that you have been president for almost two years. Whether you've had sufficient time to fix those problems or not, there does come a time when you should stop blaming others. Whether or not you have a valid point, I feel that you should stop telling us why we still have a crisis and start telling us exactly what's being done to solve it. And to be fair, sir, the democratic Congress that we have now was in power for the last two of the eight years of the Bush administration. Indeed, sir, you were part of that Congress. So it begs the question, sir. What were you doing then, as a member of the majority in the branch of government that held the nation's purse strings?

One of the major focuses of your term has been the stimulus. Granted, there was a previous stimulus package that didn't seem to do much. But that was another president. The same Congress, but a different president. Now we have another president and another stimulus. The same Congress, incidentally. But, sir, despite everything we hear about so many millions of jobs 'saved or created', there doesn't seem to have been any improvement. By the way, that expression 'saved or created' sounds disingenous. 'Saved or created' honestly sounds like a hypothetical accomplishment that someone might use to pad a resume. It is too non-specific to be impressive. 'Jobs created' is unverifiable, and therefore meaningless. We hear that things would have been so much worse. But after nearly two years and a stimulus of some 800 billion dollars, we should be hearing that things are better. Not that they could be worse. For all of the jobs 'saved or created', the jobless numbers are not improving. To sum it up, the results have matched neither the cost nor the promise.

Health Care reform has been a major initiative of your administration. I admire bold initiatives, and I don't think that anyone disputes the need to reform our health care system, and while the specifics (and indeed, the legality of it within the constraints of the Constitution) are obviously a subject of great dispute, people generally believe and fear that the Federal Government will control their health care. Is that true? Unfortunately, the law is so long and so shrouded in secrecy that most people don't know. And when information is kept from people, they fear the worst. You might say that the details were available online, but not everyone has time to read a two thousand page legal document, or has, for that matter, internet access. People felt like they were sold a very expensive mystery package, and they resented the backroom deals that were necessary to pass it. And speaking just for myself, while I need the health coverage, I honestly resent paying to care for someone who is unwilling to work or support themselves. And there are too many of them. Heatlh Care coverage should be no more than, say, ten dollars taken out my paycheck weekly to cover my family. What we have is a law that I fear will cost more than we can afford and not substantially change anything.

The biggesr thing, with these issues is their expense, and what seems a casual throwing around of billions of dollars. Speaking for myself, sir, I simply cannot see any result from the massive expense incurred so far, nor does it seem like anyone responsible for spending all of this money has any real appreciation for just how much has gone into accomplishing so little. Almost a trillion dollars and no change to the jobless rate. When you're talking that much money, 'saved or created' just doesn't impress. What we need is a program to create permanent jobs.

Some in conservative talk radio have said that they hoped that your programs fail. I don't think anyone truly wants our economy to get any worse, or for our country to be less secure than it is now. We can't afford to put partisan politics above the interests of our country, sir. So as a conservative, do I hope to see a democratic president succeed? As long as I believe you are helping the country, yes. But I can honestly say (and I don't think I'm alone), that based on your performance so far, I don't always believe that.

Headlines From the Edge: "Obama Pushes Reset Button on First Term: "The Next Four Years Are Going to be Great ""

2010-06-30T08:03:00.003-07:00

In his latest plan to succeed at fundamentally changing the country, the President returned to the site where some say his presidency was born, the Illinois State House, where he was greeted a cheering crowd. In prepared remarks, the president acknowledged difficulty in communicating his agenda to the majority of Americans, based on historically low poll numbers. "It's obvious, from the millions of jobs saved or created, that we've been successful. But it's just as obvious that a majority of Americans, many of them in the employ of the insurance companies and the Tea Party, simply don't understand. So rather than try to explain it to more than half the country, I'm going to use the same method that has been so successful in thawing relations with the Russians. I'm hereby officially, under my absolute authority as President, pushing the reset button on this term. The gulf oil spill? Shame on the previous administration. Record deficits and unemployment? Shame on the previous administration. Starting right now," he paused to push a large plastic red button, "it's the start of Obama, First Term, 2.0. And the next four years are going to be great!"

Being Honest With Yourself

2010-06-30T08:03:00.001-07:00

When a person is confronted by a choice, the opportunity to do something right or wrong, is their decision based upon the chance of getting caught, or if they are thinking about taking something that is not theirs, maybe they think they 'deserve' whatever it is, or they think the owner won't miss it. It's not a rare thing, especially in these days that see all of us struggle to get by, and most might casually take something without wanting to think of that ugly 'thief' word.

Let's just imagine you are at a laundromat, and you find a cold can of soda, left unopened by a family that you've seen leave. Imagine further that this family is obviously traveling through, and will most likely not come back looking for it. Would you feel that it was acceptable to drink the soda? You aren't really stealing it, are you? They left it behind, maybe on purpose. What you are judging at this point is really the relationship, if you will, between the soda and its owner. Based just on that, you could make the case that there is no harm in taking the soda. But really, that relationship is not your concern. Not your business. It's not what you need to think about. What you need to think about and really use as the baseline for your decision is your relationship to the soda, because that's really all that counts. First and foremost, did you buy it? Did you earn it? No. And really, that should be all that it comes down to. But you can also consider that the traveling family could conceivably come back looking for their soda. What will they think? But again, that shouldn't matter. All that should matter to you is your relationship to the soda. And the simple question and simple answer. Did you buy it? Do you own it? No. That simple idea can apply to many situations. Any time you find yourself in the position of taking something that in fact isn't yours, even a snack left unclaimed in the breakroom at work, don't think about whether or not the owner might miss it, or whether or not you might get caught. Just think about whether or not you have any right to it. If you're honest with yourself (and if you're lying to yourself, you're lying to the whole world), you'll know the simple answer, and do the right thing.

Headlines From the Edge: Obama Outlines Bold Space New Initiative: "Let Them Come To Us!"

2010-06-10T09:35:00.001-07:00

Following luke-warm reaction to his initiative to depend on private citizens and corporate America to push the manned space program to Mars and beyond, the president 're-clarified' his bold vision for the future, stating that since extra-terrestrials have the greater ability to travel easily through space, they should carry the greater burden of putting humans on their planets. "Hey, you know," the president explained, "you've seen their ships. You've read the books. Now let the experts in the Federal government do what it does best. We have the right plan to redistribute their technology and save or create dozens of jobs in the process."

Helen the Anti-Semite, B.O. Oil and Avatar Review

2010-06-10T09:12:00.001-07:00

There is so much to talk about, from the anti-semitism that Helen Thomas demonstrated (underplayed as much as possible by her liberal cohorts) as she finally left the pool, to the continued inaction by Mr Obama in the gulf.
Not much needs to be said about Helen Thomas. She is now enough of an embarrassment that finally she is gone. 0f course, there has been little mention of it in the typical liberal media. It must be hard for them to sit on their hands. If Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh had said what she did, they would find precious little else to talk about. But when Helen fouls the pool, suddenly they know nothing.

Fortunately for them, there is the oil gusher in the gulf. And just what is Mister Obama doing to stop the flow of oil and prevent it from reaching land? Well, he's pointing fingers really well. He's outraged. He's interrupted vacations to walk on beaches that were cleaned up for his visit. No, in fact he didn't, did he? No. There is evidence to suggest that he was aware of the extent of the disaster and the potential for catastrophe, a month ago but went on vacation while thousands of barrels of oil pumped into the gulf every day. So we have to wonder if he was simply incompetent, or if he let it go so as to allow the crisis to worsen and give the socialist government running this country more ammunition to demonize and maybe even nationalize the nation's oil industry. The classic question arises. What did the president know and when did he know it? And why, in the midst of the largest ecological tragedy we've ever faced, are you going back to trying to sell Obamacare? Is it intended to distract us, or is it simply because you don't know how to do anything but campaign? If you think I'm wrong, look at the recent poll that gives Bush better marks for his handling of Katrina than they give you for this.

I've just subjected myself to reading the screenplay of Avatar so that I could discuss it without putting any money in James Cameron's hands, (note to the president and the Attorney General, and pretty much the whole excuse for a government that we're stuck with: try reading something before talking about or voting for it. Leads to far fewer embarrassing moments later ) and aside from the fact that it is nowhere close to an original story, it is a poorly written piece of leftist propaganda. Unobtanium? Please. The last time I heard that was I think "The Core", and I thought it was silly then. And Mr Cameron, you took your idea from, of all places, Rocky and Bullwinkle? Upsidasium. Remember that? I do. So right off I was unimpressed. Jake Sully. Did you get that from your "Big Book of Stereotypes" in the chapter on grizzled, burnt out anti-hero names? Please, sir, invest some of your billions in writing lessons. Or a used copy of the Constitution. Now I'm sure you've got a 'support the troops' bumper sticker on your hybrid limo, but that actually doesn't negate the shabby way you treat them in this liberal fantasy. Every military member (but Jake Sully) is a racist monster. Oh, but wait. They're Ex-Marines. Well, sir, any Marine will tell you that there is no such thing as an Ex-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. So give back that bumper sticker. You don't deserve it. And of course, there is the obvious parallel between the destruction of the Home Tree with the 9/11 attacks. How dare you compare the heroic men and women who bravely and proudly wear the uniform of our country with the cowardly thugs who sneak onto a plane (or car, or bus) in civilian clothes to slaughter innocents? How dare you? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but how dare you demonize the heroic men and women who volunteer to step into harm's way to protect you? I'll just add this. Avatar is not the Number One film of all time. "Gone With the Wind" still holds that title in the only sense that means anything. Number of tickets sold. So you are still a loser.

Fact Sheet and Full Text of New Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

2010-05-23T08:58:00.001-07:00

You can now do something that neither Barack Obama or Eric Holder have done. Learn the facts about, and actually read the new Arizona Immigration Law. Below is a fact sheet about the law, followed by the text of the law itself.

This is the fact sheet about the Arizona Immigration Law, from the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan group. Quoted from rense.com:

Fact Sheet On New Arizona Immigration Law

Center For Immigration Studies

4-30-10

WASHINGTON - The new law recently signed by the governor of Arizona, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to violate some federal immigration statutes. While the law is extremely popular in the state, with 70 percent of Arizona voters approving of it and just 23 percent opposed, it has raised controversy. Below is a brief summary of the relevant information on illegal immigration in Arizona, followed by a short analysis of SB 1070's major provisions.

Illegal Immigration In Arizona

The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.<#1>1

Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.<#2>2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.<#3>3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county's adult population.<#4>4

Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state's prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state's adult population at the time of the analysis.<#5>5

Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.<#6>6

The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.<#7>7

In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.<#8>8

In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state's schools.<#9>9

In 2007, the Center estimated that one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.<#10>10

The new law (SB 1070) is extremely popular among Arizona voters. A Rasmussen poll found that 70 percent of voters approve of the new bill, and just 23 percent oppose it.<#11>11

Among the new law's provisions:

The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of "pre-emption," which means a state can't adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.

The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of "lawful contact" with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.<#12>12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.

Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of "reasonable suspicion" is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.

A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.

A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

The law specifically states that police, "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" when implementing SB 1070.

When Arizona's governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute "reasonable suspicion."<#13>13

# # #

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent non-partisan research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. It is not involved in drafting legislation and has not formally endorsed or opposed SB 1070.

Endnotes

1 See Table 4 "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008," http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009," Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008," http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

3 The Maricopa County Attorney's office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.

4 See Table 3 in "Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue," http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

5 See Table 6 in "Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue," http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

6 See "The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?" Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.

7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, "Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue," is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

8 See Tables 21 in "Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population," http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in "Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population," http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

10 See Tables 25 in "Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population," http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

11 Rasmussen poll released April 21, 2010, of likely voters in Arizona, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_

2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_

state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration.

12 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009," Figure 2, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf.

13 See http://www.azpost.state.az.us/bulletins/eo201009.pdf.

Contact Mark Krikorian, (202) 466-8185, msk@cis.org

- i -

Senate Engrossed

State of Arizona

Senate

Forty-ninth Legislature

Second Regular Session

2010

SENATE BILL 1070

AN ACT

AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION

13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE

13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND

13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA

REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED

STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

S.B. 1070

- 1 -

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

2 Section 1. Intent

3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the

4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of

5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make

6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local

7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to

8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of

9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United

10 States.

11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by

12 adding article 8, to read:

13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15 immigration laws; indemnification

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS

28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM

29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE

30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY

33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES

34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO

35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE

36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS

41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS

42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,

43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF

44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE

45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

S.B. 1070

- 2 -

1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE

2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

3 STATE.

4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF

5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL

6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.

7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.

8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN

9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER

10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY

12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL

13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN

16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND

18 ATTORNEY FEES.

19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND

20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY

21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS

22 SUBSECTION.

23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G

24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN

25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND

26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.

27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY

29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR

30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A

31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW

32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS

33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH

35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL

36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES

37 CITIZENS.

38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by

39 adding section 13-1509, to read:

40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;

41 classification

42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF

43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.

45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

S.B. 1070

- 3 -

1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN

2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:

3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL

4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED

6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER

7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE

9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE

10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.

11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL

12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE

13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.

15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE

16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF

18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT

20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT

21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO

22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION

23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL

24 IMMIGRATION.

25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION

26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A

28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:

29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN

30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF

33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION

35 13-105.

36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF

37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.

38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:

39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.

40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM

41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS

42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED

43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.

S.B. 1070

- 4 -

1 Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

2 13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions

3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the

4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.

5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this

7 section:

8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under

9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen

10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous

11 instrument.

12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened

13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of

14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis

15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence

16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant

17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of

19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.

20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP

21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE

22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND

23 THIS SECTION.

24 E. F. For the purposes of this section:

25 1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or

26 any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to

27 the second degree.

28 2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or

29 facilitation of transportation and includes:

30 (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel

31 arrangement services or money transmission services.

32 (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a

33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,

34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as

35 defined in section 13-2322.

36 3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement

37 of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an

38 entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons

39 transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent

40 resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted

41 to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.

S.B. 1070

- 5 -

1 Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by

2 adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:

3 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for

4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or

5 employment; classification; definitions

6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED

7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP

8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR

9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS

11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT

12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF

13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED

15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT

16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT

17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.

19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A

21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE

22 EMPLOYED.

23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL

24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS

25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).

26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring

27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle

28 impoundment; classification

29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL

30 OFFENSE TO:

31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS

32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY

33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE

34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD

36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR

37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE

38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES

39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF

41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,

42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A

44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR

45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

S.B. 1070

- 6 -

1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1

2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT

3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS

4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND

5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.

6 Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;

8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;

9 classification; license suspension and revocation;

10 affirmative defense

11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,

12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other

13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this

14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a

15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the

16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.

17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person

18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall

19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the

20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a

21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly

22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall

23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.

24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint

25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the

26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall

27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not

28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county

29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,

30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney

31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged

32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or

33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a

34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county

35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized

36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section

37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to

38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to

39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work

40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant

41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a

42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3

43 misdemeanor.

S.B. 1070

- 7 -

1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney

2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United

4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law

6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney

8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint

9 was originally filed with the attorney general.

10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be

11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the

12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county

13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of

14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second

15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is

16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a

17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.

18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court

19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest

20 practicable date.

21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this

23 subsection, the court:

24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all

25 unauthorized aliens.

26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year

27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien

28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file

29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county

30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business

31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the

33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The

34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all

35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not

36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The

37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to

38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file

39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days

40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this

41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn

42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing

43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by

44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses

45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that

S.B. 1070

- 8 -

1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the

2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license

3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed

4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in

5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision

6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary

7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any

8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to

9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the

10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to

11 subsection G of this section.

12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses

13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer

14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to

15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it

16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the

17 following factors, if relevant:

18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any

22 applicable requirements.

23 (v) The duration of the violation.

24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer

25 in the violation.

26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this

28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently

29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business

30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does

31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized

32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's

33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to

34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the

35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and

36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately

37 revoke the licenses.

38 3. The violation shall be considered:

39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the

40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court

41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's

42 business location.

43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the

44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under

S.B. 1070

- 9 -

1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's

2 business location.

3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are

4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a

5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation

6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the

7 attorney general's website.

8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the

9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to

10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination

11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court

12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may

13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial

14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment

16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a

17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an

18 unauthorized alien.

19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that

20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code

21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not

22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have

23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),

24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural

25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply

26 with the requirements.

27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS

28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER

29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL

30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS

31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE

35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE

37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO

38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS

40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO

42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR

43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT

44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING

45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

S.B. 1070

- 10 -

1 Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to

2 read:

3 23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens;

4 prohibition; false and frivolous complaints;

5 violation; classification; license suspension and

6 revocation; affirmative defense

7 A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

8 If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other

9 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this

10 state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or

11 with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform

12 the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

13 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person

14 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall

15 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the

16 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a

17 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly

18 intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county

19 attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of

20 this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a

21 prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may

22 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.

23 This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous

24 complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The

25 attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are

26 based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is

27 submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in

28 the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the

29 employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may

30 assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the

31 attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of

32 the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to

33 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official

34 shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an

35 alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration

36 status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal

37 government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who

38 knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is

39 guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

40 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney

41 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

42 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United

43 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

44 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law

45 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

S.B. 1070

- 11 -

1 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney

2 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint

3 was originally filed with the attorney general.

4 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be

5 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the

6 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county

7 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of

8 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second

9 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is

10 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a

11 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.

12 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court

13 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest

14 practicable date.

15 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

16 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this

17 subsection, the court shall:

18 (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized

19 aliens.

20 (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary

21 period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

22 During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in

23 the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new

24 employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the

25 unauthorized alien performed work.

26 (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described

27 in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a

28 minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the

29 suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to

30 it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider

31 the following factors, if relevant:

32 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

33 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

34 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

35 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any

36 applicable requirements.

37 (v) The duration of the violation.

38 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer

39 in the violation.

40 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

41 (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the

42 county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated

43 the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer

44 will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this

45 state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all

S.B. 1070

- 12 -

1 licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the

2 employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney

3 within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are

4 suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit

5 shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with

6 the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that

7 are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are

8 held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized

9 alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to

10 the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a

11 license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the

12 licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all

13 licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of

14 business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law,

15 the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's

16 order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney

17 general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to

18 subsection G of this section.

19 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this

20 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently

21 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business

22 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does

23 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized

24 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's

25 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to

26 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the

27 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and

28 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately

29 revoke the licenses.

30 3. The violation shall be considered:

31 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the

32 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court

33 under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's

34 business location.

35 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the

36 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under

37 this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business

38 location.

39 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are

40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a

41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation

42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the

43 attorney general's website.

44 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the

45 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to

S.B. 1070

- 13 -

1 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination

2 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court

3 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may

4 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial

5 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

6 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment

7 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a

8 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an

9 unauthorized alien.

10 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that

11 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code

12 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not

13 intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to

14 have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),

15 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural

16 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply

17 with the requirements.

18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS

19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER

20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL

21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS

22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE

26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE

28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO

29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS

31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO

33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR

34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT

35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING

36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify

39 program; economic development incentives; list of

40 registered employers

41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,

42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify

43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE

44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

S.B. 1070

- 14 -

1 B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an

2 economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall

3 register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the

4 economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the

5 government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating

6 in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the

7 employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall

8 notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's

9 determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the

10 determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall

11 repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the

12 government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the

13 purposes of this subsection:

14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or

15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after

16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax

17 provision under title 42 or 43.

18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision

19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.

20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the

21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this

22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list

23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the

24 attorney general's website.

25 Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

26 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

27 A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization

28 or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is

29 driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

30 1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any

31 reason.

32 2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or

33 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having

34 a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This

35 paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

36 3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement

37 pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle

38 without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph

39 does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation

40 of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.

41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS

42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO

43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A

44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN

45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

S.B. 1070

- 15 -

1 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a

2 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle

3 and if all of the following apply:

4 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked

5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or

6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having

7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

8 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility

9 requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

10 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident

11 that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another

12 person.

13 C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace

14 officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal

15 and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer

16 has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of

17 section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.

18 D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the

19 immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this

20 section if all of the following apply:

21 1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently

22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the

23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the

25 arrest.

26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse

27 of the driver:

28 (a) Has a valid driver license.

29 (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor

30 releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of

31 liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

32 (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the

33 spouse is under twenty-one years of age.

34 4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive

35 the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of

36 safety.

37 5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this

38 subsection.

39 E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is

40 removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C

41 of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An

42 insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or

43 fees for immobilization or impoundment.

44 F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or

45 impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the

S.B. 1070

- 16 -

1 owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest

2 in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or

3 poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.

4 Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is

5 amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:

6 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement

7 mission fund

8 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS

9 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND

10 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE

11 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL

12 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL

13 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

14 Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction

15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or

16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions

17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid

18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are

19 severable.

20 B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to

21 have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

22 C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal

23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and

24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

25 Sec. 12. Short title

26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe

27 Neighborhoods Act".

What part of illegal don't you understand?

2010-05-13T20:27:00.000-07:00

What part of illegal don't you understand? That actually pretty much sums it up, and further demonstrates the intellectual, moral and legal bankruptcy that is not just the liberal movement in this country, but also, coincidentally, the Mexican government.

While Mr Obama has been busy making fundamental changes to just about everything but the unemployement rate, he has ignored the problem of illegal immigration. And let's be clear here. We don't need immigration reform, we need illegal immigration reform. We don't have an immigration problem, we have an illegal immigration problem. It's easy to say its a race issue. It's easy to say 'profiling'. In fact, that makes a wonderful built-in excuse whenever you don't have a legitimate argument. But really, what it's all about is a mass of people invading our country, and a morally bankrupt political party that probably wouldn't be in power if it didn't have this illegal voting base. Wait, you say. How can you have an illegal voting base? Have you ever heard of ACORN? Bart Simpson registering Democrat in the last election? The Democratic party exists primarily on the backs of the politically naive, the welfare class and illegals, along with corrupt labor unions who have for the most part stopped supporting the workers in favor of the liberals who keep them in power and outlived any legitimate purpose they ever served. The Democratic Party is and always has been the party of opposing freedom of individuality, of keeping the weak weak, keeping the disadvantaged disadvantaged, keeping the dependent dependent, and keeping the enslaved enslaved. When the Founders were trying to outlaw slavery in the Constitution, it was the party that was to become the Democrats that stopped them. During the Civil War, it was Democrats who refused to free slaves. At the time, the Southern (Democrat) argument was that their economy was dependent upon slave labor. Now it is their tenuous grasp on power that is dependent upon the slaves of today. Unfair? What do you call it when someone living in the big house tells you what and how much you can earn, what and how much you can own, and what and how much you can do to improve your life? According to Mr Obama, it is possible to earn 'too much'. Every once in a while, the truth accidentally comes out. What comes out here is that Mr Obama doesn't want you to be too successful, because he can only control you if you depend on him, just like the illegal immigrants depend on the liberals to stay here unchallenged, receiving free health care and education.

Mr Obama's partner in crime is one with years of experience in quietly and slowly yet blatantly invading its neighbors. But don't even think of crossing their border illegaly. While the Mexican government (if you can call it that) actively assists its citizens in becoming illegal here, they are among the toughest in dealing with illegal immigrants in their own country. So, how do you say hypocrite in Spanish?

"No Honor Among Thieves"

2010-05-02T23:40:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that Manuel Noriega has briefly reappeared in the news as he was turned over the French. It reminds me of the head of Goldman Sachs being dragged in to be slapped around by our glorious Congress, where they're 'shocked! shocked!' to find that the rich and powerful are playing fast and loose with the lives of the rest of us. Is it because a villain has finally been brought to justice? Not entirely, although that certainly comes into it. No, what I find wonderfully ironic is that like Mister Noriega, the evil Goldman Sachs was, until just the very recent past, a very senior partner of some of these 'shocked! shocked!' congress people. Just like Mister Noriega, Sachs was a very valuable, if rather embarrassing partner of so many politicians' and their selfless campaigns for truth, justice and the American Way. It is, as always, the incredible hypocrisy and arrogance of these people that stands out (but goes unreported by the liberal media). Do our glorious senators acknowledge that as agents of these organizations, they are in part responsible for their power to damage the country and ruin people's lives? Of course not. Did Mr Dodd, the soon to be ex-senator admit to any complicity? At all? Any regrets? Any remorse? Of course not. Did Mr Obama admit to being a willing agent of theirs? Did Mr Clinton admit to being the architect of this tragic affair by forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldn't afford them? Of course not. Just like Bush the first (though I generally have a great respect for the former president) didn't acknowledge that Noriega had been a close associate until he became a liability. There is a lesson here. There is no honor among thieves.

And speaking of thieves without honor, illegal aliens in Arizona are again demanding to be exempt from the laws of the land that they seem to want to be a part of. The question for these people is incredibly simple. So simple, in fact, that the liberals in power (including the all powerful liberal media) have managed to completely miss it. Illegals, demonstrators, college kids looking for a way to waste your parents' money, just what part of illegal don't you understand? Felipe Calderone has spoken out against heroic Arizona police enforcing laws that are already on the books. Well, sir, if you didn't run your country like a crack head's house party, maybe you wouldn't have to worry about the lives of so many illegal Mexicans. Try taking responsibity for the people you've sworn to represent. In the end, sir, you have failed your country and your people (as have so many of your predecessors), and you should be grateful that someone is taking an interest in the lives of your citizens as they flee your country like rats leaving a sinking ship. If you want your citizens to be treated better, try doing it yourself. I believe that if someone needs help, they should be helped. But if someone breaks into my home, they are not entitled to raid the refrigerator, or to decide what to watch on TV. They have no rights of residents. If they are hungry or need help or shelter, they can ask. I'll help if I can. But if they break in, all they get is shown the exit.

CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tea Bagging

2010-04-16T10:07:00.000-07:00

When the earthquake hit Haiti, I talked about how impressed I was with Anderson Cooper. I won't retract that, because he did what he did, and it was good. But I've been watching Mr Cooper, as he allegedly 'keeps them honest'. And I just have to ask... where is your brain, sir? You sat there and listened to someone describe Barack Obama as center-left, and you kept a straight face. Good golly. Are we both living on the same planet? Are you from some Bizarro political reality where left is right and stupid is smart and what you call objectivity is in fact objectivity? But then, you are a bit of a study in contradiction... actually hypocracy is really what you're all about. Something I'm sure that you'd like to put behind you (difficult, since you played such a large part in popularizing it) is this liberal fun of calling Tea Party members tea-baggers. Here is the sequence of events:

MSNBC's David Shuster, filling in for Keith Olbermann on his April 13 2009 broadcast had fun referring to the Tea Party tax-protester as "teabaggers" (Urbandictionary.com describes teabagging as when a man places his testicles "onto someone's face, or into their mouth.")

Here is the text of what he said:

"For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day, but in our fourth story tonight: It's going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they're going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

"They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending - spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama's tax rates - which will be lower for most of them -- and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That's teabagging in a nut shell."

And that is MSNBC and liberal 'journalism' in a nutshell.

Of course, that's just the sort of sparkling journalistic high-brow integrity that people have come to expect from the poorly drawn tabloid/comic book that is MSNBC. And what we should expect from someone who plays second fiddle to Keith Olbermann. I mean, that's like the piece of mysterious dirt that a stray cat decides is too disgusting to eat. But then, so is MSNBC.

So in 'keeping them honest', Mr Cooper picks up that ball.

Cooper had CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen and chief business correspondent Ali Velshi on to comment on President Obama's economic speech at Georgetown University. Cooper had asked Gergen about the Republicans' "positioning" in response to the speech. The analyst touted how the GOP was "in disarray" and that they "have not yet come up with a compelling alternative, one that has gained popular recognition." Cooper replied, "Tea-bagging. They've got tea-bagging."

Gergen went on to say, "Well, they've got the tea-bagging. But there was an interesting Politico survey -- it was out today that said that, you know, the president -- the trust level in the president on economic issues is extremely high, and, you know, and everybody else in the administration is well below him. But the Republicans are a little below that. So, Republicans have got a way -- they still haven't found their voice, Anderson. They're still -- this happens to a minority party after it's lost a couple of bad elections, but they're searching for their voice."

Cooper demonstrated his integrity and maturity by making this 'keeping them honest' remark, "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging," which Gergen responded to with laughter.

Now, Mr Cooper, I don't expect anything said on MSNBC to spread very far. But CNN is a global organization, the fact is, for better or for worse, people watch it and listen to it. And they listen to you. How about growing up?

Kapact's Rant: "An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

2010-03-23T11:51:00.001-07:00

Excerpts from the screenplay for "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith"

"The constitution is in shreds. Amendment after amendment . . . executive directives, sometimes a dozen in one day."

"An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . ."

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . ."

Well, not the end of liberty, exactly, yet...

but the Audacity of Obama continues, and it is noteworthy that they have been forced to twist and trample on the legislative process to pass their unconstitutional bill. Why? Because otherwise (through honest, legal means), it would have died. There is no disputing that. Indeed, the process has been mangled and blended, with 'promises' (that, like most of Mister Obama's promises, will not survive the campaign), to alter the nature of the bill by executive order after it is signed into law. The checks and balances, so crucial to the restraining of hyper-government have been manipulated and side-stepped in a desperate push to pass so-called health care reform. The fake smile on Pelosi's face as she actually used the word 'humility' reminded me of a vampire pressing a crucifix into its forehead. We know now (and every poll backs this up) that the Democratic regime has no respect for the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE, but we also know that it has no respect for our intelligence. Humility? Humility? Ms Pelosi, how dare you use the word humility? We don't want this and we can't afford this. And what's more, based on your sagging poll numbers, we feel the same way about you.

I am glad to see that several states' attorney's generals have already stepped up and announced legal challenges. You see, Ms Pelosi and Mister Obama, there is a third branch of our government, specifically set up to deal with power grabs like this monstrosity. It's called the Supreme Court. It's sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to ensure that legal train wrecks like health care reform don't violate the Constitution. And while you have managed to install an admitted racist judge to that court, you don't own it. Yet.

When Mister Obama was elected, I decided to try to give him a chance. I took note of what he did that I liked (rare though that was), and I admitted here that I thought he had some likable qualities. But no more. Mister Obama and his minions have shown that despite their acting abilities, they have no respect for the Constitution, the American People, or the elected offices that they hold. They have no respect for the rule of law or the simple moral code that says keep your promises. Ronald Reagan was a great President for many reasons, but he was unique in that he understood well that the office that he held wasn't a weapon to be used to beat the Constitution with. It is a privilege. An honor. It's not a platform from which to rule over the American People with an iron fist. It's a stewardship. A promise, not to fundamentally change the country, but to protect us and our freedoms and rights and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Someone elected to the presidency is given a sacred trust. They're supposed to respect the office and the people and the terrible terrible price that people have paid to keep us free and safe and strong. They're supposed to respect the incredible hardships and danger and loss that our Founders were subject to in throwing off tyrants and giving us our country. Mister Obama, you don't respect any of that, and you clearly don't respect any of us. And come 2012, you're going to see just how much we respect you.

"An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

2010-03-23T11:44:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from the screenplay for "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith"

"The constitution is in shreds. Amendment after amendment . . . executive directives, sometimes a dozen in one day."

"An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . ."

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . ."

Well, not the end of liberty, exactly, yet...

but the Audacity of Obama continues, and it is noteworthy that they have been forced to twist and trample on the legislative process to pass their unconstitutional bill. Why? Because otherwise (through honest, legal means), it would have died. There is no disputing that. Indeed, the process has been mangled and blended, with 'promises' (that, like most of Mister Obama's promises, will not survive the campaign), to alter the nature of the bill by executive order after it is signed into law. The checks and balances, so crucial to the restraining of hyper-government have been manipulated and side-stepped in a desperate push to pass so-called health care reform. The fake smile on Pelosi's face as she actually used the word 'humility' reminded me of a vampire pressing a crucifix into its forehead. We know now (and every poll backs this up) that the Democratic regime has no respect for the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE, but we also know that it has no respect for our intelligence. Humility? Humility? Ms Pelosi, how dare you use the word humility? We don't want this and we can't afford this. And what's more, based on your sagging poll numbers, we feel the same way about you.

I am glad to see that several states' attorney's generals have already stepped up and announced legal challenges. You see, Ms Pelosi and Mister Obama, there is a third branch of our government, specifically set up to deal with power grabs like this monstrosity. It's called the Supreme Court. It's sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to ensure that legal train wrecks like health care reform don't violate the Constitution. And while you have managed to install an admitted racist judge to that court, you don't own it. Yet.

When Mister Obama was elected, I decided to try to give him a chance. I took note of what he did that I liked (rare though that was), and I admitted here that I thought he had some likable qualities. But no more. Mister Obama and his minions have shown that despite their acting abilities, they have no respect for the Constitution, the American People, or the elected offices that they hold. They have no respect for the rule of law or the simple moral code that says keep your promises. Ronald Reagan was a great President for many reasons, but he was unique in that he understood well that the office that he held wasn't a weapon to be used to beat the Constitution with. It is a privilege. An honor. It's not a platform from which to rule over the American People with an iron fist. It's a stewardship. A promise, not to fundamentally change the country, but to protect us and our freedoms and rights and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Someone elected to the presidency is given a sacred trust. They're supposed to respect the office and the people and the terrible terrible price that people have paid to keep us free and safe and strong. They're supposed to respect the incredible hardships and danger and loss that our Founders were subject to in throwing off tyrants and giving us our country. Mister Obama, you don't respect any of that, and you clearly don't respect any of us. And come 2012, you're going to see just how much we respect you.

"Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?"

2010-03-20T08:37:00.000-07:00

Fascinating to watch as the Progressives (otherwise known as liberals on this planet) are breaking every rule possible to shove this unpopular and unconstitutional package down our throats. You can't even call it a bill, because the Constitution plainly says that a bill must be voted on by both the House and Senate before it can become a law. So it's a package. But again, it is an unconstitutional package. The Tenth Amendment explains why:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I'm not smart enough think that we have 57 states, or that it's possible for an insurance premium to drop by 3,000 percent, or to think that it's possible for 500 million americans each month to lose their jobs... but I do know that A) the Constitution does not give the government the right to require a citizen to purchase a good or service, and B) that a bill actually has to be voted on by the House and the Senate before it is a law.

Maybe I'll just repeat for emphasis.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Deemocrats (who love to 'deem and pass') have been asked where in the Constitution they are given the right to do the individual mandate, and they have not answered. They have responded with arrogance (shocking, coming from this regime), indignancy, ignorance. Even a creative grasp of Constitutional law (no, the Federal government does not set the max speed limit or require drivers to carry insurance... yet). But they haven't responded with facts. Oh they've used the mature tactic I tried as a five year old but didn't get away with. (they did it first!) "The Republicans did same thing" they say. The answer to that is, "I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you." The Republicans did do some crooked things, so it's okay for you? Really grown-up. If the Republicans jumped off a cliff, would you? We can only hope. Just please don't take the rest of us with you.

The Founding Fathers were very careful about limiting the power of the Federal government. Very careful. The founding of our country was based on limiting the power of a corrupt central government. There is no more important purpose to our Constitution than limiting the power of the Federal government.

"...governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Again, for emphasis...

"...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Congress cannot grant themselves power. They cannot 'deem' that something not voted on is law. And yet they are. Please, can a Constitutional lawyer explain that to me?

The Audacity of Obama

2010-03-09T09:52:00.000-08:00

"...we're not campaigning any more. The election is over...."

Truer words were never spoken. Also fitting that it comes during a so-called bipartisan meeting. Just as promises of bipartisanship during the campaign were lies, so were so many other things. Of course, the campaign is over, so apparently those promises no longer mean anything, but just as a reminder, here are a few:

(List of promises compiled by John Stossel of FOX Business and FOX News, but quoted on several sites, including PolitiFact.

Promise #1: Cutting spending
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to cut spending several times. In the second presidential debate, he said that "actually, I am cutting more than I'm spending. So it will be a net spending cut." In the third debate, he reiterated: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut." Of course, Republicans made claims like that, too. Bush Sr. is famous for his "Read my lips. No new taxes" line. Bush Jr. made statements like "Prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government."

Reality:
Under both parties, government's appetite grows. But the line rises sharply after Obama took office. Spending increased 2 TRILLION dollars -- more than any year in history.

Promise #2: Putting bills online
Obama promised "When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what's in it before I sign it."

Reality:
He broke that promise when he singed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. He's broken it since, for instance on the Credit Card Bill of Rights and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Promise #3: Health care negotiations will be on C-SPAN
Obama promised at least eight times that "we're going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch."

Reality:
They haven't been there. Well, briefly. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb said, "The only time we've been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing."

Promise #4: I Won't Force Americans To Buy Insurance
During the campaign, Obama attacked Hillary Clinton: "She believes we have to force people who don't have insurance," he said in a primary debate in January 2008. In a Feb. 2008 CNN interview, he added: "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house."

Reality:
This September, he told Congress: "Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance."

Promise #5: Ban Earmarks
"We are going to ban all earmarks," Obama said at a press conference on January 6, 2009.

Reality:
The first spending bill he signed had over 9,000 earmarks.

Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover.
Reality:
In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits.

During the campaign, he criticized John McCain for just suggesting that. "My opponent can't make that pledge [not to raise taxes] and here's why: for the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits," he said in the same speech.

But now it's Obama who wants to tax health plans:

"This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies," he said in his health care address to Congress.

I know its easy and popular to attack the whole "Hope and Change" express, but really, I don't think even his supporters (the few honest ones that he has left) believe that anymore. What I'm talking about is the unbridled arrogance and hubris that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi hegemony are inflicting on the country. Mister Obama is an inexperienced socialist product of the Chicago machine, and his presidency is the biggest political disaster we've faced since... we were a nation. His disrespect for the people he is supposed to represent is matched only by his arrogance that says he doesn't have to care about promises and lies. Does he think we're stupid, or does he just think he's above the need to be honest with WE THE PEOPLE. I think it's arrogance. That is, among other things, a result of the broken system of government that permits rich, corrupt lawyers to run forever, supported by labor unions and corporations that are ruining the country. The only way to fix the system is a constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on anyone in the federal government, and restricts spending in national elections, or ads related to national elections (including house and senate seats) to money collected by taxpayers, administered by a bipartisan commission that is only allowed to serve for four years. That is the only way to remove corrupt, entrenched liars like Obama/Reid/Pelosi from office.

And we've got (at least) two more years to go. Great.

FAIR The Free American Independent Rant

2010-02-18T12:53:00.000-08:00

This column is called the Free American Independent Rant for a reason, and I'd like to talk about that. First off, leftist love-fest "Air America" RIP and good riddance. You failed not because conservative talk radio is too powerful. You failed because you were boring, and you were wrong. You were more like "Err America".

Freedom is not a sarcastic bumpersticker catch phrase, it's an idea. It's salvation for the country and the world. It's a shining city on a hill. It's the right and the responsibility to speak out against corrupt, incompetent power-mongers determined to rob us of our sovereignty, ride roughshod over the hard work of our Founding Fathers, and shove illegal experiments down our throats. Freedom is what helps us to survive arrogant socialist bank-owned community organizers and entrenched gangs of thugs. Freedom is our life's blood.

America needs no explanation. It will survive two consecutive weak presidents. It will survive the worst Congress it has ever seen, because WE THE PEOPLE are smart and hard-working and honest. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. We get fooled sometimes, and we buy into crazy schemes. But we don't stay fooled forever. We all even essentially agree on most of the challenges and issues facing our country. And we don't tolerate people who treat us like ignorant, gullible children.

Independent means we don't allow ourselves to be pushed around by political parties. Joe Lieberman, once the Democratic's choice for vice president, is one of the most courageous and principled Americans representing us. Because he's independent. And because he's independent, his party tried to push him out. Joe is still in Congress, still serving this great country. And why? Because he's independent. And so are we. I'm a conservative. Always have been, always will be. But I support the rights of gays to marry. Whatever my opinion of it, it doesn't hurt me, nor will it hurt this country. What will hurt the country is hanging signs on our doors saying who need not apply. And that includes allowing gays to step up to the altar and proclaim their love for each other. On another subject, while I don't want my tax dollars to pay for elective abortions, I also don't want the Federal government putting its clumsy, intrusive hands into the abortion issue. Abortion is a moral issue, and our government is not qualified to teach morals. Let it be decided by the people and the states. So how can I be for gay marriage rights and abortion rights and call myself conservative? Because I'm independent. I don't let my party tell me what to believe. This country wasn't founded on the principle of restricting people, nor was it founded on the principle of marching in lockstep with a distant tyrant. Or party chairman.

The rant is something that many would like to silence. Our secretary of state once cautioned that there were no 'gate-keepers' on the internet. That is a pretty simple concept. She thinks that there should be a controlling authority to verify everything put online. That is called censorship, and it is, quite frankly, chilling.

Here are some of her words, while we can still put them online:

On the subject of Health Care:

"We just can't trust the American people to make these types of decisions. .Government has to make these choices for people." -Hillary Clinton circa 1993, speaking to Rep. Dennis Hastert on the issue of who should control the allocation of money in her health care reform plan

The Free Market:

"The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation." -Hillary Clinton

Freedom of the Press:

"We're all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1998, days after the Monica Lewinsky story was reported on the Drudge Report

Taxes:

"We're saying that for American to get back on track, we're going to cut [the Bush tax cuts] short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco

Big Government:

"We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993, regarding health care reform

Religion:

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian from time to time." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, "joking" in a speech with religious leaders in 1997

(These quotes were compiled by Thomas Kuiper, who is the author of "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton In Her Own Words.")

The point of all this is to point out, to shout from the rooftops, to rant against this. And these horrible things came from one of the least frightening people in the administration.

The Free American Independent Rant is all about refusing to bend. Refusing to be silent. Refusing to be catagorized or edited or pushed around by a corrupt incompetent government or party system.

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste

2010-02-05T09:22:00.000-08:00

Mister Obama's thoughtless and hypocritical comments this past week were but a single example of how this excuse for an administration makes me nostalgic for the clever and razor-sharp moves of the Carter administration, while his continuous efforts to hide his most nefarious deeds makes us all dream of an open and transparent government on the order of, say, the Nixon administration.

We all know (and are reminded every day) that you shouldn't go spending money you don't have. I mean, if my check is a bit short (which it frequently is), I don't pick out a new Blackberry, or buy tickets for Avatar. I'm also not going to plan a big vacation. Even so, I'm glad that Mister Obama is good enough to remind us of this. Every day, every trillion dollars. But what he doesn't get, even after having done it a year ago, is that you don't single out a place, by name, and tell people not to go there. Especially if that place is entirely dependent upon tourist dollars. Most of us know that you meant to say something sensible, if hypocritical, but please, sir, stick to your teleprompter. You can't talk without it, and we'd all be better off if you stopped trying. Until the next presidential election, that is.

Mister Obama's strange mix of incompetence and arrogance highlight the problem facing our country. As I mentioned last time, big money influence and (virtual) lifetime appointments for members of Congress have made it almost impossible for any fresh blood to make it into the dusty halls of power. In fact, it discourages our so-called representatives from actually fixing anything or making a real, substantive difference. If they did actually resolve one of the myriad problems facing our great nation, then WE THE PEOPLE might actually have a chance to catch a breath of fresh air, and discover that we don't need them nearly as much as they want us to think. Imagine for a moment that the massive spending orgy that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are engaged in actually created enough jobs to tame unemployment and bring wages back up enough to bolster the economy and increase the Federal tax receipts (is that the way that works? Wow). Do you think they'd start holding meetings in public again, or stop meddling in the business affairs of companies with no ties or bills due to the government? No. Imagine that insurance companies decided to voluntarily accept all of the provisions of that unconstitutional mess. Imagine that they bowed to pressure and started accepting patients with pre-existing conditions, or handing out free insurance to everyone who couldn't or refused to pay for it. Do you think they'd stop the attempted Federal/Socialist takeover of 1/6th of the economy? Nope. Because they have an agenda. They have a goal. And that goal isn't simply to 'fundamentally change the United States of America". It's to maintain power as long as they live. If they solve a problem, they lose a problem. And their mantra is 'never let a crisis go to waste'. Taking that to the next logical step, we see that a problem or a crisis is the villain that they need, because they have no other way to justify their position or distract us from their multitude shortcomings and blunders. We must solve this problem by prohibiting any money but Federal funding being used for campaign advertising of any form, as well as pushing through a Constitutional amendment requiring term limits for any member of Congress. There is no other way to push the corrupt and entrenched from government.

On another note...

I was enjoying a pleasant ride to work on the bus the other day, even as we were packed in like sardines, when it finally got the better of a fellow traveler. I'll describe the gentleman so you can get the picture. He was an African-American, impeccably dressed in a nice, expensive suit, with a very nice overcoat. I wasn't surprised to see that he was carrying a bible...

until...

he started dropping F bombs. Big, loud, angry F bombs. All about picking up too many F-ing people, packing us in like F-ing cattle. Carrying a bible. Forgive me sir, I thought, are you kidding? Do you not get that God is watching and listening? I mean, we're all imperfect. We all make mistakes, and do and say things we regret. We are all His children, and He loves us and forgives us. But please. Try to leave the F-bombs at home when you go out, especially with your bible. Think about the fact that God is listening. He knows the bus is overfull and late, and that the person next to you smells bad. Then think about the fact that God knows that you are dropping F-bombs on your spiritual brothers and sisters. Would you talk to God with that mouth? Because you are. Every F-bomb dropped on a stranger is also dropped on our Father. Think about that before you start lobbing F-bombs next time, okay?

Ahh, but our story doesn't end there. As I discreetly watched this gentleman, I noticed that his bible had a long bookmark in it. Half said something about God. Fair enough. The other end said "Farrakhan". There you go. While I hesitate to judge a religion (if you can call it that) that maybe I'm not familiar with, I suspect that the Nation of Islam doesn't object strongly to F-bombs being dropped on buses.

The War on Arrogance

2010-01-23T09:53:00.000-08:00

One of the greatest threats facing our country comes not from without but from within. I'm not talking about people deliberately trying to bring about the downfall of the government. I'm talking about people who have been blinded by their lust for power and money. This has been highlighted by the stunning return to democracy in Massachusetts with the election to the people's senate seat that was held for too long by Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley assumed that the seat would go to her, not because she had earned it, or because she best represented the wants and needs and philosophy of the people represented by the seat. She assumed that she would win because she was a democrat. Nobody has denied that, not even her. And of course, the campaign she ran clearly demonstrates that. She might well as well have phoned the campaign in. But Martha Coakley is just a small, single example of the new war on arrogance.

We see Mr Obama back in campaign mode, putting on his common, populist suit, standing in front of a group of handpicked supporters with prescreened questions, railing against all the bad guys who are responsible for all the evils we are suffering from. And even with prescreened questions, he still struggled. But that's Mister Obama. He cannot speak without a teleprompter. As a student of history, I have learned that when an unpopular leader (and Mister Obama has the lowest approval ratiings in history for a president at this point in his term) starts to appoint a new villain at every corner, it is usually because they have nothing of real substance to offer. It is an attempt to distract you from the real problem. During the presidential election, it was "they're going to tell you, don't vote for him, because he's got a funny name, or he doesn't look like the guy on the dollar bill". You see, suddenly it wasn't why you should vote for him, it was about 'they'. About why you should look at 'them', because they're out to get you. Then it was 'the people who made this mess'. Don't look at Obama's record. Don't look at the record of his cohorts. Of course if you did look too closely at Mister Obama and his cohorts, you'd see that they are some of the 'people who made this mess'. Along with Mister Clinton and Mister Bush. Even now, it's the evil bankers. It isn't that Mister Obama has spent us into record deficits and unemployent with no end in sight. Come next year, when his cohorts in Congress are running for reelection, it won't be about the attempts to usurp the constitution, or the secret meetings or broken campaign promises, or the arrogance. It'll be about 'the people who want us to fail', or 'the people who want to take us back, rather than forward'. It will never be about their wrongs or their failures or their arrogance. And that, again, is the warning sign. If all you ever hear from a failing, desperate leader is how it's all about some nameless, faceless villain, then odds are its just an attempt to divert your attention.

Mister Obama and his liberal cohorts have been frightened by this second shot heard 'round the world' (coincidentally, both came from Massachusetts), and they have their idea-starved liberal playbook out. It is a book filled with the same old tricks and distractions and smoke and mirrors, and it didn't save Martha Coakley. This election in Massachusetts, this second shot heard 'round the world, wasn't about local issues, as they would like you to believe, or about 'those people' trying to stop so-called health care reform. It was really about arrogance. Entrenched, corrupt, out of touch arrogance. And next year, and hopefully 2012 will also be about arrogance.

I said entrenched, and that speaks to another fundamental, clear and present danger facing us. That is the legislators who are elected on promises and then dig themselves in to power that they never have to surrender. It is a tried and true process. Make promises to labor unions, corporations, and other special interests, to essentially buy elections, then spend their terms paying those bills, ignoring the needs and wishes of their constituents, and always looking to the next election. All the while, they do favors and exchange political markers, putting people in their debt and engaging in brinkmanship that would give the greatest thriller writer a headache. And in the end, they have more and more power, and less and less interest in actually serving the people that they got elected to serve. These virtual lifetime appointments guarantee nothing but an entrenched and essentially out of touch aristocracy that we cannot afford and cannot allow. What we need to truly make the legislature work for WE THE PEOPLE is a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for every elected official in the federal government. Make it impossible for any legislator to amass so much power that they are no longer answerable to the people. We also need to take money out of politics. Write a law that says that any political advertising of any kind, in any form of media, can only be paid by the government Require any aspiring candidate to obtain a certain number of petition signatures in order to qualify for funding, and then use taxpayer dollars to pay for that. I don't necessarily love the idea of more taxpayer dollars going out, but if it takes the unions and corporations and other special interests out of elections, I say it's worth it. If politicians are only going to serve the people who fund their campaigns, then lets make sure we control who does that funding. If it's going to cost me another bite out of my check to actually be represented, well, so be it.

On another note...

One thing that I've been struck by for the past week that my wife and I have watched the nightmare in Haiti unfold, is not just the outporing of generosity by common people who can barely make ends meet (including my household). That gives me hope for the country and the world. It isn't even the CNN correspondents who have shown the courage to not just report the news, but to intervene on behalf of the helpless, I don't normally like the idea of the crusading reporter more intent on making news than reporting it. But in this case, they've chosen principles over objectivity, and courage over manners. I like that. Anyone who pulls a bleeding child away from the thugs who attacked him has got it right. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, no matter why you're supposed to be there, or who's corporate logo is on your paycheck.

But what I'm really struck by is the huge number of celebrities giving their time during telethons for Haiti. That isn't a new thing, but what I note is the fact that they are giving their time, speaking very naturally and easily with people who are phoning in donations. I'm not a starstruck person. I've met enough celebrities to not be overcome by the very sight of them. But what struck me is that they are giving their time, willingly. They may be rich, and the small donation that my wife and I made would be nothing in their weekly budget. But their time is just as valuable and irreplacable to them as mine is to me. Time is important to everyone, and I appreciate them giving it. I saw Steven Speilberg and Julia Roberts among others take the time to talk to people who had called in. They didn't hurry the call, they took the time to get the callers' names and they took the time to actually talk with them. I am truly impressed by anyone giving their time, because, as I said, time is irreplacable for everyone. Well done.

"Haiti, "Kennedy's Seat", and Forgiveness"

2010-01-19T09:49:00.000-08:00

I'd like to start off by mentioning the terrible, terrible tragedy in Haiti. I can offer no words as eloquent as those that have already been spoken. So many countries and organizations have contributed through money, goods, and services, and it is truly a testament to the goodness of the world's citizens that during these times of a world-wide recession, people and governments still find a way to give. Crises seem to be almost a dime a dozen these days, and that is a shame. But this is a big one. Too big to ignore. I am proud and touched to see in this country that we can actually (with a few notable, embarrassing exceptions) put aside our political differences to make a difference: http://clintonbushhaitifund.org . Indeed, people of all faiths and beliefs seem to be coming from all corners of the globe to help the people of Haiti.

And I'll just point out that the murderous thugs who claim to work on behalf of God (or Allah, as they call him) have been noticably silent. We know you have the means. How about working for the God you claim to serve and saving and creating rather than killing? You won't, because you are cowardly thugs who truly care nothing for religion. It means something when you feed off of death and chaos and desperation rather than life and truth and light. Just like cockroaches, you only thrive in filth.

I am pleased to see that what our liberal friends still like to call "Ted Kennedy's Seat" is actually back in the hands of the people, to whom it was actually always supposed to belong. That magical 60th senate vote may well be going to Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown. This is very important, because for one thing, it needs to go to someone who represents not just the people of Massachusetts, all Americans, because he'll be voting on something that affects us all. It's also important because we need a reminder that these seats belong to us all. Something else. I feel sorry for the Kennedy's who no longer have Ted. Nobody should have to lose a family member. But it gives us a preview of what life would be (indeed, how it should be) with term limits. The Founding Fathers well understood the dangers of government out of touch and out of control. When people can run for term after term and gather more and more power and money, until they are so entrenched that they are untouchable, we find that we are no longer represented. We find ourselves ruled by distant (not geographically, but culturally), out of touch despots. Despots who regularly submit to show-elections that rank with Cuban and North Korean elections for real challenge and suspense. Truly, there is no greater threat to true democracy in this country than politicians who are so powerful that they have, for all intents and purposes, lifetime appointments. This is how we find ourselves with a government shoving illegal programs down our throats. Illegal programs that are so heinous and crooked that they can only be crafted in secret meetings. Certainly there are exceptions to the lifetime appointments. Sometimes they are so foolish and crooked that they run before they're arrested (so long, Chris Dodd!). But the old axiom still stands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits now.

Finally, I'd like to talk about forgiveness. I have been guilty of holding grudges many times in my life, against many people. Any real or imagined slight, and I'd decide that they were not only bad people, but that I would never forgive them. Why should I? Why should I let them get away with what they'd done? But I finally realized (and way too late in life for my own taste) that when you refuse to forgive someone, you are really hurting yourself more than anyone else. You are robbing yourself of happiness. Especially if the object of your anger doesn't know or care that you don't forgive them. It's like a house in wintertime where you heat every room but one, and you force yourself to live in that cold room. The only person living in that cold is you. When you forgive, you are freeing yourself of a burden of your own making. And that goes for forgiving yourself. We all do things we regret. We all make mistakes, and it is easy (and probably seems virtuous) to condemn ourselves. But if you can admit to your mistakes and learn from them, it is okay and important to forgive yourself. Nobody can say that they've never regretted anything that they've done, so you've got lots of company. Give yourself a break. Throw it off. Be free. Live your life as fully as possible. The tragedy in Haiti is a good reminder of just how short and precious life can be. Don't waste it.

Harry Reid IS a racist!!!

2010-01-11T15:10:00.000-08:00

I don't care what Reid thinks about Obama, or black people. But the fact that he assumes the racism of white voters makes him, by definition, a racist. He is assuming behavior and attitudes about white voters, based upon their skin color. He is assuming that white voters would be more likely to vote for him because he looks white and talks white, and that is stupid and racist. What Trent Lott said years ago was wrong and stupid, and doesn't compare to this. But there is an undeniable double standard here. If a Republican had said this, they would be calling for his or her head, and probably getting it. Reid is a democrat, who is involved in an unconstitutional conspiracy with Pelosi and Obama in order to plunge this great country into the depths of socialism. Reid could put on a white sheet and hood and get away with it. The message here is that the democratic leadership thinks nothing of voters. They are easily manipulated racist fools, and are only valuable for their tax dollars and votes. That is what is revealed by Reid's mouth. Again, I say, don't you dare call me a racist.

Kapact to Mister Obama: "You lie!"

2010-01-10T10:06:00.001-08:00

This is, again, a present from Mister Obama, one that I hope any opponents he faces in 2012 will use (and word is, Mister O.(Oh)b.(boy)a.(another)m.(mistake)a.(a$#h&e) may be facing a primary challenge). Newt, I don't expect you to be reading this, but I have to hope you're thinking about it.

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

Well, it turns out this administration has as much respect for their own campaign promises as they do for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (that archaic bit about 'endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights', as opposed to 'endowed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi with certain rights that they decide you can handle', and some obscure reference to taxation without representation). The legislature has handed down its latest decree, indicating that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. This is just the kind of trickery and crooked shenanigans we've come to expect in a very short time from the Obama administration. This is a worse administration than the last one (not an easy thing), more ineffective and damaging internationally and domestically than the Carter Administration (seemingly impossible, but somehow true), and more corrupt than the Nixon administration.

So what does our legislature have to say about it? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Ms Pelosi, you won't read this, and you wouldn't care if you did, but you are also a liar. A corrupt liar, and I hope you lose your job very soon.

So why is it they're so worried about hiding this glass of legislative poison? On page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (in other words, to ration health care).

In effect, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection. We must simply pray that Republicans have the courage to take this illegal rag to the Supreme Court, and further pray that the Supreme Court has the integrity to strike it down.

Don't Tread on We The People

2010-01-04T10:02:00.001-08:00

Now that the hubbub of the holidays is over, we need to get back to the real
honest-to-goodness crime and/or incompetence going on in our nation's
capitol. This health care bill that nobody has read, and that we can't pay
for, is not only a real step towards full-blown socialism that Hugo Chavez
admires, (yes, he admires it. He has said that, at the same time that he is
laughing at us for falling for it), it is also illegal. Unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives Congress the power to require that people purchase a good or service. Insurance is a state concern, and therefore doesn't come in under the laws regulating
interstate commerce, nor is it connected to the authority that Congress once exercised to regulate the speed limit. And our liberal congress members seem to think that they can grant themselves this power. They forget that their power does not come from themselves, or any bills that they propose. Their power comes from We The People. If you'd like to see an example of this shocking mix of ignorance and arrogance, consider that at least two (in fact, many more) Congressional leaders cannot or will not explain where in the Constitution they are given the power to require that people purchase insurance. I have here information from CNSNews.com, quoting, amongst other places, the Conservative Action Project. Here is the information, which really speaks for itself:
Aside from constitutional questions about Sen. Ben Nelson's deal with Democrats on behalf of Nebraskans, conservatives are eyeing the bill's individual mandate the requirement that every American citizen must
purchase health insurance. "Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any
penalty, civil or criminal, on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution," says The Conservative Action Project, a group of prominent conservative activists. "As such, [the bill] is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue." Supporters of the Democrats' health care bill have incorrectly contended that the individual mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Conservative Action Project said. But since the federal government has limited jurisdiction having only
enumerated powers, unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual mandate, the group said. The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, "because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance," The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity. "Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce," the conservative group said. Nor is the bill's individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. "It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause." And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The
Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories. As for the argument that the health care bill's individual mandate can be compared to laws requiring auto insurance an argument President Obama has made such arguments are invalid:
"Only state governments can require people to get car insurance," the Conservative Action Project said. "While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance."
Moreover, states require auto insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. "If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance."

'Where in the Constitution...?"
In recent months, CNSNews.com has asked various members of Congress where specifically the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate. Many had no idea. (CNSNews.com) Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do. Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress' authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I'm asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government's ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states. Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress' authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation. All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."

"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"

"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."

"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American." This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be "unprecedented," adding that the government had "never required" Americans to purchase anything. "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," CBO found."The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a
condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report. "An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Although Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch's amendment was out of order.
(CNSNews.com)

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami."Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force
Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?" CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office. "If it is the Speaker's belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?" Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker's office entitled, "Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.'" The press release states
that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production." The release further states: "On the shared responsibility requirement in the
House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions."

That is the end of the piece I obtained from CNSNews.com. I didn't write this report myself, but I found it so honestly astounding and frankly terrifying that I felt it needed to be passed along.

While you can buy votes in Congress (something that once would have shocked even the worst of them), you can't buy them from We The People. This arrogance... this hubris demonstrated by what has got to be the most corrupt government this country has ever known, is not only an embarrasment, it's dangerous. Because while they are waving this smelly (and very expensive) bottle of snake oil under our tortured nose, our enemies are working, and very hard. It doesn't pull our president home from vacation (heck, it didn't
warrant a response for three days!), but it is war, and it is real. If you understand that the Cold War was in fact World War Three, then what we have now, that doesn't interrupt Mister Obama's golf game, is World War Four. Sorry to say (because I try to see the best in everybody), but Mister Obama would react quicker to losing his socialist takeover of the government than he did to someone trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day.

Who Does Your Shopping For You?

2009-12-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

Imagine if the government decided that it was going to buy all of your
groceries for you. This is to make sure that everyone gets the amount of
food that government decides you need. It's to make sure that nobody does
without, regardless of their income. Such a noble, compassionate idea, and
only the cold-hearted rich could oppose such an idea.
But wait. In this program, just to make sure that everyone got groceries of
equal quality and freshness and nutritional value, the government will pick
out the fruit and vegetables, as well as the brand of cereal and milk, and
the size of the eggs. They'll even decide whether you get jumbo,
farm-raised, free range, etc. In short, as a part of that program, Uncle Sam
will make all of those decisions for you. And if anyone else tries to sell
you groceries, Uncle Sam will use the power of Congress to make sure that
those questionable grocers obey every regulation that can be squeezed into a
two thousand page document. You'll be able to use any grocer that you want,
but rest assured that your grocer won't sell anything that Uncle Sam doesn't
approve, or charge less for your groceries than Uncle Sam charges. If the
private grocer steps out of line, don't worry. Uncle Sam will take care of
them. Oh, and don't be foolish enough try to stay out Uncle Sam's grocery
plan. Because if you don't go with someone's plan, you could actually get
fined more than the price of a years' worth of groceries. Never mind that
Uncle Sam doesn't have the legal right (which by law MUST be specified in
the Constitution) to require you to subscribe to a grocery plan, they're
going to do it anyway.
This is obviously ridiculous. Nobody would allow the government (which
couldn't run a grocery store), to pick out their groceries for them, nor
would they want the government to put smaller, more efficient, less
expensive grocery stores out of business. I mean, when was the last time the
government ran a business better than the private sector?

The Executive Czar

2009-12-12T07:11:00.001-08:00

I used to think that 'our friends on the left' just had a different idea of
how best to take our country into the future, and in fact, in the eighties,
I think they did. Oh, they were desperately wrong even then, but we all
lived in the same country, and we all believed that the bedrocks of our
country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were
important and inviolable. They meant something, and even though we disagreed
on how best to support and defend the Constitution, we all loved and
respected it. Those were the good old days.
Now we have an administration that treats the Constitution like an old
novel. Quaint, interesting. Certainly worthy of study, (Mister Obama did
study constitutional law), but not really practical. Not relevant. Maybe
they think it's due a reboot. Witness the plague of un-elected, un-confirmed
and un-answerable czars that Mister Obama has visited upon us. They are now
dictating how companies can compensate executives. While I understand that
since the government is in the business of bailing out (swallowing up, or
'Chavezing') private businesses, the case could be made for dictating how
they spend the investor's money. Except that the czar making the decision
was not elected by the taxpayers who actually supplied the money. Nor was he
confirmed by the senate. So we have a crony. A bit of an appointed cossack
who decides how much someone in a now state-run business can be compensated.
I suppose when you put it like that, well, it doesn't necessarily sound
better, but at least it sounds familiar. It almost makes sense. If you're in
the Kremlin, and your last name is Putin. Or Stalin.
But that's just the start. Next, Mister Obama is going to grant himself the
power to break up large companies that he deems are 'too powerful'. See,
that line about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed", well, that was okay for the Founding Fathers, (just like the
Second Ammendment might have meant something back then, but not now), but
hey, this is the 21st century. Fortunately, we seem to have a 'progressive'
executive czar who seems to derive his power from the just consent of...
himself.
Mister executive czar Obama may belong to the same esteemed club as Al Gore,
Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat, but the difference is that they are either
dead or irrelevant. Mister Obama still has a few years to warp the country
to his 'progressive' model.

Go Ask Harry!

2009-12-05T09:05:00.001-08:00

Just a little note. The same 'man' who complained about sweaty tourists stinking up the capital (uh, Harry, you actually work for those people, by the way) was asked about Afghanistan, and angrily and dismissively told the reporter to "Ask Tiger Woods". Mister Reid, your attitude is elitist and ill-mannered, and inconsistent with the behavior of someone who wants to keep his job. But please, don't change on my account. I'm sure you'll do fine in whatever your next job is.

More Derailments on the Hope and Change Express

2009-12-05T09:04:00.001-08:00

One of the moments I've been waiting for since Barack Hussein Obama was appointed... I mean, elected, (Well, not really. Ballots were never counted at the Democratic National Convention) has finally arrived, and he did not disappoint. With two wars on, there just had to come a point when the Commander in Chief would have to pretend that he represents the interests of the entire country. He would be forced to give the impression of being tough on the war front to satisfy anyone with a lick of common sense while properly serving the political bosses responsible for getting him appointed... er, elected. And he bobbled it like a master. But then I suppose that something like that is bound to happen when you make decisions beyond your pay grade without a teleprompter. I'm not talking about the 30,000 versus 40,000 debate. That is a decision, that while a mistake in my opinion, could be considered an honest difference in judgement. What I'm talking about is the month that he spent dithering about it, and then the naive, senseless and dangerous time table of 18 months, as well as the vow not to win, but rather to end the war. Tell me, Mister Obama, will we see you posing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign in your reelection campaign spots? Or is that timing just a coincidence? Nobody, not even his liberal overseers are willing to publicly endorse the foolish notion of an arbritary time table. Chris Matthews... yes, Chris Matthews even questioned it. Chris Matthews, who seems to get a shiver down his leg everytime Obama enters the conversation. It's almost like someone having the sense and courage to walk out on a deranged, racist preacher rather than sit listening obediantly for twenty years, until election time comes up. This was the moment I knew had to get here, and while I am pleased to see Mister Obama show his incompetence, I fear for us. He has four years to do incalculable damage to the country and the world, and Ronald Reagan is, sadly, no longer available to rescue us.

I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear or affirm to fundamentally change the United States of America

2009-11-29T11:45:00.000-08:00

"I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Just so we have that straight. That's an oath, not above his pay grade, that he took. In public. Well, once in public, and once, correctly, in private. But it is a legally binding oath. So some might start to privately wonder just what he meant when he announced his intention to fundamentally change the United States of America. Preserve. Protect. Defend. Fundamentally change. It would pay to be wary of someone who can say both with a straight face. But it goes deeper than that. If he signs a piece of legislation entitling Congress to do something for which it has no constitutional authority, can he really say that he has preserved, protected and defended the constitution? And if he knowingly takes an action (by signing that legislation) that violates that oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, could the case be made that he commited perjury, thereby opening himself up for impeachment?

Just saying....

Recession Depression Beaters

2009-11-23T09:23:00.001-08:00

I wrote something quite a while ago about recession depression beaters.
Making up simple, free games at home. Like making a basketball hoop out of a
metal clothes hanger. Well, with my wife's help, I've created a card for us
to play. Pretty simple rules, mainly resulting in having to practice basic
math skills, preferably in your head. And again, it's simple and free.

If anyone reading this is curious, I'd be happy to pass on details. But I'd
also like to invite you to post, through the 'comment' feature, your own
recession depression beaters.

Highway Robbery

2009-11-20T10:19:00.000-08:00

I was in the grocery store the other day when I saw a lady (and I use the
term loosely) looking at a package of hotdogs that was like $1.49 or
something like that. Now take note that this lady shows up to buy things
only in the first week of the month, using her "EBT" food stamp card. She
saw the price, tossed it back in the wrong place, and said, derisively,
"Highway robbery." And I'm thinking, "No, highway robbery is what you live
on from the first of the month... to the first of the month." I didn't say
it, because I would suddenly be a racist (to finish painting the picture),
and probably get shot and/or arrested. The same person who on the first of
the month buys only T-bone steaks and soda and potato chips, and by the last
of the month is shoplifting. All the while tapping away on her i-phone.
Lady, buy some ground beef and canned vegetables, and kool aid. Sell your
i-phone. And if you think grocery prices are too high, stop stealing
groceries. Stop taking perishable items from their section and dropping them
somewhere else. Every time the store loses a product that they paid for
because of your thoughtlessness, they lose money. When they lose too much
money they're forced to raise prices. And then someone either steals it or
destroys it. What you and people like you are doing is highway robbery.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Not Your Typical Conservative Christian Opinion on Gay Marriage

2009-10-13T09:10:00.001-07:00

I live in a state where civil unions have recently been legalized, and it's
turned my thoughts toward the subject of gay marriage. I have gay friends
who live in other countries, married and committed and very happy. For a
time, I had an internal debate, or maybe just a denial. I am a conservative,
as is obvious from my other rants. I have, for as long as the question
existed, sided against gay marriage. Not because I didn't want gays to have
the same rights, but because I honestly felt that marriage, as an
institution, was defined as being between a man and a woman. I thought it
was sort of like a man wanting to use the ladies room. Why not use your own?
I thought that civil unions should be the gay marriage. I didn't really get
that I was doing a 'separate but equal' thing. So what changed my mind?
Strangely enough, getting to know God changed my mind. And it's not that I
used to think it was bad and now I think it's good. I've never thought it
was bad, just unnecessary. But it isn't about necessary or unnecessary. It's
about allowing a group of people to do something (that really threatens
nobody) that makes them feel happy and fulfilled in their life. I mean, the
declaration of independence talks about all people being endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst them the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit if happiness. It doesn't specify heterosexual
people, nor does it, for that matter, require that those people believe that
their creator exists. If someone has a right, endowed by another, then who
are we to regulate or refuse that right? The argument that is routinely
raised against it from a biblical sense is that it is a sin. Well, last time
I checked, it was God's business to pass judgement on sinners. Now, I
haven't read the whole Bible, so maybe I don't know all I need to know. But
I do know that God didn't put me here to whack people with lightning bolts.
If He feels the need to, He will. I have enough to worry about with my own
scorecard. I'm not trying to make light of this, honestly. I just don't
think God needs me to point out everything to Him. And whether or not my
neighbor might be doing something that annoys God, well, that's between my
neighbor and God. I do know that my gay friend loves her wife, and I just
don't see that being a bad thing.
The other argument is that somehow gay marriage is going to destroy the
fabric of the country. Tell me please, how two people being married and
having a family is going to destroy the country. They won't stop straight
people from doing the same, they won't stop kids from dreaming, or
fullfilling those dreams. They might like different things, they may do
things that you find distasteful, but as long as they work and live honestly
and don't invade people's privacy, then they do no more harm to the country
than anyone else. It is popular these days among conservatives to look to
the Founding Fathers for inspiration. Well, the Founding Fathers were
concerned with throwing off oppressive governments and letting people pursue
their happiness without a despot deciding who was entitled to those God
given rights. So maybe they would have agreed with me.

Words From The Gipper

2009-09-14T05:06:00.000-07:00

Quoted from The Patriot Post Monday Brief

September 14, 2009
Vol. 09 No. 37

"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan

House Abukoff: Services, Affordable Books and Curios, and Opinions http://houseabukoff.blogspot.com
The Place for Affordable Books (hard to find and others), DVD's, and General Treasures http://abukoffbooksandcurios.blogspot.com
The Internet's Only Reliable Blog http://kapactsrant.blogspot.com
Not Just a Game, It's a Star Trek Experience http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

KrIstaK Fleet Emblem

2009-08-31T06:17:00.000-07:00

This is my KrIstak Fleet Emblem....

Kapact

"flag@whitehouse.gov"

2009-08-12T04:44:00.000-07:00

I'm actually happy to see the fights and arguments breaking out all over the country about the healthcare bill. Recall that during the (most recent) Bush administration, our liberal friends were quick to remind us of the importance and inherent patriotism of dissent. When we see people shouting at each other in a town hall meeting, or confronting a suddenly, and for the first time in his life, silenced senator, what we see is discussion rather than indoctrination. The Obama administration and its congressional allies have already forced an historically expensive spending bill on us, intentionally not allowing time to even read it. They would have happily done it again if the Republican minority hadn't stood up and slowed the liberal rubber stamp machine of Reid/Pelosi. Now they are facing questions and challenges from the people who will pay the bills and cast the votes.

I also find it quite ironic that the same people who were insisting that we slow down and talk while the Bush administration was going its own way in Iraq now suddenly tell us that there isn't time, if we wait too long we're doomed, don't read it, just sign it. Well, I say what a growing number of voting Americans say: How are you going to pay for it? Or better yet, how am I going to pay for it? Even worse than the "Don't take the time to read this thing that you're great grandchildren will be paying for" bill is the idea that the White House wants you to listen and report... not on potential terrorists, as that might violate their civil rights, but your email friend who passes something on to you that wasn't reported by the mainstream media, or by a coworker who heard Glenn Beck talk about this thing that we're supposed to pay for somehow without reading through. Sound paranoid? This is from Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House's Health Reform Office: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for some help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

There's a little thing called the first ammendment, Mister Obama and Miss Douglas. It allows us to disagree and dissent and argue and even question our government without fear of being regulated by government czars. It might sound fishy, but it's there, and you can't change it. And if that's too vague and old-fashioned for this 'progressive' White House, there's this: "According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, shall 'maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Ammendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to an authorized law enforcement agency."

For the moment, sir, unless and until you manage to change it, even that law applies to you.

Real Strength

2009-07-29T07:55:00.000-07:00

I used to think that in order to be strong I had to be cool and tough and cynical. I'd heard about 'the meek shall inherit the earth', but I thought that it was more an empty promise than anything else. I thought that the strong and the rich and the cynical would really inherit the earth. Ah, but I was wrong. At least in a way. The strong really will inherit the earth, but the strong aren't the people with the biggest sticks. Real strength doesn't come in a weapons locker or a gym, or a smart comment, for that matter, and meek doesn't mean you let everyone push you around.

Meek, in this sense means humble. Deeds rather than words. A person who feels the need to blow their own trumpet and brag about everything they do, or even shout others down because they think that's the only way they can make a point is not really strong. That person is really afraid that what they have to offer isn't good enough to stand on its own. Real strength means working hard or doing the right thing even when it isn't easy. It means showing people what you can do rather than padding your resume. People who can do that really will inherit the earth.

Fear and Manipulation From the Left

2009-07-21T07:51:00.001-07:00

I talked last time (a long, long time ago) about fear and manipulation from the right, which in fact does nothing to promote a good, honest conservative movement. Now I'll touch on the same from the left. This goes back quite a ways, but I'll try to focus on a few notable and recent instances,

Watching recent left-sponsored ads selling the socialized health-care package, I see that we are being told how bad things will be if we don't hand over control of yet another aspect of our lives to the government. Rather than saying what good it will do, the ad brings forth actors who will suffer this or that tragic fate. Rather than selling it (which in fact they don't have to... they own two out of three branches of government and control the purse strings) with positive arguments and benefits, they have to use fear. We know what is best for you. We will spend the money from that shadowy evil 'rich' to save you from the right. Oh, and be afraid of the 'rich'. Don't think about the fact that they employ us and buy big ticket items that we build in order to bring a paycheck home. They are also people who take a chance opening businesses that can get people off of unemployement. But the left doesn't want you to think about that. They need you to fear the 'rich' because otherwise their agenda would be exposed. And what is that agenda? The power of the state over the individual. I could use some labels here, like communism or fascism, but I'd rather just talk about them and let you draw your own conclusions. Welfare, which is a program of the left, is ostensibly a safety net, but has become a way for the state to control what the individual has and can do. They actually encourage you to stop working, stop creating wealth, stop defining your goals and aspirations. Stop trying to improve yourself. Stop trying to become independent. The idea that our rights and powers as individual come from the state, and that the state is the only entity wise enough to hand out our allowances... to distribute the wealth, as it were, runs contrary to everything that our country was founded on. But really, their ads will never speak in such clear language. They never publicly admit these things, for obvious reasons, but they never really counter them either. No, they cannot use facts and truth to sell their agenda, so they use fear and manipulation.

Be Prepared For Life's Hummingbirds

2009-05-21T23:25:00.000-07:00

Taking a break from the rant idea for just a second. I am a pretty spiritual person. I believe in my Lord and Savior, and I know that He believes in me. But faith is a pretty personal thing, and I'm not going to try to tell anyone else how or what they should believe. This doesn't have to have anything to do with that.

The other day, I was walking to work, thinking about my dreams and goals and knowing that if I live my life as the best person I can and work hard and pursue my dreams and prepare for their fullfillment (in fact, I thank God for granting them before I see them because I know He will), then they'll happen. God doesn't give you gifts that he doesn't intend for you to use. Just think of the bit from the first Superman movie. Pa Kent tells Clark that he was here for a reason, and he didn't think it was for kicking field goals. My gifts are great, I love 'em, and I love the Lord for giving them to me. Anyway, I'm walking down the road thinking about this, and from out of nowhere, a hummingbird appears, hovers about six feet from me, looking straight at me, and then shoots away.
Okay, now it'd be easy to say it was just a hummingbird. The weather is right for hummingbirds. No big deal. Ah, but no. I don't believe in accidents. I believe in gifts. I choose to believe that the hummingbird was a smile from the Lord. It was a message. I have accepted the Lord as my savior, and as a great friend who never gives up on me. So I also accept the fact that He is prepared to reach down and hand me gifts once in a while.
So am I telling you to do the same thing? No. As I said, faith is a personal thing. Believe as you choose. I would just respectfully suggest that you sometimes accept good things put in your path not as accidents, but as gifts. Even if they're just pretty things that brighten your day for a second. I happen to believe that if you are prepared to do that, you'll find that they become more and more commonplace. Be prepared for life's hummingbirds.

Fear and Manipulation Part One

2009-05-08T16:09:00.001-07:00

It's been a long time since I've written a rant, due to various and sundry RL issues. Not that there hasn't been plenty to rant about. But I also think that there are plenty of angry bloggers on both side of the great partisan schism that has really paralyzed our country. I think I've got a good voice and a fairly balanced viewpoint, but I also have to question the value of any single angry rant. So I'll talk not specifically about the wrongs perpetrated by all of our politicians (because we all know about them anyway) from a partisan standpoint, but hopefully from a non-partisan point of view. I mean, as much as I think we were safer when George W Bush left office than when he came in, there is really no question that he was ineffectual domestically. There are others more responsible for our current economic mess than he, but he played a part.

I'd actually like to talk about the role that fear plays in how politicians manipulate us. Politicians have since the dawn of time used fear to control their subjects, and our government today is no change. The extreme right makes us fear things like gay marriage and alternate lifestyles, really things that we may think is wrong, but don't in fact threaten the country. I believe myself that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don't feel threatened by people who feel otherwise, and I don't think that the government needs to weigh in on the subject. I also don't like the idea of abortion, unless in case of rape or if the life of the mother is threatened, and I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. But I also don't care for the government weighing in on the matter with its clumsy hands. It's a complex issue, for sure, because there is no question that a fetus is alive. It has a heartbeat, it moves and it kicks. If that is the case, then abortion, killing it, is murder. So maybe the debate we need to have and resolve is not whether or not women should have the right to choose, but whether or not they should have the right to choose to murder the lifeform that they helped to create. Maybe the debate should be at what point the fetus is entitled to protection under the law. There are serious rights and wrongs there, and again, the issue is not simple. A person's right to choose is vital to a free nation, and any restriction of that right needs to be undertaken only after the most careful deliberation. On the other hand, at what point is abortion murder? It is a fiendishly complicated issue, but it is also a weapon used by extreme far right politicians to manipulate the public. We must fear, and therefore put a stop to these evil people who are destroying the moral fibre of the country.

The far right, however, is not alone in using fear to manipulate the public. I'll talk about that next time.

Repeating From Last Time:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

O.B.A.M.A. (Oh Boy Another Mistake A$S&\#@)

2009-04-09T16:19:00.000-07:00

I'm finding it harder and harder to support our President, and I'm really trying. Despite the good that George W Bush tried to do, nobody can really say that he left the country in better shape after eight years in office. Safer, yes, though it cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. But he is no more a fiscal conservative than Hillary is. Just as you can't tax your way to prosperity, you also can't spend your way there. And Bush spent irresponsibly. Compassionate Conservativism, as Bush tried it, was just fiscal liberalism. Real conservativism, which is compassionate by definition, knows that the government that does least is the government that does best. Every time government tries to improve something by getting its big, clumsy, greedy hands into it, it just makes a mess. And yet, compared to Obama, George W was a dream. Obama embarrasses us at home and abroad in front of foreign leaders. (If you don't believe that, google Obama and Churchill bust, Obama and HMS Resolute, Obama and speaking Austrian, and Obama bowing to Saudi King). Not only that, but he has done wise things like refusing to let some banks pay back stimulus money. No kidding. He says he has no interest in the government running private businesses until a business tries to get out from under the Obama boot. Several banks have tried to pay money back to the government, but the government has refused. Kind of like when a mob 'invests' a little cash into a small mom and pop store as a way of taking it over. The main difference is that the mob isn't taxpayer funded and supposed to be representing mom and pop. And of course, the mob would be more honest. Mr. Obama talks a very good game when he has a teleprompter, but I'm predicting that he's nothing but Jimmy Carter with a socialist bent. I just hope that we're blessed with another Reagan to pick up the pieces in four years.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

What Mr Obama's Gift Will Cost You

2009-04-05T14:03:00.000-07:00

Like most people, I've found a little extra money in my paycheck this week, thanks to Mister Obama. Well, not really. See, the extra cash isn't there because the fat cats in DC decided that they didn't need to get rich for creating and then exploiting crises. And don't try to pretend that they don't exploit crises. Hillary herself said "Don't let a good crisis go to waste." No, this extra cash in my paycheck actually comes from..... me! And you. And every other taxpayer. The Federal government doesn't have any money that we don't give it. So before you fall down on your knees and thank Mister Obama for giving you money, stop. He just did what liberals have been telling us for years is a bad idea. He's letting us keep more of our money. But don't think that he's changed into a conservative. He's just taking money from one hand and putting it in another. He's spending your money to give it to you. By "taxing the rich" he is taking money from corporations, just like the one that issued the check that had the tax cut on it. The same one that will have to raise its prices and/or lay people off and/or cut hours to make up the difference. So when you pump your fist in the air and chant "OBAMA!" like a true believer, think about what that is going to cost you. And hope and pray that it doesn't push your groceries out of your price range, or cost you the hours you need to survive on, or even your job.

And don't cry about giving Obama a chance. The two years that Obama spent in Congress were used to help create this problem and to run for President. They were used to condone the disposal of 'failed abortions' (live babies thrown in the garbage in Chicago hospitals), and to take in more money from unions and lobbyists than most other legislators have in a lifetime of exploiting crises. He spent the time voting 'present' and deciding which issues were above his paygrade. He's had plenty of time to fix the problem.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Which Weekly "News" Magazine Wiped Israel Off the Map?

2009-03-20T21:05:00.000-07:00

I've always had a pretty low opinion of the weekly "news" magazines, and Newsweek has just helped to keep that opinion low. In its recent issue telling us that Radical Islam is a fact of life that we have to learn to live with, they featured a world map online that labeled the country of Israel as "Palestinian Territory". After the appropriate uproar from everyone except for the mainstream liberal propamedia (propaganda media), Newsweek quietly changed it. No apology, no explanation, no comment. Just a quick rewrite. Now, I have to assume that Newsweek actually knows that the state of Israel exists, and where it is, so the only alternative is that part of Newsweek's plan to 'learn to live with Radical Islam" is remove Israel from the map. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe despite the evidence presented by the picture, the editorial position of Newsweek magazine isn't anti-semitic. I don't see how, but it could be. Oh, and if you believe that the 9/11 attack was an act of war by Radical Islam, then Newsweek has not only declared that we've lost the war, they could be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy by means of propaganda.

Here's another foodstamp horror story. Just a brief one really, that needs no explanation. Two girls, maybe twenty years old, picking out steak, soda, and potato chips to buy with their EBT foodstamp card while chatting on their I-Phone. As far as I know, the I-Phone costs about a hundred dollars a month to run. So please, sell your fancy phone and stop stealing my tax dollars.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

If Bush Had Done It... Dissing the British

2009-03-15T00:29:00.000-07:00

There are things that our new president is doing that definitely fall under the 'if-Bush-had-done-it' category that somehow the liberal media somehow manages to miss. Did you know, for example, that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently visited the Obamas? Yes, he did. First off, Obama decides that there would be no British flags anywhere in the White House when they met. Okay. Not an outright insult, but certainly a lack of diplomacy. But it gets worse. As a gift, He was kind enough to bring with an amazing gift, a pen made from wood from the HMS Resolute. I'll tell you about the HMS Resolute. The Resolute was one of their warships in the 1850's, and it went with another ship into the Arctic Circle. Both ships got stuck in the ice. The other ship made it out, but the Resolute didn't. The Captain of the Resolute ordered his crew to board the other ship to get home. When he got home, he was court-martialed for abandoning his ship. When the ice finally started to break up, America went up and pulled the Resolute out of the ice and sailed it to England. The point was that we were trying to make a gesture of reconciliation with England after the Revolution and the War of 1812. It was a way of showing that we were brothers. This is a big thing. A historic thing. So when the Resolute was decommissioned, Queen Elizabeth decided to have two desks made from the wood of the ship. One was for her, and the other she gave to the President. This, again, is really significant. It is a symbol of the close relationship we share. And now, Gordon Brown comes over and gives Barack Obama a pen made from the wood of the HMS Resolute. So what does our President give him in return? He gives him a basket... seriously, a basket filled with 25 DVD's of American movies. Rather than something special that says something about the close and special relationship between this country and its greatest ally, Obama gives Gordon Brown 25 DVD's that, unless Brown has a multizone DVD player, he won't be able to play anyway. It's cheap and low-class. Ah, but we're not finished.

Mrs. Brown has brought children's clothing from the best designer in England for the kids, and Michelle goes downstairs and grabs a couple of boxes of Marine One helicopter models and hands them to Mrs. Brown, saying, "Here, this is for you." Is this hatred for England? Could be. Michelle Obama wrote in a term paper that England was just a linchpin for slavery. This, remember, is our greatest, most stalwart ally. But that still is not the worst. Here's the worst.

Something else that England has done in two's. There are two famous busts of Winston Churchill. One was given to the President after 9/11 as a way of saying that they stand with us. So what does Obama do with this gift? When Gordon Brown visits, Obama puts the bust in a box and tells Brown we don't want it anymore. Brown says, "No, Mr President, this wasn't a loan, it was a gift. If you don't want it in the White House, put it in a musuem. Mister Obama just says "No, we don't want it anymore." I'd say that we aren't yet into the 'rebuilding our image abroad' phase, because this was an embarrassment that the British media and people went nuts over, but Brian Williams et al just seemed to have missed. If it Bush had done it....

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Headlines From The Edge: Feb 28 2009

2009-02-28T12:12:00.000-08:00

Obama Proposes Starfleet as Part of Stimulus

President Barack Obama revealed an ambitious part of his stimulus plan today, ordering the construction of twelve Constitution Class starships. "This is just the sort of bold thinking we need to take us into the next several centuries," he said. "And don't worry about the price tag. You've seen Star Trek. By the time our Starfleet is finished, money won't exist anyway. It's a win-win proposition. And this should put an end to the talk about me changing the constitution. C'mon. They're called 'Constitution Class' for a reason."

Increase in Alien Visitors Due to Recession

Alien Ambassador #@")€¥123007 spoke before a joint session of Congress today, making the case for alien university students. He explained that the world-wide recession is a boon for students in his home galaxy. He said, through an interpreter, that students would typically have trouble abducting subjects for their research projects, but with times so tough on Earth, a few dollars or a can of pork and beans have volunteers lining up for miles. The ambassador added that any attempt to ease the recession could set the study of humans back by at least fifty years.

Man Literally Laughs All the Way to the Bank

A man who refused to identify himself left his small house in Americus, Georgia and walked to a local Bank of America branch, literally laughing all the way to the bank. Witnesses said that he was laughing when he stepped out of his house, and kept laughing as he walked down the sidewalk. He safely crossed three intersections and then a full city block, and was still laughing when he walked into the bank. There was noone walking with him, and the local CTU (Counter-Terrorism Unit) office reported that he was not using a cellphone or mobile device of any kind. Whether he is actually off his rocker, or might be the bank CEO is still a matter of speculation.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Hope You Enjoy Your Change

2009-02-24T17:14:00.000-08:00

I saw a curious thing at the grocery store the other day, and it really just speaks to something I see often and try not to be bothered by. That's a person using their EBT card at the store (that's what they get so they can feel better about using foodstamps, and so its harder to trade them for booze and cigarettes), proudly wearing an Obama t-shirtt. People can have their opinions and beliefs. I don't care. But it is just so perfectly summed up when they get their expensive deli meat, swiss cheese, french fries, chips, and soda on my tax dollar, and are then reminded that they can't use it for the Red Bull. Well, sorry, Obama supporter. Hope he can change that for you. On my tax dollar. I can't afford expensive deli meat, swiss cheese, french fries, chips, and soda, because I'm busy paying for yours. Enjoy.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

We Know What's Best, Even When We're Wrong

2009-02-17T14:28:00.000-08:00

I'm talking this week about the wisdom of government making snap decisions, the most glaring and life-changing of which is the trillion-dollar rushed-through-congress, unexamined, unstudied, don't-read-it-just-sign-it bailout bill. There is no question that we need jobs, and creating them by fixing our infrastructure seems like a good idea. There is also no question that we still need a middle-class tax break. But being a student of American history, I have to say that I have trouble finding an instance where a hastily conceived and rammed-down-our-throats massive government program ever really provided a sustainable solution to an entrenched and serious problem. Here's a good example of liberal reporting on one such knee-jerk, over-the-top government solution to a "problem", taken from the New York Times website.

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

While I was never a fan of Bill Clinton, I will admit to appreciating the fact that he studies relentlessly. He does his homework. While he has the morals of an alley cat, he is without a doubt a very clever, hard-working person. He has a big, usually out-of-control mouth, but he also has a high IQ. But he blew it big that time. His short-sighted pandering to low-income voters (in an attempt, no doubt, to buy the election for Al Gore), stuffed this country but good, and now Obama has sold us a trillion dollar bottle of snake oil/magic elixir to cure the problem that Bush is supposed to have caused. Bush sure as heck let it grow, but Clinton started it.

It's the same kind of shoved-down-our-throats solution to the on-again, off-again, depends-on-who-you-ask issue of climate change. And you note we don't hear 'global warming' nearly as much, since 2008 was globally the coolest year in more than a decade. No, it's 'climate change' now. Just like 'liberal' is now 'progressive'. Folks, call it what you want, a cr@p sandwich by any other name would smell as bad. I even heard local meteorologist Kevin Janison say that global warming didn't actually refer to the temperature, but to weather instabilitty. I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "warming" is. Come on Kevin, get with the times. It isn't global warming, it's climate change. I'll just say something about meteorologists. Discounting what I think about Weather Channel Chief Stormtrooper Heidi Cullen, I find it interesting that these supposed experts think nothing of repeatedly getting it wrong on a daily basis, explaining that it's just a forecast, and things can always change. But they still call themselves experts and think that they can tell us what's going to happen thirty years from now. Forgive me Heidi and Kevin, but if you can't say what's going to happen three days from now, how can you say with authority what will happen a year from now, much less thirty years from now. I don't have a problem with cleaning the air and/or getting off of fossil fuels. We need to do both. I don't even mind an honest debate on climate change. What I have a problem with is, again, a decision made by a few elite liberal stormtroopers who use their jackboots to crush the necks of anyone who dares to debate the issue. Not even disagree, but just debate. Dissent is healthy, even when liberals are making the decision.

Mark my words, we will be told in the next four years that questioning the decrees of the Obama administration is unpatriotic. Big Brother just got bigger. They're from the government and they're here to help. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Now here are my weekly reminders of who got us in our current mess:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

And my weekly comments on P'resident Obama:

First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Read The Fine Print

2009-02-10T22:35:00.000-08:00

It's pretty easy to take shots at crooked politicians not paying taxes, with no penalty for most but a minor dip in poll ratings. But that's because they make it easy. How in the heck can you gang of thugs so easily spend tax dollars on huge ideas that you hope will work but refuse to pay your fair share. Here's an idea. Gamble your own money on this idea and see how it works before you waste mine. Forgive me, but your record so far doesn't inspire any confidence. And I'll tell you something else. It wasn't long ago when the liberals were reminding us that dissent and discussion are healthy. Now, according to them, we don't have time to question or examine a trillion dollars being spent in the hopes that this idea will work. Anytime a salesman tells you that you don't have time to think about buying something, that's when you should find the time. This problem has been brewing since Bill Clinton was president. It can wait another week or two while WE THE PEOPLE read the fine print.

Here's another reason to love our politicians. You all see these heroes insisting that execs accepting taxpayer dollars now be subject to salary caps. Well here's a thought. How about you taking a salary cap? I know that we couldn't live without you, and it just tortures you to have to vote yourselves endless unjustified raises, but how about some of that responsibility and transparency that you're demanding from people taking taxpayer dollars? I mean, it's just that, well, you accept taxpayer dollars, don't you? Here's a thought. How about merit pay for politicians? If your next paycheck depended on your results, how do you think you would do? Would you have to worry about your financial future like most people in this country do?

I watched the president's first press conference with interest. I know that President Obama does poorly when he's unscripted. This didn't seem to be any different. There seemed to be nothing but softball questions that the president already magically had prepared five-minute speeches for. Hardly surprising. But the memorable moment, the payoff for the hour was Helen Thomas (who has outstayed her welcome and outlived her legitimacy by at least a decade) referring to the Taliban and Al Qeada as 'so-called terrorists'. Kind of like saying that Hitler was a so-called killer.

I'll finish this off with a reminder of where this problem started:

This problem started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Three Rants and a Note About Our President

2009-02-01T14:57:00.000-08:00

I have three subjects to talk about, with a note at the end about our new President and the economic crisis he has pledged to solve.

I was fascinated to watch unrepentant crook and Chicago politics posterboy Rod Blagojevich 'make his case' without actually making a case. He was all defiant righteous anger and indignation, telling us just how much he's done for the state, and how the people elected him twice. And even having the nerve to warn the people of the dangers of a legislature removing a governor without a trial. Well, mister blagojevich, your actions have in every case spoken louder than your words. You have shown the danger of government not caring about the wishes of the people. You demonstrated a contempt for the rule of law with your own taped words, interspersed with more vulgarity than HBO spouts on a Saturday night, talking about how much this power is worth, and how much you want for it, and what you think of those not willing to pay your price. You need to understand, mister blagojevich, that public office is not a prize, it's a responsibility. A duty. An honor. You don't buy or sell or win your office, you are granted stewardship over it, and the condition in which you leave it says a great deal about you. You have managed to embarrass, with the depth of your graft and arrogance, a criminal machine that puts the mafia to shame. You managed to make a den of criminals look angelic by comparison.

I'm frightened. Truly I am. President Obama signed into law good legislation designed to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. That is good and just and way overdue. So, yes, I'm frightened that Obama has done something else that I agree with. However, I must take slight exception to remarks that he made during the accompanying photo-op. He said that he doesn't want to limit his daughters' dreams. On the surface, that is a good, sensible, honorable thought. But it doesn't bear close examination. Because just as Joe the Plumber is limited in his dreams of small business ownership, so must the Obama girls if they ever try the same thing. In a way, mister obama, we're all your children. You took an oath to make sure that none of our dreams are limited. So remember that as you are redistributing our success.

I saw a very sad story on the news the other day, about a 93 year old World War Two veteran dying in his Michigan home during a winter storm because the power company had put a power limiter on his house. He was said to be a thousand dollars behind on his power bill. Well, I'll just say that the power company is not in business to lose money. Bills are serious things, and have to be paid. Let's be honest. The bill didn't get that big overnight. (You'd have to be Al Gore to use that much electricity in a month). I'm not dishonoring this hero. I''m telling the truth, and the truth never dishonored anyone. At the same time, sometimes numbers and bottomline must give way to compassion, and according to the story, nobody took the time to explain to him how the power limiter worked So both parties share responsibility here. But there is more responsibility to go around. That is, and most glaringly to the family that is suddenly so concerned with this deceased hero. Where were you before he died? Where were the phone calls to check on him during the winter storm that killed him? I don't doubt the complicity of the power company that cared more about money than people, and I don't doubt that his family loved him and cared about him. But where were you before he died? According to reports he had enough money to pay his bill, and he may have had dementia. So tell me, indignant family, did you know he had dementia? If so, again, where were you before he died? How long had it been since you checked on him? I'm not trying to be cruel here. I know that good, caring, honorable people make mistakes. I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm just saying that people are often better at appointing blame than taking responsibility. We're all guilty of that. Nobody's perfect. But it's also true that we'll never improve before we acknowledge that.

I'm going to add something here about President Obama and our economy, and I plan on repeating this in every rant. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Mister Obama's First Week

2009-01-27T22:14:00.000-08:00

I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on Mister Obama just barely a week into his administration, and in fact I cautiously agree with more than one decision he's made. The country is nowhere near ready for the switch to digital television. Guantanamo needs to be closed as a prison facility, but we need a real credible plan for what to do with the inmates. We need to remember that the inmates are there because they deserve to be there. They aren't innocent, nor are they victims. They are unapologetic terrorists. Mister Obama is also right to reach out to Republicans, if in fact he's not lying about that. It might cost him liberal friends, but he's supposed to represent the whole country. If he wants the whole country to support him, he's going to have to support them. I don't like Mister Obama, and I don't trust him. I think he's a crook and a marxist. But he is our President, and we need him to be a strong one. We can't afford another weak President. Now for the negative column. Crook. Liar. Marxist. Racist. (Remember the whole 'they'll try to make you afraid of me because of the way I look' thing?) Elitist. (Remember the whole 'bitterly clinging to guns and religion' thing?) The treasury secretary who evades taxes and has a liberal immigration policy. Joe Biden. William Ayers. Jeremiah Wright. (I know those last two are in the past, but it shows his poor judgement) The $600 million to 'prepare' the country for socialized medicine, er, um, universal healthcare. The conciliatory tone towards our enemies. The pretentious, 'everyone watch me make history' attitude. Above all, people in power need humility. Otherwise they forget that they work for WE THE PEOPLE.

How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Enjoy The Party

2009-01-19T10:37:00.000-08:00

Tempting as it may be to talk about the coronation of Barack Obama.... no, sorry, I mean the inauguration of Barack Obama, I'll leave it alone for the most part. There is no question that the country needs a fresh start and a reason to celebrate something. I simply continue to question whether Mr Obama is that fresh start and cause for celebration. Regardless of my opinion of the man, it is an historic occasion, and certainly, if for only that reason, a good thing for the country. Of course, unlike the liberal elite, now rescued from the need to flee the country in protest (much like their draft-dodging peers from the past), I am not dancing and singing, nor am I blind to the questionable people Mr Obama has surrounded himself with, from Mr Biden down. You are far from change. You are old-school liberal/fascist/state-run politics in a new suit. Enjoy the party America, you need one. Liberals, don't strain your voices singing protest songs, and don't strain your arms patting yourself on the back. But still, enjoy the party. If John McCain had won, I don't imagine Bruce Springsteen, Mary J Blige and Beyonce would be singing. But enjoy, because after you've sobered up, slept off the hangover and paid some illegal (sorry... undocumented worker) to wash the smell of pot out of your Armani suit, you'll have to either fix the country or find someone else to blame. You've got a liberal Congress, a liberal President, and a liberal press. You don't want to look too hard at the greedy rich on Wall Street, because most of them have members of Congress (and the new president) in their pockets. The mortgage meltdown has Bill Clinton at its roots, and liberals have already run Congress for two years. So you'll have to work hard to blame someone else. So really, seriously, enjoy yourselves. Then surprise me. Do something right.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Hurting Me, Hurting You

2009-01-13T15:16:00.000-08:00

I have a friend in his mid to late fifties who is going through a bit of depression. He's in a rut, he doesn't have too much money, and really, he just kind of needs direction in his life. He's even acknowledged this. The thing is, he's now planning to try to get disability from the government for a mental disability. He's not mentally disabled. He's in a rut. He's forgotten how to pick himself up and push himself through life. He's even stopped shaving. But the fact that he wants to convince some civil servant that he's mentally disabled so he can pad his budget is dangerous, and is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that is killing our society. I told him, as a friend, that not only would he be taking money from people who actually need it, but that the money that he's scamming for (which he is) comes from taxpayer dollars, which comes from me, and I simply don't have the money to give to him. I can't afford to give him mental disability money that he doesn't need. And that really is something that lots of people should think about. These days, when most are struggling to just get by, think before you find a way to take money from the government that you don't deserve. That money is there for a reason, for people who need it, and it's provided by real people who look at a paystub and see how much money Uncle Sam takes off the top from the wages they earn. There is a disconnect in this country between the idea of taking every cent we can from the government, and the fact that those cents actually come from WE THE PEOPLE rather than some miracle of government. If you pay taxes, you are cheating yourself when you cheat the government. If you work in a store of any kind, you would know that if you stole something from that store, you would actually be hurting yourself by diminishing the financial health of the company that provided your livelihood. If you removed panes of glass from your own house, you wouldn't be surprised to get wet the next time it rained. It's the same with tax dollars. If you remove them from the treasury when you shouldn't, they won't be there when you need them.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Food Stamp Fraud and Who Runs the Media?

2009-01-04T18:34:00.000-08:00

Working in a supermarket, you meet a wide variety of people. I'll just relay one experience to you. A mother, daughter, and (I'm presuming) granddaughter came in the other day, and loaded up a shopping cart with meat, chips, soda, etc. Very little baby food or baby products. They pay with an 'EBT' card, which is the little debit card replacement for food stamps. The card is supposed to reduce food stamp fraud, but also to ease the ego-bruising that food stamp users suffer. That method of ego stroking is not as efficient as, say, earning a living, but I suppose since the government (and most often the liberal government) doesn't want people to try to be self-sufficient, being dependents of the government (and just coincidentally hard-working, tax-paying wage earners) means that a pat on the head and the occasional table scrap from big brother is all we can really depend on. Anyway, my point here is that these people tried to buy two starbucks double shots and a Best Buy gift card with their food stamp allotment. And when they were turned down they had the nerve to be insulted. And finally, as their total came up, I saw that it was more than a hundred dollars higher than the previous week's paycheck that I had worked my butt off for. These people were young and healthy and fit enough to work for a living, but they were taking everything they could from their food stamps that I work to provide. And quite honestly, that simply infuriates me. I understand people sometimes need help. I've needed help. But I took only what I needed for as long as I needed it, and didn't count among my necessities two starbucks double shots and a Best Buy gift card.

Rant Number Two. Just a short one. Considering that Hamas has lobbed more than 6,000 missiles into Israel in the last year, why have there been no protests in the street until Israel started fighting back? The media has been nearly silent on the subject until now, and now they're 'shocked, shocked'. The old ignorant liberal rant, generally best represented on men's room walls, that "Jews own the media" has never been so obviously and patently ridiculous.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Job Warrior: My Experience Losing a Job and Getting Another During a Hiring Freeze

2008-12-30T13:30:00.000-08:00

I walked into my job a few weeks ago and was informed that I was unemployed. Pretty much that was it. Merry Christmas and good luck paying rent and buying groceries. Without getting into particulars, I went from being the top salesman to being a former employee. Not an easy thing to walk home and tell my wife when just about the entire country is on a hiring freeze. The first thing I did... in fact, the same day, I went to see my previous employer, a man who had not wanted me to leave in the first place. In fact, the only reason I left was because I was working both jobs at the same time, and the assistant manager making the schedule couldn't or wouldn't reconcile the two schedules. But what I did was leave on good terms with plenty of notice, and I kept in touch and on friendly terms with the previous employer. Granted, it was easy, because the previous job was in a supermarket. But my wife and I talked to the manager, a great guy named Matthew, like a friend. Sometimes it was no more than a greeting, a 'How are things, Matthew?', but my wife and I both kept him in our orbit. Part of the family. We genuinely like Matthew, and he has always been a friend regardless of the job. At the same time, I knew that my first responsibility when faced with unemployment was to get another job. And the obvious first move was to go back to the man who said that he'd love to have me back. So I put on some smart clothes (as my wife really taught me well, put your best foot forward. Dress for what you want to be) and went to see Matthew. I didn't try to BS Matthew. I didn't beat around the bushes. I told him I needed a job. He said that the company had a district-wide hiring freeze, but that he would see what he could do. He said I should come back in a few days and talk to him. At that point I have to admit I was let down. I'd walked in figuring I'd walk out with a job. Then I had to assumed that the hiring freeze would be non-negotiable. So I went home (I even stopped on the way home to try to pick up an application. No dice. This place that had a help wanted sign wouldn't even let me apply because they weren't hiring) and got onto Monster.com. I updated my resume and started searching for jobs that I am qualified. 'Retail' and 'customer service' were my keywords. That's because for the last 18 years I've been in the retail/customer service trenches. I have extensive experience in that arena, and most of those 18 years in fastfood, which is, to my experience, the most challenging customer service arena. My wife and I even considered leaving town while we had some savings to work with, but we were also concerned that we wouldn't find the job situation any better where we went. We settled on giving our town a week or two before we gave up on it and left. With that in mind, I opened up my job search parameters for some places we considered moving to. With all of that in mind, I set about applying for jobs via Monster.com. I should note that before I started job hunting, I got up early, had a good breakfast, showered, shaved, and dressed as if I was going to work. I thought it was important to approach the job search as a job itself. It might be tempting to sleep in and give up shaving and sit around in sweat pants and a ratty old shirt, but that is too much vacation mode for the serious work of job hunting. I also set a minimum of four applications filled out each day before I stopped. Discipline was vitally important for my motivation and mindset, and was necessary to get another job quickly. And I knew that I had to get another job quickly. And something else. I was told by many friends that I should apply for unemployment. Maybe I should have, but to be honest, I didn't want to ask for any kind of financial assistance unless I absolutely needed it, and at that moment I didn't think we did. I was paid for vacation time that I had coming (almost a week), plus a paycheck, plus a bit of savings. If we hadn't had that, or if it had taken too long to get another job, it would have been different. But I thought that to apply for unemployment would also have been bad in a motivational sense. And, to be honest, pride got in the way. It wouldn't have remained in the way for long, but it was there at that point. I didn't want to see myself on the news as part of the huge number of jobless claims making headlines.So, on to the job search. Monster.com showed (what was for me) a surprising lack of opportunity for retail/customer service specialists. What I had failed to take into account was that one of the hardest hit sectors of our economy is retail. People are simply less and less encouraged to go out and spend money if they don't have to. And of course, especially close to the end of the year, companies don't tend to hire full-time, permanent people. I did get a quick response from a local advertising firm, and dressed up nicely and took 3 buses to get to their office for an interview. It turned out that they were hiring people to sell things from booths (I won't get any more specific, as I don't want to identitfy the firm in question) on a strictly commission basis. That is okay for some, and they said that people could make quite a bit of money doing it, but I have regular bills and a family that depends on me. I need a regular paycheck that I can depend on. But the point is, I tried. I put my best foot forward. I went to a bit of effort.At this point, the few days that Matthew had said to wait had gone by. I called the supermarket to make sure he was in, and dressed nicely again and went to see him. Then the really bad news. Matthew said that the hiring freeze was still on. He couldn't hire me. I was pretty disappointed at that point, but I thanked him for trying and tried to not show my disappointment. That was really the worst moment of the job search, because I'd put a lot of hope in getting that job back. Ah, but then two days later, I found out that Matthew hadn't given up. He went to bat for me with human resources and managed to arrange to bring me back as a rehire rather than a new hire. To start, I would actually have to take an almost 4 dollar an hour pay cut, but after the first of the year there should be a departmental manager position opening that needed to be an in-house promotion. It was just important that I get my foot in the door. I took the offer without hesitation, and my job search that really had me scared only lasted one week. I was very lucky. I know that people have spent six months or more looking for work and not found any. I know that there are lessons to be learned from my situation. First and foremost, don't burn your bridges. Give plenty of notice, treat employers with respect, and don't be afraid to go back to them. Treat your job search like a job, not a vacation. Listen to your spouse. They are intelligent and resourceful, and can help you. I know mine helps me. I wouldn't take this world on without her. Don't dismiss jobs that you think are below you. There is no such thing as a bad job if it is honest and supports your family. For example, I was prepared to go back to fastfood if I had to. I wasn't enthusiastic about the possibility, but I was prepared to do it anyway. Pride is important, but you can't support a family on pride. In fact, Matthew was concerned that I might not want to take the pay cut and come back as a courtesy clerk (among other things, we bag groceries and retrieve shopping carts). My wife and I both said that I'd take anything. I'm happy to have it. And one other thing. If you have the opportunity to go to college, take it. Get yourself a degree in a subject that interests you but that is also marketable. I was in the military, but failed to sign up for the G.I. Bill, and I have regretted it ever since. I'm not saying that my professional life would be better if I had a degree (because there are plenty of unemployed college graduates), but I certainly would have had more opportunities.

Rewarding Poor Performance

2008-12-21T14:02:00.000-08:00

With a frighteningly bad economy, Congress has voted itself a raise. Rather like the CEO of a nearly bankrupt corporation begging for money one day, then granting himself a bonus the next. Yes, unbelievable as it is, with our economy in the tank, a seven trillion dollar rescue package that just didn't work (and, yes, it really is $7 trillion. Even the mainstream media is starting to admit that), a debt spiralling faster than hurricane Katrina, Federal lawmakers have given themselves a raise that will give each of them $4700 more next year, with a price tag of $2.5 million.

I'm not going to talk about their unforgivable audacity, because it has become so commonplace, it would be like complaining about the sun coming up. Really, what can be said that hasn't been said a thousand times before? We know how bad they really are, and how little they obviously care about the people they're supposed to represent, or the state of the country as a whole.

Granted, $4700 a year equals out to just $90.38 a week, but the point is that they don't need it and they certainly don't deserve it. Taking the math a little further, that price tag of $2.5 million dollars divided by the $4700 a week (and this all comes from Fox News, which I trust more than the networks or CNN), comes to 531.9. I won't speculate as to who the '.9' is, :) but really, what they're doing to reward themselves for running the country into the ground is taking the equivalent of $90 a week out of the household budgets of 531 families. So come on, Brian Williams, tell the people about it. Mister President-elect, where is your outrage? Mister Reid, Ms Pelosi, where are the hearings? Why isn't Wolf Blitzer talking about it?

I'd really like to see a public, national referendum approve every raise that our so-called representatives give themselves. If it is so important that the snakes can spend $2.5 million when we're in debt up to our eyeballs, then certainly it's worth the trouble of asking the people who are forced to pay for it.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Twelve Trek Days of Christmas

2008-12-18T17:07:00.001-08:00

Folks, there is a project I've been associated with for a few months now, called "The Twelve Trek Days of Christmas". Rather than trying to explain it myself, I am going to paste a release of sorts that the organizer Kirok of House L'Stok wrote.

The Twelve Trek Days of Christmas has started for a second year, when we celebrate the traditional Season of Goodwill by giving away twelve "presents" from the Star Trek fan production community. In a way it's Christmas all year round for them since fan productions are only allowed by the copyright owners if they are provided to the public for free. Accept them as our tribute to the original actors, writers and production crews, to maintain interest in the originals, build support for future professional productions and extend on the Star Trek universe with our own creative visions.

On the first day of Christmas, Star Trek gave to me ... a Fan-Made Audio Book! <http://www.twerponline.net/12days2008/day01.html>

The present for The First Trek Day of Christmas is "Fatherhood", the second episode from the audio book series, "Tales of Death and Honour". Designed as a trilogy, the series started off earlier this year with "Motherhood", an original tale of love and loss on the Klingon homeworld, and this episode extends on that life and death struggle with a rescue from an unexpected source! It is produced by Silvertongue Productions, the audio productions group of The House of L'Stok, an experimental multimedia production house for the creation of fan and smallscale Indie productions. For more information about this and other productions of the House of L'Stok, checkout the website at http://lstok.blogspot.com

Unfortunately, in the best tradition of fan productions it's late! But by way of an apology for keeping you waiting, and to wet your whistle
for the new episode, we offer you the new series trailer for Tales of Death and Honour which is available on the TrekUnited Audio Centre
at ... <http://www.scifitube.com/trekunited/audio/DAH-Teaser1.1b.mp3>

I have two submissions..... One (On Day Ten) is a Fan-Made game called Fantasy Trek that you can preview at http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com/

The other (On Day Eleven) is an ebook of three "Enterprise Virtual Season" episodes... and they can be previewed at http://startrekenterprisevirtualseasons.blogspot.com/

KBF-Kapact

IKS tIQghoB
"Surrender or be des-"
{sound of explosion}

Klingon Black Fleet
"...laughing, undefeated..."

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com/
http://houseabukoff.blogspot.com
http://kapactsrant.blogspot.com/
http://startrekenterprisevirtualseasons.blogspot.com/

It's Still Country First

2008-12-14T20:21:00.000-08:00

Talking about the Auto Bailout, I'd like to say that I don't like bailouts.
I think they're anti-capitalism and essentially therefore unAmerican. I
don't think they'll solve the problem, and I think that as always, our
supposed representatives don't in fact care about the Big Three, the jobs to
be saved or lost, or just incidentally, the billions of tax dollars from WE
THE PEOPLE that these vampires in suits push around like pawns on a
chessboard. I find it quite funny in fact that most of these tin-plated
dictators helped to cause the problem that they're using to humiliate CEO's
and dupe WE THE PEOPLE into thinking that they serve a purpose and deserve
to be anywhere but in prison. Given all that, we need to stop the Big Three
from going into bankruptcy because if they go out of business then not only
do their workers go on unemployment, but the companies who supply parts to
them go out of business too. And then all of those workers go on umployment
too. Quite honestly, we can't afford that. And really, Senate Republicans
showed us again why they were so humiliated in the elections. They have been
so blinded by ideology that common sense plays no part in their
decision-making process. I know that a huge part of the problem facing the
Big Three is the strangle-hold that labor unions have on the automakers. And
in fact, all the money in the world won't solve the Big Three's problems
until people can actually start buying their cars. But we still need to keep
all of those people from being put out of work. That is something we simply
can't afford.

Now... what can I say about Rod Blagojevich? He typifies the arrogance and
crookedness that is really at the heart of the Chicago machine that has now
bought and engineered two presidential elections. And the Obama aide who
lied about whether or not the President-elect consulted with the governor on
November 5th. He also typifies the arrogance and crookedness that is so much
at the heart of most politicians. What did the president-elect know, and
when did he know it? The snake of a governor simply isn't worth more time or
energy.

All of this really comes down to the idea of Country First, because the
validity of that concept didn't change on November 5th. When you look at all
these senators and representatives hanging billions of dollars of taxpayer's
money in front of panhandling CEO's, and the network cameras, showing us how
important they are, and how much we need them to solve our problems,
(despite the really rotten job they've done so far), do you really think
that they're thinking Country First? When you hear a corrupt liberal
governor talk about how much he's going to sell a senate seat for, do the
words Country First come into it anywhere? We've got a president looking the
other way while American citizens living on the southern border are
kidnapped by invading Mexican druglords, or refusing to pardon two border
patrol guards who were arrested for shooting a Mexican druglord in the rear,
and I just don't see Country First coming into the decision-making process.
There are only two professions where you can be consistently wrong and still
call yourself an expert. One is being a weather person (and I never believe
them anyway). The other is being a politician.

The American Inquisition or: I Wonder If They'd Approve Waterboarding In This Case

2008-12-07T12:41:00.000-08:00

I've been watching as much as I can stand of the CEO's of the Big Three
automakers groveling before Congress with expensive hats in hand, begging
for scraps (and not actually from the people who will end up paying). The
first time they came begging, Congress, the media, and the blinded public
didn't question why they needed the money or exactly what they planned to do
with it, or in fact why we should believe it would actually make a
difference. No, all that anyone noticed was that these three rich
panhandlers flew to the inquisition in private jets. Forget that Al "It's
easy being green" Gore does the same as he lectures us about not pumping
filth into the atmosphere. Yes, it was stupid and insensitive, and they
shouldn't have. But we've suddenly forgotten that the smug, sactimonious
tin-plated dictators doing the interrogating are in fact responsible for the
mess that we're in. Mister Dodd. Mister Frank, et al. So what happens? They
send them away and take a vacation.

When they came back, driving all the way in what we're told are energy
efficient cars... and I put it that way because we're not always told the
truth. Like we were told that ethanol was going to solve our problems,
rather than put another hole in the economy. They forgot to take a train.
They neglected to car pool. They didn't hitch a ride with Al Gore. But since
they acknowledged the importance of symbolism over substance, the
inquisitors suddenly saw the urgency of the situation (and coincidentally,
failed to consider the stranglehold that their masters the labor unions have
over the auto industry) and are pushing for a quick passage. Michael Moore
says that capitalism is dead, and he's celebrating that (hence the worldwide
shortage of greasy french fries and peanut brittle this past week). Well,
the alternative is already up and operating. Ever hear of that economic
powerhouse called Cuba? How about North Korea? Yeah. Amazing. Well,
capitalism succeeds when badly run businesses go out of business and make
room for well run businesses. Pumping more money into the Big Three, so that
they can continue to pay ransom to the unions is like pumping more donuts
into Michael Moore in the vain hope that he'll start to lose weight. Odds
are, when they've used up everything you've given them, they'll still run
just as well as they do now.

I know that the Big Three are basketcases, and I know that it was really
stupid for them to fly private jets to beg for hand-outs. But you in
Congress really make yourselves look like petty schoolyard bullies
humiliating the weaker kid when you make people jump through hoops for
scraps. Scraps that come from the hard-earned money of WE THE PEOPLE.

I wonder if they'd approve waterboarding in this case.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-30T12:16:00.000-08:00

A little late here, but I wanted to talk just briefly about Thanksgiving Day. I am glad that our Canadian friends celebrate Thanksgiving, even if it's on a different date. While the circumstances behind the holiday are myth-prone and clouded, and we're now told how horrible an effect that Europeans had on the new world. I'm not going to try to defend what happened, but at the same time, the natives (and even they truly were no more native than I am. Their ancestors migrated from China, across the land bridge that used to connect North America to Russia) were not entirely peaceful and prosperous. They warred with each other, suffered from disease, and were, by some reports, in decline as a civilization. But forget all that. What I'm really talking about is the idea of setting a day aside to reflect on all that we really have to be thankful for. We live with more freedom and prosperity than many other countries, even in these days of crisis. We have an issue of too many people wanting in, as opposed to the throngs of refugees in many countries. We have just elected someone from an middle class family of mixed race in a peaceful if passionate election. We can rest assured that once in office, Mister Obama will not seek to change the law to lengthen his term of office.

While many families are in the midst of crisis unseen in this country in years, somehow people still find a way to give what they can for those in more desperate need, and the spirit of optimism and dignity is as evident across the land as ever. We have problems, we know, but we also have great blessings, and we know that. The day after Thanksgiving, I spoke with a couple in the laundromat who lived in a two-room tent, but were washing work-clothes and enjoying each other's company. I'm not trying to say we don't have problems. Not by a long shot. But this country has never failed to rise to challenges, and we always end up better off in the long run. And the fact is that we still have lots to be thankful for. And I might just add that I hate hearing people call Thanksgiving "Turkey Day". That turns the holiday into nothing more than just another excuse to take a long weekend, eat too much, drink too much, and fall asleep in front of the television. That's like changing Christmas to "Present Day".

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Not That We Don't Love You, But....

2008-11-22T18:53:00.000-08:00

I've only met about five Canadians I didn't like. Considering that I don't make it through a week without meeting five Americans that annoy me, five annoying Canadians in a lifetime isn't bad. But here's a serious beef. I met a traveling Canadian who not only told me that their entire country was celebrating obama's election (I didn't ask if that included the conservative pm), but that literally tens of thousands of canadians had come down to the states to volunteer to help obama get elected. Smiling politely, I just said 'Yeah! People from all over the world helped him get elected.'

What I was thinking was get out of my country and get out of my election. I realize that other countries have more of a stake in our election than we do in theirs (primarily I think, because much as the rest of the world likes to spit on us and look down their noses at us, they still depend on us more than they like to admit), and I realize that they think that every American capable of stringing together two syllables must be a liberal (that's what stephen king teaches us, remember.... the same guy who thinks that our soldiers are all illiterate), and I also realize that conservatives don't have feelings (for example, in New Zealand, where they also just elected a conservative pm, I was told that all Americans would have had to have had a lobotomy... because George W Bush was elected). But here's a newsflash from the illiterate unfeeling conservative American Patriot. I would never presume to interfere in your election, and much as I generally like you and your country, I'd like to ask that from now on you stop interfering in our elections. If those tens of thousands of volunteers would maybe try instead to patch up your sieve of a border, we'd have fewer problems. And when you come back (and really, you are welcome. I forgive your ill manners and thoughtless mouth), please don't assume that I agree with your radical and/or ignorant politics. When in doubt, keep your unwanted opinions to yourself.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Our Duty as Americans

2008-11-14T10:44:00.000-08:00

I was almost surprised to find Glenn Beck almost supporting Barack Obama the other day, in response to a caller who refused to admit or accept that Obama was going to be our next president. Now, I am not (as you may have guessed), a fan of Obama, and I am in fact convinced that the election was bought and paid for illegally, and it was determined early on that Obama was to be our next president. The facts may never come out, and most likely we are stuck with him for at least four years. But we are indeed stuck with him, and like it or not, it is our duty as Americans to support him as our president (Something most of the fringier liberals never really figured out with George W Bush). Having said that, it is also our duty as Americans to keep an eagle eye on our new employee-in-chief. Obama has skated along for his entire career by keeping just far enough away from the filthy crooks and general scumbags who are behind his power to avoid being seriously linked with them. It requires quite an imagination to not link him to these people (Ayers, Wright, Fannie, Freddie to name a few), but obviously enough first-time (and probably last-time) voters have just that. Well, Mr Obama, you may find that sometime over the next four years, you might just have to commit yourself to something. Granted, most decisions you'll be called upon to make are probably above your paygrade, but you may just find that people like Putin and Ahmedinejad are not as impressed by that as Bart Simpson, Daffy Duck, and "Will, Good" of Austin, Texas were.

So yes, real Americans... those patriots that you scoffed at, bitterly clinging to guns and religion, they'll support you, probably better than you'll support them. But they'll also be watching you very closely. Just like I will. You actually work for us, Mister Obama, and if you don't do the job right we'll fire you in four years.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Why This Is A Good Thing...

2008-11-05T18:23:00.000-08:00

Without preamble, except to say that I am very happy that this historically expensive and ugly campaign is over. What an ugly time it's been. If only I believed that it couldn't get worse. I shudder to think what the next one will be like.

So why is this a good thing for conservatives and bad news for liberals? Well, it is simple. Liberals will run the White House and both houses of Congress. If they fix things, then anyone who truly believes in "Country First" will be happy. Me included. If they make things worse, which I am convinced they will, they'll have nobody else to blame. Congress has been largely liberal for two years and has accomplished nothing but allowing the mortgage and credit meltdown and attaining historically dismal ratings. Now it looks as though they'll have filibuster-proof control. Fine. You promised bipartisanship and delivered partisan hatred unseen in this country in years. Now you've promised change. You'll be held accountable. At the same time, the republican party had six years of control over three branches of government and failed miserably. They lost because they deserved to lose. I can only hope that the next lot that gets in thanks to the democrats' failure will do better.

So in a nutshell, this is why I am so happy with the way the election turned out. (And a big shout-out and thanks to Tony Romo and the gang for registering to vote in Las Vegas, and to Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, and all the other community organizers for buying those untracable prepaid credit cards, from wherever in the wide world they got them:) ! ).

The Republicans who failed so miserably to justify our votes and our support can go home and not come back.

The Democrats will have no one else to blame when their flawed policies fail. And maybe, just maybe, Pelosi and Reid and all the other liberal vipers will get the boot for good.

And mister obama... well, for one thing, you've just demonstrated that 'Affirmative Action' is no longer needed in this country. You've got your chance to 'change' things. If you do, you'll either fix or break this country. If you fix it, fine. I'll vote for your second term. If you break it, well, you'll get rewarded for that too. On the other hand, if you do as you've done before and break your promise, well, we have your promise on tape, and we'll play it endlessly at every opportunity. But think about what 'change' entails. You have two alternatives. You can continue the hand-outs to minorities, you know, the instutionalized slavery called welfare, and change nothing and continue to make the country safe and free for lazy gang-banging crack smoking pimps who probably shot themselves full of speed just so they could crawl to a voting booth and vote for you. That is where we're at now, and Joe the Plumber is working for a living so these particular breed of small business owners can sit on their aspens and fry their brains. So if you want to retain the crackhead vote, don't change too much. On the other hand, if you really do change the status quo, you are likely to lose the support of all of the cartoon characters, pro NFL players and gang-bangers who elected you.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Good News!

2008-11-05T04:48:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note before work. Tomorrow I'll tell you why the election news is good news for conservatives and bad news for liberals.....

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Another NewsMax special.... "Obama Positions Run Against Grain of Voters"

2008-11-01T16:04:00.000-07:00

I don't want you all to think I'm gettiing lazy, but here is another important gem from Newsmax. Ted, who commented last time, I have bad news. That lawsuit has been dismissed. Apparently a single person can stop a Christmas tree from being put up in a mall, but a single person cannot stop someone who is ineligable from running from president. As long as that person is a liberal. Have no fear. If mister barack hussein obama does manage to buy this election, I will declare this blogsite to represent the interests of the American government-in-exile, and maintain a close eye on the government of the Peoples Republic of America.

Obama Positions Run Against Grain of Voters

For the first time in modern political history, American voters appear to be on the verge of electing a president they profoundly disagree with on a stunning array of issues.

Indeed, on subject after subject - ranging from gun ownership, to partial-birth abortion, to English as a national language, to driver's licenses for illegals, and even to raising taxes - voters sharply disagree with Sen. Barack Obama, who some in the mainstream media portray as a virtual shoo-in to win the presidency.

Why would voters flirt with electing a president whose views contradict their own? Blame the economic meltdown on Wall Street, experts say.

"The dramatic downturn in the fortunes of the financial sector in the last month has driven all other issues into the basement," pollster John Zogby of Zogby International told Newsmax.

Almost 65 percent of Americans now say the economy is the No. 1 issue, Zogby said. By comparison, the No. 2 issue on voters' minds, the war on terror, is cited by just 9 percent of voters.

"We almost never get a response like that when we ask about the most important issue facing voters," Zogby said.

So voters are so frustrated over the economy, pollsters say, that they might put a candidate in the White House whose views drastically contradict their own. Consider:

   * On political philosophy, National Journal has identified Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. Year in and year out, a solid 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as "somewhat" or "very" conservative.

   * Obama openly advocates income "redistribution." A June 27 Gallup poll asked 1,625 U.S. adults what approach government should take to fix the economy. By an 84 percent to 13 percent gap, respondents disagree with Obama and oppose redistribution of wealth. (In fact, even 77 percent of Democrats opposed it.)

   * Obama has been an outspoken supporter of bilingual education. In fact, he got in trouble during the primaries by leaving the impression that he might favor mandatory bilingual education for American kids. Here's how U.S. voters feel: 85 percent of Americans believe that English should be designated the language of the United States, according to a June 2006 Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults.

   * On the right to bear arms, Obama says he supports an individual's right to own guns. But in 1996, he stated on a questionnaire that he opposed the sale, manufacture, and possession or firearms. At a Milwaukee news conference this year, he said cities should be able to enact gun control "to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings." The NRA awarded Obama an "F" grade on protecting Second Amendment rights. On that issue, Obama would appear to be seriously at odds with the average voter. A June 4-5 CNN poll of 1,035 adults nationwide showed that 87 percent oppose "Preventing all Americans from owning guns." Similarly, a Feb. 8-10 Gallup survey of 1,016 adults found that 73 percent agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms.

   * During the Democratic primary, Obama repeatedly voiced support for granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, describing it as a public safety issue. Yet 77 percent of Americans oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals, compared with just 16 percent who favor it, according to a Nov. 6, 2007, Rasmussen Reports survey. Even 68 percent of Democrats thought driver's licenses for illegals is a bad idea.

   * Obama has pledged that 95 percent of Americans will actually get a tax cut under his proposals-quite a feat considering that more than a third of American adults currently pay no taxes at all. Promises aside, an August 26 Gallup poll of 1,023 adults shows 53 percent expect Obama to bring higher taxes. A September Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters gave voters a choice: Fewer government services and lower taxes; or more government services and higher taxes. By a 57 to 31 percent margin, voters preferred lower taxes -- even at the cost of fewer government services.

   * On partial-birth abortion, Obama said during an April 26, 2007, Democratic primary debate that he trusts women to decide for themselves if they want them. Obama stated that he strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court decision last year upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions, because it provided no exception provided for a pregnant woman's health. Given such an exception, Obama said he would consider limits on late-term abortion. In August, he said that the question of when a baby qualifies for human rights is "above my pay grade." NARAL, the pro-abortion rights advocacy organization, gives him a perfect 100 pro-choice rating. But 68 percent of voters disagree with Obama and favor a ban on partial-birth abortions, according to a November 2003 Gallup poll of 1,036 adults.

There's no secret to Obama's popularity in the polls despite his unpopular stance on many key issues.

"These are important issues that may drive individual voters away from Obama," Zogby said, "but they are not by a long shot the most important issues in this campaign."

Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, isn't at all surprised at Obama's strength, as reflected in many surveys.

"When an incumbent president is at 25 percent in the polls, when 91 percent of Americans say the country is off on the wrong track, and when the economy is very rocky, it is virtually impossible for the White House party to get a third term," he told Newsmax. "I've been studying this subject for 38 years. It really is that simple."

All of which raises the possibility of a country at war electing the candidate widely viewed as less capable of protecting the country.

"McCain is seen far and away as a better commander in chief," Zogby said, "but nobody's thinking about that right now."

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

From "Newsmax": 'Smears' About Obama Largely True

2008-10-25T19:12:00.000-07:00

I don't often do a copy and paste job, mainly because unlike Joe Biden and barack hussein obama, I have integrity. But this piece of fantastic work by Lowell Ponte at Newsmax is so important that it has to get out. The left wing liberal drive-by media doesn't want you to know what a danger obama is, but there are truths that have to get out. Truths that show what obama is, what he believes in, what he has done, and the shocking associations he has kept. Guilt by association? When the history is as long and consistent as obama's, you bet. Because at the very least, they show judgement that is frightening. At the most, they show someone who is too dangerous to take a chance on. Not in the world we face today. What Mister Ponte has done has exposed the lies, half-truths, and machiavellian extremes that obama will go to get elected. Just to be completely honest and upfront, the following is not my work. I had nothing to do with it. I am simply sharing it.

'Smears' About Obama Largely True

Monday, October 20, 2008 9:32 PM

By: Lowell Ponte

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of smears and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obamas www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.

These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate's answers.

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama's critics as pushing misleading research and distorted claims because they are ideologues busy spreading a pack of lies about Barack.

In a section of the site titled, 'Who's Behind the Smears?' visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington's small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the Clinton 1992 Campaign.

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the smears against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama's ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here's what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years, the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival Exxon John McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law, claims the Obama site, including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won't release their names and addresses.

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

Critics argue that the other half of Obama's campaign haul the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s, but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama's first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers' home.)

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, 'In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.'

Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .� says the Obama Web site.

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media's and Obama's judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads, says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as members of Mr. Obama's political circle.

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site's present-tense claim that he 'doesn't [not didn't] take advice from Fannie Mae execs' is technically, if deceptively, true.

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama's campaign.

And despite Obama's lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama's Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama's site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN 'was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.'

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell calling him a 'discredited Republican voter-suppression guru' for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,"] Obama's Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never 'hired' to work as a trainer for ACORN's leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it."

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as 'a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now' after interviewing its national director.

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN's 'family of organizations.'

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November's election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

"During Barack's career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen," says Obama's Web site, "while doing everything he could to protect children" including his own two daughters "from illegal gun violence."

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, "is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them."

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,"] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama 'would be the most anti-gun president in American history.'

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of 'radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.'

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were 'born alive.' Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist's decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

Obama's Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that 'none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.'

True, but Obama's site does not quote the rest of Winkel's statement: '[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.'

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

"Look, I got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama has said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama's true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: "As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama]."

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: "After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong." He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl. But as The Washington Post reported, Obama canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC's Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama's Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

Obama's Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined "Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid." Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama's Muslim faith and says he is 'lying' when he says he was never a Muslim.

It's important to note that Obama's Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama's site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world's second-highest business taxes.

"Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases" said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. "They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don't worry. It's not going to affect you."

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as 'completely false' and 'groundless.'

As proof, the Obama's campaign has produced a 'certificate of live birth' from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

Skeptics note that Obama's 'Father's Race' is identified on this document as 'African,' a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been 'Negro.'

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama's paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

What is Fantasy Trek?
More Than Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

From "The Patriot Post" Notes on Presidential Character

2008-10-18T16:56:00.000-07:00

This is the complete text of an email I received from "The Patriot Post" on the subject of Presidential character. It is really a message for loyal Democrats whose party has been highjacked by radical elements like Barack Obama. Read on. And for my conservative friends, take heart. Obama's numbers are slipping, just as the truth is starting to stick.

Here is the message, courtesy of "The Patriot Post":

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams

In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.

However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy's national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, "ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country."

In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?

Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.

This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)

When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, "the Party left me," has never been more true than today.

For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.

Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.

Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we're told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes." This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.

Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation's legacy of liberty and equality.

That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame."

For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let's return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic's Constitution.

Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.

John Adams: "Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. ... If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. ... We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."

Samuel Adams: "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. ... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. ... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. ... No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. ... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ... The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. ... An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

George Washington: "No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. ...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. ... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Sound familiar?

In No. 10, Madison cautions, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm," and insisted in No. 57, "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

Madison's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.

In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!"

We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.

As Adams understood, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, "Freedom is ... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time."

So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?

On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, let's hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.

Let's put country first.

For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.

Please forward these insights to your family, friends and associates.

What is Fantasy Trek?
More Than Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Lucky Me! I Just Found Out I'm a Racist!

2008-10-16T12:56:00.000-07:00

I was waiting for the laundromat to open when two black guys walked up with a grocery cart (I'll just point out here and now that this was a stolen grocery cart. They don't sell them to customers, so if it says 'Albertson's' on it and it isn't in the Albertson's parking lot, it's stolen. Whether they stole it from the store or stole it second hand, it's still stolen) full of laundry. That's okay. But as soon as they arrive, they start launching into a diatribe about how wonderful mister barack hussein obama is, and how he's pure and holy, and how he graduated from Harvard which is the best school in the country, according to these learned young grocery cart thieves. It used to be elitest and white and evil until mister obama went there. What would we do without him? I suppose that these fine young upstanding grocery cart thieves finally have a reason to be proud of their country. Well that's good. Sadly for me, (according to these thieves), if I disagree with them, I'm either rich or racist. And since I'm not rich, I must be racist.

What is it that tells me that these two thieves are right? Because they didn't resort to any personal attacks. Nope, they stayed on issues. Issues like everyone is Alaska is drunk and stupid (and white trash, according the non-racist, sensitive, caring gentleman). He looked straight at me and my wife when he said that, just to make sure we understood. Gosh, lucky us. Issues like being held in a prisoner of war camp makes you crazy. Issues like black people finally getting what's coming to them. Issues like Bush is a criminal and finally obama is going to throw him in jail. And it was refreshingly lacking in such personal attacks like obama's voting record, or the racist pastors or terrorists he calls friends, or the fact that he has no problem with throwing unwanted babies in the garbage, or that he thinks that the middle class is bitter and clinging to guns and religion, I guess, because their lives are so empty. Nothing about the definition of life being above his pay grade.

I'm just glad that these two fine young thieves were kind enough to teach me that I'm a racist. Maybe next time I can be a thug and a punk who lives like a leech off of tax dollars provided by hard working non-thieves who actually own an alarm clock and a work ethic. Maybe I can be someone who can scoff at a hero who sat in a POW camp and had his arms broken every day. Maybe I can steal grocery carts and bellow and bluster with all of dignity of a two year old. Maybe I can be lucky enough to be such a pathetic excuse for a human being that I'll support any crook that promises to steal from hard-working people to enable my drug habit. But for now, really, I'm just excited that these two shining examples of humanity have taught me that I'm a racist. WooHoo!

What is Fantasy Trek?
More Than Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Just What Is a Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-11T15:29:00.000-07:00

Brian Williams has just finished telling me again why I should vote for mister obama. But fortunately, I have a brain, so I didn't fall for it. Mister Wlliams, I don't have any business ties to any Islamic republics. Can you say the same? No. You work for NBC. NBC is owned by GE. GE has business ties with Iran. One less reason to give you any credibilty.

Mister Obama has spent decades in the company of people like Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, and William Ayers. He has marched in lockstep with avowed Marxists. Members of the American Socialist Party. His voting record (not counting all of those 'above my pay-grade' 'PRESENT' votes), is among the most liberal in the history of congress. He has voted 94 times to raise taxes. In Illinois he made no effort to stop the practice of throwing out and leaving in the trash failed abortions. That is as bad as it sounds. When an abortion failed, and a living (but unwanted) person was pulled out of a woman, it was thrown out. In the trash. And mister obama doesn't have a problem with this. The question of whether or not a person who is born ACCIDENTALLY, breathing air and aware of its surroundings is worthy of more than being dumped in the trash next to half-eaten burritos and empty coke bottles is above mister obama's paygrade. Good God man, just what is important enough to you to warrant taking a stand on? If you get elected, how many times can we expect you to vote 'present'? And if we have another 9/11, would the response be above your paygrade? You like to say we should concentrate on issues and not personal attacks. Well, the biggest issue I worry about is the very real prospect of having a president who makes Bill Clinton (hell, who makes Hillary Clinton) look like Ronald Reagan. Your solution is an all-powerful state that regulates every aspect of our lives and takes our money to redistribute according the state. I actually have faith in the love of country that most liberals profess. I think they're misguided and dangerous, but still patriotic. You are, in my opinion, not a patriot. You are a dangerous liberal marxist who is in a position to do damage to this country that would have made Stalin blush. Where do I get that? I get that from mister obama's friend Frank Marshall Davis and the rest of his communist friends in college. Not counting the year that spent 'pretty much in a daze'.

That is what a barack hussein obama is.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The 700 Billion Dollar Cr@p Sandwich

2008-10-04T11:41:00.000-07:00

John Boehner had it right when he called the bailout a cr@p sandwich, and Conan O'brien ('s writers) had even more right when he called it a cr@p sandwich with cheese. Let's look at this for a second, and without the liberal blinders on. This problem started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

I'm curious as to why Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and Katie Couric aren't talking about this, but I'm really angry that McCain isn't talking about it. I understand that sticking to his word (unlike Mister Obama) means he doesn't have unlimited funds for unlimited commercials, but unless he is waiting for an October surprise, he is sitting on something that could not only spread a little truth on the campaign (and make a few bitter, aged, liberal mouthpieces even more bitter), but keep a very bad man out of a position of power we can't afford to give to him. It was the clumsy hand of government that got us into this mess (not an opinion, a fact), and the clumsy hand of government is not going to get us out. The clumsy hand of government has never done us a favor. They turned victory into defeat in Vietnam. They convinced the Soviets to go into Afghanistan, resulting in the Taliban and a country-sized safe haven for Al Qaeda. They pulled troops back when we were on the verge of catching Bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains. They failed to put adequate troops into Iraq when the military knew what was needed. Now they're going to put $700 billion of our money into a broken system and hope that it works. Of course, they say that taxpayers actually have a chance to make money on the deal. As if they're actually going to cut us a check if this scheme turns a profit. That was the best laugh I've had in a long time. But at the same time I'm really insulted by this piece of BS handed to us by the drive-by media, the minions of the liberal elite. The most feared words in the American lexicon are "We're from the government and we're here to help*, and that fact has never been more true. This cr@p sandwich with cheese is going to cost us more, I think, (in money, anyway), than the Iraq war, and the best anyone can say is "we hope it works". So if it doesn't, who will be grilled by a committee? Who gets to explain why to the American people? Who gets fired? The fact is, all of you place-holders on Capitol Hill, there is a limit to how much money we'll give you to further screw up our country. Unless you forgot, you are actually our employees, and at some point we're going to get sick of you bungling job after job after job. I know of no other profession (aside from maybe meteorologist) that allows you to be wrong so consistently and still call yourself an expert. There is no question that George W Bush has historically bad approval ratings, but he doesn't come close to the pathetic ratings that Congress has earned.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Top Ten Reasons I Don't Watch David Letterman Anymore

2008-09-26T20:15:00.000-07:00

Number Ten:
He's nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece.

Number Nine:
Two words: Not funny.

Number Eight:
He was never funny. His writers were, a long time ago. He's just a bitter aging liberal with sagging ratings and a bad hair piece.

Number Seven:
There's no dignity in a bitter aging liberal trying to pick up on girls fifty years younger than himself.

Number Six:
Why stay up late to listen to liberal claptrap when I can get it on the evening news?

Number Five:
Dave doesn't understand that addressing a crisis is more important than being insulted by him. Going on the evening news is more important than being insulted by you, Dave. Heck, just about anything is more important than being insulted by you.

Number Four:
Dave's offensive liberal bias is as worthy of my time as Michael Moore.

Number Three:
Conan O'brien got the job you couldn't get last time, Dave. Maybe he's better than you.

Number Two:
Because Dave, you are a boob.

And the number one reason I don't watch David Letterman anymore is:
I grew up. Letterman didn't.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Company That He Keeps, The Content of His Character

2008-09-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

Obama has been using the current financial disaster as fodder for his sagging campaign, saying that John McCain has been a part of the problem and will only allow the culture of corruption to continue. He's actually coming frighteningly close to telling us the truth. He's just gotten a few of the names wrong.

Barack Obama comes in second behind Chris Dodd in donations from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson was on Obama's committee to help select a vice president. He also admitted that he received preferential treatment from Countrywide mortgage. Who else got preferential treatment from Countrywide mortgage? Chris Dodd. Now look at another Fannie Mae CEO named Frank Raines. He commited fraud to the tune of $6.3 billion. Why isn't he in jail? Why weren't the hearings done? Good question. Mr Obama doesn't have an answer for that. He should, though. Raines is Obama's adviser on housing policy. And he, like Mister Johnson, walked away with tens of millions of dollars.

In four years, Obama ranks second among donations from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae among all members of congress since 1989. In four years Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other member of congress in the past two decades except for Chris Dodd, and Chris Dodd has been in federal office since 1975. Obama's only been in office since 2005. He's second among donations from Lehman Brothers among all members of congress since 1989. The top executives at Lehman Brothers, Ted Janulis and John Ray, are chief fundraisers for Obama. And by the way, one of them was a part of the head of Mortgage Capital at Lehman Brothers.

Mister Obama is pretty good at changing words and facts around to suit his purpose, but the company that he keeps... the people he worships with and studies under and benefit from and employ say a great deal about him. None of it is good.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Where America Lives

2008-09-20T05:56:00.000-07:00

I saw something on the evening news that actually didn't make me want to throw an egg at Brian Williams' fake smile. People in Texas actually helping each other out. Not because they were running for office or fullfilling a community service sentence. They were helping each other out because they wanted to. Earlier in the week there were stories about people helping out neighbors who didn't have electricity by stretching extension cords across the street. That is when I'm reminded of what is actually right about this country. Patriotism has nothing to do with paying more taxes or expanding an already bloated and broken government. It has everything to do with actually building up the bedrock of America, which is the community. America doesn't live in the swamp that is Washington DC. It lives in Houston and Galveston and New Orleans and Scranton and San Diego and Juneau and the Bronx. It lives where people work for a living in a community and depend on each other and don't count their assets in voting blocks. America lives in the hearts of people of all races, creeds and colors who live here legally, pay their taxes and do their best to make a comfortable life. America lives in traffic jams and factories and grocery stores and malls and movie theaters. It lives in bus stops and schools and on beaches. America lives where we are. Where we are working and playing and living and struggling honestly. It lived, at one time, in the halls of government where patriots struggled, sometimes with each other, to unite a nation where before only enslaved colonies existed, but it doesn't live there now. It does live on blog sites and talk radio that keep a careful watch on the ivory towers of government that used to represent us. It lives in Wrigley Field, but not the Chicago Machine. It lives in sand-encrusted equipment that volunteer soldiers struggle to maintain in a desert country, just as it lives where people protest against the war. But it doesn't live in the hearts of politicians who think that losing the war would be good for their careers. It lives in classrooms where people argue about creationism versus evolution, but not in people who deny us the right to disagree. It even lives in liberal newscasts where sometimes, after all of the 'if it bleeds it leads' sensationalism and editorializing disguised as reporting, in the last moments of the newscast, almost as if by accident, we get to see a quick shot of real Americans helping each other.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

What Obama Knows

2008-09-13T05:52:00.000-07:00

This is a topic that one post can't really do justice to, but let's just talk about it a bit.

Ever since the Founding Fathers threw off the shackles of King George, we've understood that government does best when it does the least. There is not a single instance in our history when the government has taken over a job from the public sector and improved on it or even maintained it at the same quality level. Our Founding Fathers understood just how dangerous a government is when it becomes perpetual and self-serving. They feared what we have now, which is a bloated, voracious, and all-powerful giant with no real understanding of or interest in the people from whom its power is supposed to flow. The Constitution is pretty specific with respect to the power that the federal government is entitled to when it talks about 'those powers not specifically granted to the federal government'. That is for a reason. A federal government that can grant itself more and more power as the days and weeks and years go on is a dictatorship in the making. Absolute power does in fact corrupt absolutely. And what does Mister Obama think of this? What is the answer to the ills of our country? He thinks the answer is a bigger, more powerful government. He thinks that public service should be managed by the government, just as he wants to take still more money from businesses that are already struggling (under the guise of 'taxing the rich'), not so that hard-working middle class people can create their own prosperity, but so that the government can have more money to reluctantly hand out to whatever group's votes are coveted on a particular day. It has been stated (by Democratic deity John F Kennedy) that no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but they keep trying to sell us the same empty idea. The Soviet Union tried to do that, and someone who knew better ran them into the ground. Thanks Ronnie. But Mister Obama, who has spent more than his share of time studying communism, just doesn't get it. Mister Reagan was a very kind, charitable man (the kind who simplistically clung to guns and religion when he wasn't winning the cold war), would probably very kindly say that it isn't that Mister Obama doesn't know anything, it's just that he knows so much that isn't so. Well, that's probably true. Mister Obama knows that simple people (who are only the backbone of this country when he's trying to get their vote) bitterly cling to guns and religion. He knows that big government has always been the answer to mankind's problems. He knows that we can tax our way to prosperity. And he also knows that the election's already won.

What is Fantasy Trek?
The Only 'Star Trek: The Experience' You Can Still Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Shooting From the Left

2008-09-02T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty quiet lately, but I've been busy just the same. Aside from working on my fantasy trek project (see http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com for the only "Star Trek: The Experience" you can still Experience... and for free by the way). But I've also been watching all the shooting from the left that somehow just seems to be catching them in the foot. Not an easy thing when the left foot in question is so firmly entrenched in their own mouth.

Mister Obama says that he's going to change things, and that's why we should vote for him. First of all, Mister Obama seems to do much better when there's no voting at all. Either it's him not voting on any issue that might come back to haunt him (regardless of how important it is that someone charged wth representing the people actually take a stand based not on focus groups or snap polling but on conviction and principle), or it's votes not being allowed from Michigan or Florida (until he knows he'll win anyway), or it's votes not even being taken in the Democrat love-fest in Denver (rather than risking some delegates going against the commands of party bosses and 'super delegates'... and more on the subject of super delegates later), and declaring, not electing, the Chosen One's victory by Acclamation. Star Wars fans, remember that the last 'Chosen One' may have started out looking innocent but ended up being Darth Vader. The party that shouted out how much they wanted every vote to be counted suddenly seems to feel otherwise. And there is something else that needs to be considered here. Is it a pure coincidence that Darth Hussein Obama's :) victory speech so closely coincided with the anniversary of one of Martin Luther King Jr's most famous speeches? I don't think so. I think it was decided long ago who was going to be giving a victory speech on that night. I think 'super delegates' were put in place and the 'Acclamation' was planned long before a single primary vote was cast. I think that Hillary's campaign was doomed from the start. I think that the Kennedy's were all in on the act from the start. That's why they suddenly wanted nothing to do with the Clintons and were throwing their entire weight behind someone with so little experience and with twenty years of association with controversial America-hating, white-hating racist demogouges like Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright. They chose(n) him as the new JFK, and they weren't going to let a silly thing like democracy get in the way. And about those super delegates. I remember when a concept called 'one man, one vote' was an important idea in this country. Not any more. Now we have Super Delegate, who knows what's best for us, even in the voting booth. That's why they're given the voting ability of hundreds of us mere mortals. Who needs Batman?

What is Fantasy Trek?
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

No War on Terror?

2008-07-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note here. I live in a tourist-dependant town, near an airport, in an apartment/residential area. Just two doors down, last Monday, an undercover sting operation caught someone who was getting ready to dump mercury into the water supply of a nearby airport. Tell me what that is if it isn't terrorism. And then explain how it isn't a war. I'm serious. If there is anyone out there who genuinely believes that it isn't terror and it isn't a war, I want to hear from you. And then folks, the question must be asked why local (and indeed national) had nothing to say about it.

William Delahunt (D-Mass) Identifies Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington to Al Qaeda

2008-07-03T15:19:00.000-07:00

Here's a little something, courtesy of Newt Gingrich that I don't recall Brian Williams or anyone on CNN or MSNBC mentioning;

Congressman Delahunt Should Apologize or Face Expulsion from Congress
By far and away the most sour note struck this Independence Day holiday was the outrageously irresponsible and un-American comments made by Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.) to vice presidential chief of staff David Addington in a hearing last week.

Rep. Delahunt repeatedly asked Mr. Addington about the use of waterboarding when interrogating enemy combatants. Mr. Addington replied that he could not discuss interrogation techniques because, as he said, "al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN."

"Right," Delahunt responded. "Well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington." View this disgraceful exchange for yourself here.

For his unconscionable expression of pleasure at the prospect of murderous al Qaeda being able to identify an American public servant, Rep. Delahunt, in the very least, owes Mr. Addington an apology. If he refuses to apologize, his colleagues in Congress should move to expel him. There is no place in Congress for a pro-al Qaeda, anti-American public official.

I suppose Mr Delahunt figures that most people don't watch CSPAN and know only what the liberal-controlled media tells them. Unfortunately, our enemies (and we really do have them) are watching everything they can, and are taking every bit of information they can get. But just how hard will they have to hit us to unite us in this country for more than a few months? Apparently 9/11 wasn't hard enough.

I Apologize if My Remarks Were Misinterpreted

2008-07-01T20:22:00.000-07:00

Just kidding. I apologize for nothing I say here. What I'm talking about is when people in the political arena say horrible things, and when they get caught out, they don't actually apologize... They apologize for people misinterpreting or somehow taking offense at some innocent thing they said. You know, if you say something against someone you hate (oh wait. Liberals don't hate, do they? Just conservatives hate), don't apologize. If you mean it, you mean it. I mean, we all know that politicians always mean what they say, right? :) And if you're going to backpedal and apologize, strap on a set and apologize for what you said.

Stupid Things I've Heard Today

2008-06-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

You know, the cheap version of that stuff that men take so they can get aroused? The upstanding (second-rate) product that also happens to inhabit the subject header of 90% of spam messages in the world. Yeah. So in the little almost whispered list of potential debilitating side-effects (nausea, vomiting... hmmm, sexy), they say 'don't use if you're taking nitrates for chest pains'. Okay, chest pains in this case equals prone to heart attack. And just a suggestion. If you're prone to heart attacks, maybe you should move an erection down on your priority list.

Here's another one. Nutra System shows these over-the-hill sports stars talking about how you can 'eat like a man and still lose weight'. Again, if you think that you have to eat what some blowhard on TV tells you to feel like a man, a diet is not going to help.

And I'm sure there's more

Obama the Racist (among other things)

2008-06-27T17:11:00.000-07:00

The subject header may seem strange, but really, what other word sums up
this person? Nothing really does it justice. He lies to us regarding NAFTA
during the primary, and sends his henchman to Canada to say, don't worry if
Obama objects to NAFTA, he's just saying it to get elected. He spends 20
years worshipping in a church that is led by a preacher who hates white
people and the country. And he doesn't see a problem with that, for 20
years, until someone points it out to him on youtube. There is no outrage.
Hillary refuses to exploit the situation, so no doubt didn't deserve to win.
Obama says he will stick with limited, verifiable public funding until he
discovers how much more he can get privately. He says he doesn't accept
money from lobbyists and special interest, but he does. He takes money from
labor unions that spend dues paid by members, regardless of the wishes or
political beliefs of those members. He even admits that he's beholden to
those donors. All politicians do it. We all know it. But Obama cannot look
down his nose at others and claim that he won't do the same. If he simply
had a different idea of how to fix the country, I could deal with it. But
his dishonesty just makes him just such a horrible choice to lead anything.
He is smug and elitist, and what's more, he's a racist. By claiming that
"they will try to make you afraid of him because he's black", he is using
his race, and fear of racism to garner support. He is assuming that a white
person (and now that the primary is over, that would have to be a
conservative white person) who doesn't like him must feel that way because
he's black. He can't see past his own color. He is no better than the KKK
because all he sees in himself and others is black and white. Mr Obama, I'm
not afraid of you because you're black. I'm afraid of you because I think
you're the most damgerous candidate for president we've had since.... oh,
1776? Something like that. You have the audacity to look down on the real
muscle of this country, saying that they cling to guns and religion because
we're bitter. I'll tell you why we cling to guns and religion. Because they
are our God-given right. The government cannot grant us these rights any
more that they can give us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. And it was guns and religion that gave us our freedom from
Britain.

Good and Bad Founding Fathers

2008-06-02T21:40:00.000-07:00

I've been reading David McCullough's John Adams, and aside from a fantastic
history lesson, I'm getting a picture of our early Congress that is, as hard
as it is to believe, almost as bad as that nest of vipers we have now. I'm
also learning of some of the truly brave men and women who gave us this
opportunity that our representatives now seem to be squandering. Rather than
try to explain each excerpt, I'll just present the words of David McCullough
and John Adams.

...Outraged by Dickinson's insistence on petitions to the King as essential
to restoring peace, even after Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, Adams
had strongly denounced any such step. Like many other delegates, he had been
infuriated by Congress's humble petition of July 8, 1775, the so-called
Olive Branch Petition, that had been Dickinson's major contribution. From
the day he saw with his own eyes what the British had done at Lexington and
Concord, Adams failed to understand how anyone could have any misconception
or naïve hope about what to expect from the British. "Powder and artillery
are the most efficacious, sure and infallible conciliatory measures we can
adopt," Adams wrote privately...

*****

...The greatest minds agreed, Adams continued, that all good government was
republican, and the "true idea" of a republic was "an empire of laws and not
of men," a phrase not original with Adams but that he had borrowed from the
writings of the seventeenth-century philosopher James Harrington. A
government with a single legislative body would never do. There should be a
representative assembly, "an exact portrait in miniature of the people at
large," but it must not have the whole legislative power, for the reason
that like an individual with unchecked power, it could be subject to "fits
of humor, transports of passion, partialities of prejudice." A single
assembly could "grow avaricious . . . exempt itself from burdens . . .
become ambitious and after some time vote itself perpetual."...

******

...But when later that evening a preliminary vote was taken, four colonies
unexpectedly held back, refusing to proclaim independence. The all-important
Pennsylvania delegation, despite popular opinion in Pennsylvania, stood with
John Dickinson and voted no. The New York delegates abstained, saying they
favored the motion but lacked specific instructions. South Carolina, too,
surprisingly, voted no, while Delaware, with only two delegates present, was
divided. The missing Delaware delegate was Caesar Rodney, one of the most
ardent of the independence faction. Where he was or when he might reappear
was unclear, but a rider had been sent racing off to find him. When Edward
Rutledge rescued the moment by moving that a final vote be postponed until
the next day, implying that for the sake of unanimity South Carolina might
change its mind, Adams and the others immediately agreed. For while the nine
colonies supporting independence made a clear majority, it was hardly the
show of solidarity that such a step ought to have.The atmosphere that night
at City Tavern and in the lodging houses of the delegates was extremely
tense. The crux of the matter was the Pennsylvania delegation, for in the
preliminary vote three of the seven Pennsylvania delegates had gone against
John Dickinson and declared in the affirmative, and it was of utmost
interest that one of the three, along with Franklin and John Morton, was
James Wilson, who, though a friend and ally of Dickinson, had switched sides
to vote for independence. The question now was how many of the rest who were
in league with Dickinson would on the morrow continue, in Adams's words, to
"vote point blank against the known and declared sense of their
constituents." To compound the tension that night, word reached Philadelphia
of the sighting off New York of a hundred British ships, the first arrivals
of a fleet that would number over four hundred. Though the record of all
that happened the following day,Tuesday, July 2, is regrettably sparse, it
appears that just as the doors to Congress were about to be closed at the
usual hour of nine o'clock, Caesar Rodney, mud-spattered, "booted and
spurred," made his dramatic entrance. The tall, thin Rodney - the
"oddest-looking man in the world,"Adams once described him - had been made
to appear stranger still, and more to be pitied, by a skin cancer on one
side of his face that he kept hidden behind a scarf of green silk. But, as
Adams had also recognized, Rodney was a man of spirit, of "fire." Almost
unimaginably, he had ridden eighty miles through the night, changing horses
several times, to be there in time to cast his vote...

*****

..."Unfaithfulness" was something he could not abide, and in his spells of
gloom he pondered whether the fault was in the times. Unfaithfulness in
public stations is deeply criminal [he wrote to Abigail]. But there is no
encouragement to be faithful. Neither profit, nor honor, nor applause is
acquired by faithfulness. . . . There is too much corruption, even in this
infant age of our Republic. Virtue is not in fashion. Vice is not
infamous...

*****

...Then, just as agreement seemed near, Henry Strachey proposed to amend the
line specifying the American "right" of fishing to read "liberty" of
fishing, to which young Fitzherbert declared the word "right" to be "an
obnoxious expression." The moment was one made for Adams. Rising from his
chair, smoldering with indignation, he addressed the British: Gentlemen, is
there or can there be a clearer right? In former treaties, that of Utrecht
and that of Paris, France and England have claimed the right and used the
word. When God Almighty made the Banks of Newfoundland at 300 leagues
distant from the people of America and at 600 leagues distance from those of
France and England, did he not give as food a right to the former as to the
latter. If Heaven in the Creation have a right, it is ours at least as much
as yours. If occupation, use, and possession have a right, we have it as
clearly as you. If war and blood and treasure give a right, ours is as good
as yours. We have been constantly fighting in Canada, Cape Breton, and Nova
Scotia for the defense of the fishery, and have expanded beyond all
proportion more than you. If then the right cannot be denied, why then
should it not be acknowledged? And put out of dispute? It was settled -
almost. Article III of the treaty would read, "It is agreed that the people
of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take
fish of every kind on the Grand Bank." However, on the matter of taking fish
along the coast of Newfoundland and "all other of his Britannic Majesty's
Dominions in America," the people of the United States were to have the
"liberty," which, insisted the British negotiators, amounted to the same
thing. "We did not think it necessary to contend for a word," wrote a more
mellow John Adams years afterward. By the end of the day there was agreement
on everything. Dining that evening at his hotel with Matthew Ridley,Adams
was in high spirits. Asked if he would have fish, he laughed and declined,
saying he had had "a pretty good meal of them" already that day. Adams
generously praised his fellow negotiators. Franklin, he told Ridley, had
performed "nobly." But to Jay belonged the greatest credit, Adams said. Jay
had played the leading part, Adams felt then and later, never failing to
give Jay credit. The following day, Saturday, November 30, 1782, all parties
made their way through still another damp Paris snowfall, again to Oswald's
quarters at the Grand Hôtel Muscovite for the signing of the preliminary
treaty. Oswald was first to fix his name, followed by the four Americans in
alphabetical order. In effect, the Americans had signed a separate peace
with the British. They had acted in direct violation of both the
French-American alliance and their specific instructions from Congress to
abide by the advice of the French foreign minister. To Adams there was no
conflict in what they had done. The decision to break with the orders from
Congress, and thus break faith with the French, had been clear-cut, the only
honorable course. Congress had left them no choice. Congress had
"prostituted" its own honor by surrendering its sovereignty to the French
Foreign Minister. "It is glory to have broken such infamous orders," Adams
wrote in his diary. "Infamous I say, for so they will be to all
posterity."...

More about Traitors

2008-05-06T20:00:00.001-07:00

The last (almost) eight years has seen our government... that body which is
given its power from We The People and which serves at our pleasure, not
serving us. It hasn't worked to represent us, nor has it solved any of the
myriad problems facing us. Indeed, the historic low approval ratings that
Congress has earned make President Bush seem like a rock star. And that is
because they have failed year after year to decrease our dependency on
foreign oil (which is really the cause of so many other problems) by either
increasing domestic production and refinement or by pushing hard for serious
progress for on alternative, sustainable and renewable fuel. I don't mean
ethanol. Ethanol is not much better than oil, because it still burns oil,
but also uses up so much of our farm produce that it creates food shortages.
Indeed, the fixation that the world has with ethanol is beginning to
encroach upon valuable rain forest resources that we can't afford to lose.
We are not going to quit this addiction (and that's what it is) until we
actually learn to stop burning things to make our cars run. What we need is
the courage and the foresight to challenge ourselves to start a revolution
that ends the oil era. We need a moon shot for the new century. In response
to the Soviet's launch of Sputnik, John F Kennedy challenged the nation to
win the space race by landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to
Earth by the end of the sixties. That's what we need. What made it easy for
America (and America's politicians) to take the challenge seriously was the
paranoia... the supposed threat that the communists would drop bombs, or spy
on us from orbit. That's the threat that we have now, even though
particularly the left refuse to recognize it for political reasons. Our
strongest oil-producing ally in the middle east is Saudi Arabia, a kingdom
that has no respect for its citizens, and is one of the largest exporters of
terrorists in the world, and is itself threatened by even more radical
neighbors. So it doesn't matter what happens to the price of oil. We need to
get off of it. And if we must stay on it for a while, we'd better learn to
live off of what we can make ourselves.
Our government has also failed to learn some basic lessons of economics. Tax
cuts are necessary to protect the basic health of our business sector by
giving employers the means to hire and increase production, thereby lowering
prices, even as it helps working class people to keep (and spend and save)
more of their own money, which helps businesses to prosper. Supply side
"Reaganomics" really do work. It has been proven time and time again that
tax increases actually result in an overall loss in tax revenue by reducing
the average income of American workers, while tax cuts have in fact the
opposite effect by giving employers more hiring and production power and
giving consumers higher income and more spending power. But this really only
works if those tax cuts are matched with fiscal responsibility. Every tax
dollar that goes into the government has to treated like a valuable
commodity, because if it isn't spent doing the legitimate business of the
people, then it'll have to be replaced by a dollar that is spent correctly.
Asking the taxpayer for more money to pay for pork projects would be like me
demanding an extra paycheck because I spent the first one on computer games.
If I got away with that, I might be helping the local Best Buy to stay in
business, but it'll be at the cost of the bookstore I work at. I can't even
blame this on just the Democrats, much as I'd love to, because the
Republicans held all three branches of government for six of the last eight
years. The Republicans lowered our taxes wonderfully, but didn't have the
guts or political will to enact the spending cuts necessary to balance the
books.
Traitors? Well.... let's see. If I stand by and watch my neighbor's house
burn down without calling for help, aren't I just as guilty as if I roasted
marshmallows over the burning embers, or even started the fire myself? I
think so.

How Stephen King supports the troops

2008-05-06T19:59:00.001-07:00

"Reading -- I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV but the fact is that if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you got the army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's not as bright. So that's my little commercial for that."

Stephen King on the intelligence of American Troops, and apparently how he "supports the troops".

F.A.I.R. - The Free American Independent Rant

In The Spirit of Reagan

Sharks Under the Bus

Burning Issue

"The Real Racist"

Headlines From the Edge: "Obama Issues Primary Challenge to Self"

A Letter to the President

Headlines From the Edge: "Obama Pushes Reset Button on First Term: "The Next Four Years Are Going to be Great ""

Being Honest With Yourself

Headlines From the Edge: Obama Outlines Bold Space New Initiative: "Let Them Come To Us!"

Helen the Anti-Semite, B.O. Oil and Avatar Review

Fact Sheet and Full Text of New Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

What part of illegal don't you understand?

"No Honor Among Thieves"

CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tea Bagging

Kapact's Rant: "An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

"An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

"Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?"

The Audacity of Obama

FAIR The Free American Independent Rant

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste

The War on Arrogance

"Haiti, "Kennedy's Seat", and Forgiveness"

Harry Reid IS a racist!!!

Kapact to Mister Obama: "You lie!"

Don't Tread on We The People

Who Does Your Shopping For You?

The Executive Czar

Go Ask Harry!

More Derailments on the Hope and Change Express

I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear or affirm to fundamentally change the United States of America

Recession Depression Beaters

Highway Robbery

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Not Your Typical Conservative Christian Opinion on Gay Marriage

Words From The Gipper

Quoted from The Patriot Post Monday Brief

September 14, 2009Vol. 09 No. 37

KrIstaK Fleet Emblem

"flag@whitehouse.gov"

Real Strength

Fear and Manipulation From the Left

Be Prepared For Life's Hummingbirds

Fear and Manipulation Part One

O.B.A.M.A. (Oh Boy Another Mistake A$S&\#@)

What Mr Obama's Gift Will Cost You

Which Weekly "News" Magazine Wiped Israel Off the Map?

If Bush Had Done It... Dissing the British

Headlines From The Edge: Feb 28 2009

Hope You Enjoy Your Change

We Know What's Best, Even When We're Wrong

Read The Fine Print

Three Rants and a Note About Our President

Mister Obama's First Week

Enjoy The Party

Hurting Me, Hurting You

Food Stamp Fraud and Who Runs the Media?

The Job Warrior: My Experience Losing a Job and Getting Another During a Hiring Freeze

Rewarding Poor Performance

The Twelve Trek Days of Christmas

It's Still Country First

The American Inquisition or: I Wonder If They'd Approve Waterboarding In This Case

Thanksgiving

Not That We Don't Love You, But....

Our Duty as Americans

Why This Is A Good Thing...

Good News!

Another NewsMax special.... "Obama Positions Run Against Grain of Voters"

From "Newsmax": 'Smears' About Obama Largely True

From "The Patriot Post" Notes on Presidential Character

Lucky Me! I Just Found Out I'm a Racist!

Just What Is a Barack Hussein Obama

The 700 Billion Dollar Cr@p Sandwich

Top Ten Reasons I Don't Watch David Letterman Anymore

The Company That He Keeps, The Content of His Character

Where America Lives

What Obama Knows

Shooting From the Left

No War on Terror?

William Delahunt (D-Mass) Identifies Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington to Al Qaeda

I Apologize if My Remarks Were Misinterpreted

September 14, 2009
Vol. 09 No. 37