No Christ in Red Cross

UK Red Cross Bans Christmas in Shops
Friday, December 17, 2010 08:26 AM

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops in the United Kingdom, according to a MailOnline report. After staff members were directed to remove any other signs of the Christian holiday, there followed criticism from both Christians and Moslems.Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in Kent, said: 'We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can't have anything that means Christmas. We're allowed to have some tinsel but that's it. When we send cards they have to say season's greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas.'

When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.'Banks added: ' We have been instructed that we can't say anything about Christmas and we certainly can't have a Christmas tree."

My Question: Will the Red Cross soon have to change their name so as not to upset the Moslems?

Taxpayer outcry success

Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2010, concerning the demise of the omnibus spending bill:

Anti-spending Republicans credited the tea party and the rising power of the conservative grass roots. "This bill never would have been defeated if not for the outcry from taxpayers across America," Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) said.

Power to the people, right on!

This is brilliant!

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at airports. All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.

This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be none of this stuff about racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials. This is so simple that it's brilliant. I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention, standby passengers! We now have a seat available on flight number...." The booth will have a self-clean feature.

T.J. is smiling!

In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple: "Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to "nullify" unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president's veto power.

This amendment reflects confidence in the collective wisdom of the men and women from diverse backgrounds, and elected by diverse constituencies, who comprise the modern legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Put another way, it allows thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D.C. (full article at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144).

A moment of Algore honesty

On November 23, while speaking in Greece, Al Gore admitted: "First-generation ethanol, I think, was a mistake." And whose mistake was it, Mr. Gore? In 1994, it was Gore himself who ended a 50-50 tie in the Senate by voting in favor of an ethanol tax credit that added almost $5 billion to the federal deficit last year. And that number doesn't include the many ways in which corn-based ethanol mandates drive up the price of food and livestock feed. Whether Gore meant well or not can be debated, but according to Reuters, Gore also said, "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president." Why should we believe anything this man has to say? He is a joke.

Shaking the world

Pat Buchanan writes: At the G20 gathering in Seoul, South Korea, Barack Obama got an earful from China about the Fed sinking the dollar and learned that Beijing would not be revaluing its currency to help with our chronic trade deficits. As China holds a huge share of U.S. debt, Obama is not about to get sassy with our banker, who might just cut off the credit America, running a budget deficit of 10 percent of gross domestic product, desperately needs.

So the question arises: Who put us in this predicament? Who awakened, fed and nurtured this tiger to where she is growling at all Asia and baring her teeth at the United States? Answer: the free trade uber alles Republicans. Richard Nixon opened China. His 1972 Shanghai communique pointed inexorably to what Jimmy Carter did in 1979: break relations and abrogate our security pact with Taiwan, and recognize the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China. In 1982, the Ronald Reagan White House signed on to a communique with Deng Xiaoping's China by which we agreed to reduce and eventually end all arms sales to Taiwan as tensions in the strait diminished. Under George H.W. Bush, Beijing's crushing of the Tiananmen Square protest with tanks was not allowed to interfere with business.

Repeatedly, Republicans voted to extend most-favored-nation status to China. Dissenters were castigated as "isolationists and protectionists." Under Bush II, the GOP made MFN permanent and sponsored Beijing's entry into the World Trade Organization, despite China's downing of a U.S. surveillance plane and incarceration of its American crew on Hainan Island. Colin Powell was forced to apologize.

For decades, corporate America championed investing in China and trade with China, though the massive transfer of U.S. factories, technologies and jobs was clearly empowering China and weakening America.

Now, with U.S. political, military, industrial and strategic decline vis a vis China manifest to the world, we hear the wails of American businessmen that they are not being treated fairly by the Chinese. And the politicians responsible for building up China are now talking tough about confronting and containing China. Sorry, but that cat cannot be walked back.

Review commission chair Dan Slane says his members have concluded that "China is adopting a highly discriminatory policy of favoring domestic producers over foreign manufacturers. Under the guise of fostering 'indigenous innovation' ... the government of China appears determined to exclude foreigners from bidding on government contracts at the central, provincial and local levels."

Imagine that! The Chinese are ignoring WTO rules and putting China first. Don't they understand how the Global Economy works? You're not supposed to tilt the field in favor of the home team.

The policy the Chinese are pursuing, economic nationalism, was virtually invented by the Republican Party. Protectionism was the declared policy of the GOP from the day its first president took office in 1861 to the day Calvin Coolidge left in 1929. Free trade was the policy of a Great Britain whose clocks those generations of Americans cleaned, even as the Chinese are cleaning ours.

Napoleon said of the Middle Kingdom, "Let (China) sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." The shaking has begun.

My comment: Is it the "shaking" or the "shake down"? Pat may be more right about all this than I've given him credit for in the past.

An example of a "true Muslim."

http://cloudvideos.tangle.com/c41d1763008601510d3e9a679de49839.flv

This is the mind-set we are up against. By "we" I mean the West. Eventually it will move against the East too. But for now, we are the target.

If the link above does not work, cut and paste this one.
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4

Wrong rhetoric

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Mitch McConnell said: "When the administration agrees with the American people, we will agree with the administration. When it disagrees with the American people, we won’t. This has been our posture from the beginning of this administration. And we intend to stick with it."

I think this is the wrong rhetoric and is potentially quite dangerous. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This means that the public elects men and women to go to Washington to represent their interests. We are supposed to elect wise and experienced people who can thoughtfully focus on the matters at hand and use good judgment in making decisions, considering both the interests of their constituents and the interests of the nation at large. Goodness, there have been times when the majority favored legalized abortion, but that doesn't make it right. It is quite likely, given the fact that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax, that the majority may oppose tax reductions, but that doesn't make it right. If our representatives are only responsible for doing what the majority of their constituents want, then we don't really need representatives. Lackeys will do. I would sure prefer to hear the Republican leader of the Senate affirming his party's commitment to governing according to tried and true Conservative principles, not "the will of the people." That's mob rule, the tyranny of the majority, not Republicanism.

Islam's war against the West

DUBAI, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said the kidnapping of five French nationals in Niger last month had been prompted by France's unjust treatment of Muslims, in an audio message aired on Al Jazeera television on Wednesday.


Looks like the new front on Islam's war aginst the West is France. Will they recend their ban on veils? Will they get out of Bush's war in Afghanistan (that's bin Laben's appellation)? I guess we're about see what kind of stuff the French are made of. There are presently 5 million Muslims in France. That's enough to create a lot of havoc.

WH bristles over top Republican's remarks

CNN White House Correspondent Dan Lothian

The White House is firing back at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after he told the National Journal that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." With his usual sarcastic tone, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters "maybe Senator McConnell is interested in running for President."

Gibbs said there will be time in two years for a presidential campaign, but that "members of the Senate are elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games, gum up the system."


What hypocrisy! The Senate isn’t even in session. There isn’t any business McConnell is supposed to be doing right now. We’re in the midst of a hot political campaign. And on top of all that, isn’t the President of the United States "elected and hired by the people of the United States to get stuff done for the people of the United States, not posture and play political games"? And isn’t his office in session every day of the year? Yet he gets to run around all over the country politicking as usual, lying about the opposition, and generally doing his best to gum up the system. Gibb's hypocrisy is stunning!

Let the money in...

I'm coming to the conclusion that, with perhaps a few exceptions, as a general principle you really can't buy an election. I say that because Meg Whitman has spent $120 million of her own money yet it looks like she isn't gonna win. Could she win if she spent $200 million or $300 million? I doubt it. People are gonna vote for who they decide to vote for. At some point you have put out as much advertising as you can. Putting out any more just isn't going to change the outcome.

This also leads me to think that the money flows toward whoever is perceived as the likely winner. In other words, the reason so many conservative candidates are likely to win is not because so much money is flowing toward them; the money is flowing in their direction because people think they're going to win. If it's true that as a general rule, the money is the result of success and not the cause, then I say repeal McCain-Feingold (looks like Feingold will be repealed). Why not take all the limits off political contributions? All you really need is exposure of the donor list. My concern all along has been that my rights are being trambled on when the government tells me that I can't give a candidate more than $1000.00. And all it does is impower PACs and big labor. Let's put the money back into politics. With good sunshine laws, the risk of money corruption politicians is greatly limited. And we have done rather well in recent years at discovering the corrupt ones and throwing them out on their ear...sometimes into prison.

This is an embarassment

Ascension of the moderates?

I heard Rush saying the other day that in the next Senate, it will be the so-called moderates who have the power, being neatly situated between the left-wing flaming liberals on the one side and the right-wing Tea Party extremists on the other. Does this mean that John McCain will morph back into a "moderate"? I'm sure we can count on that. Too bad the good people of Arizona didn't dump him when they had the chance. Does this also mean that the real power brokers in the next Senate will be the cooperators and compromisers like Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and the Maine girls? Probably. It may be better than having socialists like Reid and Shumer calling the shots, but it certainly isn't much better.

Also, I predict again that by the end of January Hillary will have resigned so she can run for president. The next two years could be very unpleasant for the current occupant of the White House as Bill and Hillary roam the countryside criticizing his every move. I suspect they will make the criticisms from the right look like pablum.

Liberalism at odds with democratic government

Modern liberalism is fundamentally at odds with democratic government because it demands results that ordinary people would not freely choose. Liberals must govern, therefore, through institutions that are largely insulated from the popular will. The most important institutions for liberals’ purposes are the judiciary and the bureaucracies.

In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln asserted: "The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Lincoln was thinking of Dred Scott. Today, however, his observation is even more pertinent, as we have resigned into the hands of the federal judiciary ever more vital questions affecting the whole people. We have in very significant measure ceased to be our own rulers.

The Supreme Court, without authorization from any law, has changed our policies and our culture. That process continues as the lower federal courts are following the Supreme Court’s example. The courts, without the authorization from law, are taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions. [Robert Bork, 1995]

The most recent example of what Judge Bork describes is a federal judge ordering the military to accept out-of-the-closet homosexuals.

Sick and Perverse

Writing in an Opinion piece on Foxsnews.com, Annemarie McAvoy says (concerning the Petit killers): "If these men did do the crimes that they have been accused of doing, then our anger, outrage and disgust are certainly warranted. However, if we execute them then we are applying the same 'method' that they did, we are killing them. We are stooping to their level by acting as they did."

Suggesting that there is parity between vicious cold-blooded murder and painless execution by the state following due process is sick. It is beyond sick. It is perverse. It is evil. If there were ever been two human beings (and I use the term loosely) who deserve death, it is these two. In fact, they deserve a slow agonizing death such as they inflicted on their poor victims. Annemarie needs to wake up; she needs to get a life. I'll bet she has no problem at all with the viscious cold-blooded murder of a baby that hasn't even been born yet. Most of the people who thinking like her don't. How perverse her thinking! How utterly sick!

The Trojan Horse

Writing in Der Spiegel Online, Erich Follith excoriates in the serverest terms the anti-Muslim rhetoric taking place in Germany. He then admits: "Of course, these fears are not completely unfounded. Conditions in areas like Berlin's Kreuzberg neighborhood give rise to very real, justified concerns. There are schoolrooms where three-quarters of the students are from immigrant families, students whose German is barely good enough to get by. There are Arab and Albanian family clans that control crime syndicates and receive welfare benefits. There are phenomena like forced marriages and honor killings. In some mosques, imams are encouraging the faithful to engage in Islamist terror. All of this exists, and yet it has nothing to do with ordinary Islam and the day-to-day lives of well over 90 percent of Germany's Muslims. And yet these are precisely the kinds of things that fuel cheap attempts to create stereotypes of Muslims as the enemy." (8/31/10)

The dangerous flaw in Herr Follith's analysis in revealed in his statement, "All of this exists, and yet it has nothing to do with ordinary Islam and the day-to-day lives of well over 90 percent of Germany's Muslims." To insist on making a distinction between "radical Islam" and "ordinary Islam" is the fatal error that will, if not forsaken, inevitably bring the world to it's knees. The truth is, the 90% of "ordinary Islam" is the Trojan Horse for the 10% of "radical Islam," which is more accurately described as "true Islam." And 10% of one billion is a lot of dangerous soldiers of Allah.

People such as Herr Follith better wake up before it's too late. Europe is already well on its way to becoming fully Islamicized.

Danke and Merci!

Aug 12, 6:20 AM (ET) By MARCY GORDON
WASHINGTON (AP) - The $700 billion U.S. bailout program launched in response to the global economic meltdown had a far greater impact overseas than other countries' financial rescue plans did on the U.S., according to a new report from a congressional watchdog.
Billions of dollars in U.S. rescue funds wound up in big banks in France, Germany and other nations. That was probably inevitable because of the structure of the Treasury Department's program, the Congressional Oversight Panel says in a new report issued Thursday.
The U.S. program aimed to stabilize the financial system by injecting money into as many banks as possible, including those with substantial operations overseas. Most other countries, by contrast, focused their efforts more narrowly on banks in their nations that usually lacked major U.S. operations.
But the report says that if the U.S. had gotten more data on which foreign banks would benefit the most, the government might have been able to ask those countries to share some of the cost.
"There were no data about where this money was going," panel chair Elizabeth Warren said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. "The American people have a right to know where the money went."
An example: Major French and German banks were among the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. rescue of American International Group Inc., yet the American government shouldered the entire $70 billion risk of pumping capital into the crippled insurance titan. The report compares that with the $35 billion that France spent on its overall financial rescue program and the $133 billion that Germany spent.
Much of the $182 billion in federal aid to AIG - the biggest of the government rescues - went to meet the company's obligations to its Wall Street trading partners on credit default swaps, a form of insurance against default of securities. The partners included French banks Societe Generale, which received $11.9 billion in AIG money, and BNP Paribas, which got $4.9 billion, and Germany's Deutsche Bank, $11.8 billion.
Of the 87 banks and financial entities that indirectly benefited from the U.S. aid to AIG, 43 are foreign, according to the report. In addition to France and Germany, they include banks based in Canada, Britain and Switzerland.
In addition to AIG, many of the U.S. banks and automakers that received billions in bailout aid derive a large proportion of their revenue from operations outside the U.S., the report noted.
The watchdog panel was created by Congress to oversee the Treasury Department rescue program that came in at the peak of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. It has said it's unclear whether U.S. taxpayers will ever fully recoup the cost of the AIG bailout. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will lose $36 billion.

Now we know where the real money is.

Is Bloomberg a total idiot?

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the decision of the City Landmarks Commission to allow the building of the mosque to go forward by saying, "Of course, it is fair to ask the organisers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam."

In contrast to Mr. Bloomberg's opinion, the Koran says, "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you" (Sura 9, Repentance, verse 123). And, "Fight against such as those to whom the scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day …. (ibid., verse 29). And, "Kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage (Sura 2, The Cow, verse 191). And, "The unbelievers are your sworn enemies (Sura 4, Women, verse 102). And, "Those who follow Him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Sura 48, Victory, verse 48). And, "Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice" (Sura 41, Battle Array, verse 4). And, "I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (Sura 8, The Accessions, verse 12)

Sestak running against Sestak

Headline in our local paper on August 3 says, Sustak faults Democrat policies. I love this. Senatorial candidate Joe Sestak is now running against his own party. As a matter of fact, since he has been a Democratic member of the House of Representatives for the last 31/2 years, he seems to be running against himself. If he is so concerned about the failure of Democrats to
"change politics despite promises to do so, and deal with the national debt," why hasn't he been crying out for change for the past 3 years? And if he is really concerned about the "looming Medicare and Social Security insolvencies" and believes they "will demand higher taxes on the wealthy and fewer corporate tax breaks," why hasn't he been demanding that his fellow Democrats inact these changes? The reason is obvious. Sestak now knows that in order to have any chance of getting elected, he has to run against Washington. Even though he has been a part of Washington, he has to posture himself as though he hasn't. He has to become as much like Pat Toomey as he possibly can.

A Democrat, Trashing Affirmative Action?

I don't often read Democrat propaganda in the op-ed pages of the newspapers. However, a piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Virginia Senator James Webb stopped me in my tracks. I thought it was a giant misprint or a mistake. Webb writes that "diversity policies have marginalized many white workers." He talks about the Old South, saying that the vast majority of whites didn't own slaves. He concludes, "Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. . . . Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners." What?! In the age of Obama? All the current regime does is pick winners and losers. Opportunity? That's just a code-word for oppression and an obstacle to equality of outcomes. Webb's piece obviously runs counter to the entire communist agenda that has this country in its grip. According to the current regime, America is a bad nation, which has a lot to be ashamed of and to apologize for. It was founded by white slave-owners. Everybody who is not white is to be preferred, in all respects. White people have been privileged for too long, and it's now payback time. This is the whole Obama philosophy and world view.

So how in the name of Joe Biden can a Democrat U.S. Senator, in a state that went for Obama in the 2008 election, and who is not up for re-election until 2012, so directly challenge one of the central tenets of Obama and his fellow communist revolutionaries? I'm at a loss. Is some mighty challenger emerging already to take on Webb? Does anybody have any ideas?

Check out the Webb piece.

Freedom of "worship"?

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

A purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right to religious freedom. Does this change of language indicate a change of policy? As Catholics, this is an area where we must remain vigilant. These small changes can be used to change our perception of rights and freedoms.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Deja vu all over again!

Writes Walter E. Williams: The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project "How Government Prolonged the Depression" in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR's economic policies added at least seven years to the depression.

No Islamic terrorists around here!?

On May 26, John Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America." In another speech he said: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Now let me get this straight: the people we are fighting in Afghanistan and the people who attacked us in New York, Washington, and Fort Hood were not all devout Muslims who define jihad as Islam's struggle to take over the world and rid it of against all non-muslims (Islam's historical goal from the start). And they are not using terror as their primary weapon. And they are not fighting us for ideological reasons at all, but because...uh, why exactly are they fighting us? If it's not because they believe they are obeying the Koran, then why is it?

Mr. Brennan is either dangeroiusly naive or he is actually working to advance our enemy's cause.

Unmitigated claptrap!

President Obama recently told Politico: “Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much. Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

This is unmitigated claptrap. Is it not possible that people may want the president to step up and show leadership in an area of legitimate federal interest while simultaneously wanting him to cease his efforts to control matters that are beyond his constitutional mandate? To assert that believing B is hypocritical because you did not believe A is disingenuous and deceptive. This is the kind of rhetoric that's designed to appeal to simple-minded partisans. Anyone with half a brain ought to be able to see through this untenable and patently illogical assertion.

Put old people in prison

Here's an idea for AARP to start promoting: Let's put all senior citizens in prision and the criminals in nursing homes. This way the seniors would have access to showers, hobbies, and walks; they would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs, and they'd receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance. Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling, pool, and education, simple clothing, shoes, slippers, and PJs. In addition, legal aid would be free on request. There would be a private, secure room for all, with an outdoor exercise yard. Each senior could have a PC, TV, radio, and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The criminals, on the other hand, would get cold food and be continually left alone unsupervised. Lights would be off at 8 pm and showers provided once a week. They would live in a tiny room, pay $5000.00 a month, and have no hope of ever getting out.

Thin-skinned president

The description below by Senator Roberts resonates. I have gotten the impression several times that the president is rather thin-skinned, a sign of insecurity as a person. This is pretty typical of young men who grew up without a strong father figure. Here is what Roberts said: "The more he talked, the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

Byline: Biddeford, Maine

I spoke to a man last night who had just returned from the Maine State Republican Convention. He said that someone introduced a totally new platform for consideration that went straight down the list of core conservative values. About half-way through the reading of it someone made a motion to kill it, even before it had been fully reviewed. A vote was called and the motion received a handful of yeas. When the call was made for all who oppose, there was a roar from the crowd that overwhelmed the place. The new platform was overwhelmingly approved, much to the consternation of Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. This man said it was as though the tea-partiers had just taken back the Republican Party, at least in Maine.

The dream of total equality

Rev. Al Sharpton has said that M. L. Kings dream of social justice was that "everything is equal in everybody's house." This is classic language of the committed fascist. Of course, we must understand what it really means. It means the American middle class declines to the level of the Third World masses, while a select elete, the all-wise philosopher-kings who govern the impoverished masses, get to live in the lap of luxury. Think Robert Mugabe. I'm sure Rev. Al figures he will be part of this select few. It sounds so noble: "Equality for all!" Ha! What a fraud!

BTW, I thought King's dream was that all men would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. On that basis I judge Rev. Al to be a man of contemptible character. See his statement here... http://www.breitbart.tv/al-sharpton-we-wont-have-true-social-justice-until-everything-is-equal-in-everybodys-house

Armed to the hilt

This video clip shows in the clearest of terms why every law-abiding family in America ought to be armed to the hilt. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/754.html%C2%A0%3E%3E

Reasons for a vigilent Tea Party Movement

Some have wondered why the tea partiers are so worked up about taxes. Why, President Obama hasn't raised anyone's taxes. In fact, he lowered taxes for nearly everyone. This is baloney in its purest form. First of all, a tax rebate or tax credit is not lowering taxes. Only a reduction in rates can be considered lowering taxes. Rebates and credits are manipulations. Second, here is the short list of tax increases that are currently on the table.

1. Increase on stock dividends from 15% to 40% to take effect in 2011 (Senate Budget Committee). This would be a cyanide pill for the economy.

2. Increase in captial gains taxes due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

3. Increase in the alternative minimum tax.

4. Increase in the inheritance tax (AKA the death tax).

5. The new "bank tax" promoted by Obama in his Cooper Union speech (4/22/10).

6. Last but not least (and not yet officially on the table), the European-style value-added tax (VAT). I might favor a VAT if it replaces income taxes, but if it's on top of the tax on income, then I'm adamantly against it.

These are six good reasons why the Tea Party Movement needs to remain vocal and vigilent.

Apocalypse now (or at least soon)

Interesting facts regarding the last presidential election: Obama won 28 states plus DC while McCain won 20. The total number of square miles of Obama states was 1,483,702 while McCain's were 2,310,315 (1,719,311 if we take out Alaska). The average murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Obama was 6.56 while in McCain's counties it was 3.6.

While the divide was less severe than in 2004, the continued reality is that the poorer, less law-abiding sectors of our nation continually vote for the Democrat while the more affluent and more law-abiding populations vote Republican. Should it be a surprise that the result of this trend is a progressive increase in the size of government largess. This is not to say that Republicans never engage in government-run charity, but clearly the Democrats are the primary progenitors of such programs. They certainly campaign the most stridently on their willingness to provide even more direct assistance to the "needy" among us.

Today, nearly half the population pays no income taxes at all, and many of these same people (perhaps as much as 40% of the population) depend on some form of government hand-out. We have an ever-growing divide between the providers of revenue and the recipients of benefits. The question is, how do we ever stop our nation from continuing to move in this direction?

We have recently seen in Greece what happens when citizens are threatened with the loss of government entitlements: rioting in the streets. Once a benefit is bestowed, it is virtually impossible to take it back, regardless of the consequences it's having on the economy. This is why the Founders foresaw the inherent dangers in granting gifts from the public treasury to the voting citizens. Human nature inclines most people to vote themselves the best benefits, regardless of how it effects anything else.

Today we have a society that is putting its government gifts on a charge card and saddling the next generation with the payments. This is serious enough, but if Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal immigrants, and they begin to vote, we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. I think that this clearly plausible scenario can rightly be call an Apocalypse.

Ticked off press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html

Interesting how the mainstream press is beginning to turn on the president, not because of any policy concerns, but because he is dissing them.

Gonorrhea Lectim

Important information has just been released from the Center for Disease Control that all Americans should be made aware of. It concerns a new and virulent strain of an old disease called Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'im"). This disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008, but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness really is. It's sad because it is so easily cured with a new procedure just coming on the market called Votemout! You take the first dose/step in 2010 and the second in 2012. You must then avoid engaging in such behavior again in the future, otherwise it could become a permanent condition and eventually wipe out all life as we know it. Several states are already controling the spread of this disease such as Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, with many more seeing the handwriting on the wall. Please pass this important announcement on to every American you really care about.

Unprecedented retreat

Here's the lead sentence from a story on Breitbart today:

• NASA announced Tuesday that it signed a contract with the Russian space agency to shuttle US astronauts to the orbiting International Space Station.

And here's the lead from a story linked on Drudge:

• CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered Wednesday to help Uruguay expand a refinery and supply it with crude oil. Chavez and visiting Uruguayan President Jose Mujica are expected to sign accords pledging to deepen trade and energy ties between the two South American nations.

You've seen the stories about the Nuclear Posture Review (The politicization of this process itself is scandalous and dangerous, but that's another matter)

And the stories about Putin offering Ahmedinejad and the Iranians pretty vast support for their nuclear enterprise and ramped up military support.

And the stories about sabotaging Israel. And sandbagging Karzai.

All of these - from space, to our own hemisphere, to our strategic deterrent, to our humiliation of our allies, to our impotence in the face of Russian/Iranian provocation - all of these tell a tale of American retreat from global leadership that is unprecedented. Our weakness is provocative. The rational response of our longtime friends will be to make their own security arrangements; what choice do they have? The response of our enemies will be to become emboldened to be more adventuresome. And our response will be . . . what? To apologize?

I don't think the left has a clue as to how vital US strength is to the global order. In its absence, we'll see the realization of Yeats' warning: "Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."

Turn out the enablers

At the end of this shameful week, the individuals I actually have the most contempt for are the opportunistic democrats who voted no.

They apparently believe, cowards that they are, that they can vote no and thus get a pass from their constituents come November. But it is these cowardly SOBs who made it possible for Pelosi to be Speaker in the first place and effectively control the legislative agenda of the nation.

Pelosi, after lots of head-counting and strategizing with her brain trust, gave these guys a free pass to vote no. She added up the numbers and came to the conclusion that by voting no now, these "renegades" survive politically to vote "yes" for her next year. These fence-straddling no voters, in other words, are Pelosi's biggest enablers. It is precisely these 34 "no" democrats who need to be turned out - along with a select few others, of course. Come fall, Republicans need to campaign against these guys as Pelosi enablers.

These phonies will posture during the upcoming election, of course, that they stood up to the powers that be; nothing is further from the truth and they mustn't be allowed to get away with claiming otherwise. The break-away democrats were allowed by the goddess to vote no; allowed to posture about their agonizing struggles of conscience; allowed even to publicly challenge the leadership. It was all an act, a well-thought out, carefully orchestrated charade. Come January, these brave souls will vote Pelosi back into the Speaker's chair and the agenda to dismantle America will continue apace.

Turn 'em out. Turn 'em out now.

Oh, Don't Worry; He's Just Dead

Oh, look: A 22-year-old man dies of thirst in one of those lovely socialized British hospitals. There they go again, those rascals. Check it out.

Emotional Blackmail

Here is the Democrat's strategy for winning people to their side on healthcare (as practiced yesterday by Tom Harkin, the denture lady, et al): "I know someone who is suffering and I'm suffering, therefore you must accede to my opinion--and you’re heartless if you don’t." Notice there is no appeal to intellect, no appeal to reason, no appeal to common sense. This is pure emotional blackmail. A political ploy. It is an effort to overcome reasonable argumentation with raw emotion. It is cheap. It is phony. And in the end it will not work.

Perhaps this is why the Canadian Premier Didn't go to Great Britain

Here is a most interesting report from British news service Reuters, no evil conservative news outlet. Where did I hear about the Reuters report? ABC-NBC-CBS? No. CNN-CNBC-MSNBC-Public TV-NPR? No, not them, either. Why, it was on the Rush Limbaugh Program.

Oh, yeah: we definitely need some of this superior British-style free socialist health care over here. Can't say I've ever been treated to anything like this. They certainly seemed quite concerned about keeping their costs down. You don't suppose there was any rationing going on, do you? Well, at least we'd never have to worry about that happening here. For some reason, these Brits didn't seem to have much of an incentive to take care of the poor patients in this lovely hospital. Of course, they do have a centralized system, so shouldn't all the hospitals be the same? But that would make them all like this. No, that's ridiculous; this is Great Britain, a socialist utopia. No, perhaps some capitalist insurance companies sneaked in. No, no; the article specifically states it was an NHS--that's National Health Service--hospital. Hmm. . . I wonder what that missing incentive could be. . . . You don't suppose it's profit, do you? Aaaaachhhh! I feel dirty even suggesting it. But wait a minute; where else did they try (only for about 70 years, though) central planning without the incentive of profit? Oh, it's on the tip of my tongue. . . Swaziland, Soweto. . . Soviet Union! But they were communists. We don't have any of those here. Well, I mean, except Van Jones. Oh, and that lady in the Obama administration who admires Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers (well, he was responsible for tens of millions of dead comrades, but nobody's perfect). And that union ally of Obama's who agrees with Mao that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Well, that's just poetry or something, right? Ach! It's all coincidence! And lies, lies! Oh, excuse me; there I go sounding like Stalin or. . . like Obama.

[We, the editors of Common Sense Alert, sincerely apologize for the foregoing display of thought and reasoning.]

Read all about it.

Canadian Premier Goes to Miami for Heart Surgery

Well, what do you know about that? I wonder why he didn't go to Great Britain?

Read it.

The great Scott Brown!

I had my doubts about this guy from the get-go, with his avoidance of the very word Republican during his entire campaign. Now he joins with other "Republicans" (Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich) to help Harry Reid and the Leftists advance a so-called "jobs" bill. This is a good thing? It turns out it's Teddy Kennedy's seat after all.

Brown is talking about a desire to bring "bipartsanship" back to Washington.

Bring it back!?! When was this vaunted time when Washington was a bipartisan city? When was this time when Democrats and Republicans hugged and kissed and made whoopee together? When was the time, when was the era, of this vaunted civility that we have supposedly lost? These are fanatsies, people.

Leftists and conservatives have always hated each other and always will - and for very good reason. They think we're stupid, racist, insensitive, greedy and who knows what else. We know they're totalitatians at heart, arrogant, presumptuous, sanctimonious, and self-satisfied. And ultimately, we know they're like the lost boys - they never grow up. What's not to hate?

Excepting brief periods when the nation was at war, Washington has never been bipartisan, nor should any sane person want it to be. I don't want to meet Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama halfway. I want them to lose and lose big. Lose totally. I want to see them and their socialist agenda repudiated. That's my agenda - and Scott Brown is not helping to advance it, not one whit.

Is Biden serious?

Joe Biden told Larry King last night, "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Is he serious? Bush does all the heavy lifting and takes all the slings and arrow, then Obama counts it as his great achievement. As I remember it, both Biden and Obama vehemently opposed and criticized the so-called surge, which obviously was what finally put down the so-called insurgency. But never mind the truth, if Joe says it's Obama's great achievement, then it will certainly go down in history as Obama's great achievement. PU!

Obama's first-term achievements

They Don't Know How to do Anything Else

Oh, great: Now it's $8 billion in "stimulus" money for "high-speed rail," for which there is no market. Have these socialists ever heard of Amtrak? Hmmm. . . query for you: Does AMTRAK compete with private rail systems? Oh, and don't forget force-funneling money to private banks so they can lend it to small business. Why do we need an incompetent, wasteful government as a middle-man? These guys only know one way to operate: Tax money away from the productive sectors of society, launder it through their union-organized bureaucracy, then pay it out to favored, wasteful sectors, which inevitably become money pits. Of course, they'd rather die than cut taxes on the same small businesses they profess to want to help. Let's hope people don't buy this nonsense any more than they buy health care "reform."

How conservative?

I will rain - just a little bit - on the Scott Brown parade.

I find it interesting and telling that in his victory remarks (and for that matter, throughout his campaign), he has emphasized the "independent majority" in Massachusetts. That appeal obviously proved to be very smart and effective politics.

To be sure, Brown's positions sound to me like they classify him as more conservative than otherwise - at least on fiscal and security matters. But it's my guess that you're not going to see him appearing on the same platform with Sarah Palin, not buddying around with Glen Beck and Rush. He will keep a arm's length from movement Conservatives; he won't do anything to alienate them, but won't want to seen to be associated with them too closely, either.

He's tapped into a potent political force - that independent majority - and I expect he'll work that angle pretty vigorously.

He may be a guy on the white horse, in other words.

No media bias, no, none.

I find it fascinating that the lead story this morning on CNN.com reads, "Democrats distanced themselves from Martha Coakley, and blamed her lackluster campaign for her stunning loss in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts." Scott Brown's name cannot even be found on the home page. So if I have this right, the real story this morning is that Coakley blew it, not that Brown won it. That is such typical liberal spin. It had nothing to do with what the candidates stood for, but only which candidate ran the worst campaign. I think everyone in Massachusettes knew exactly what both candidates stood for and if they didn't before, they certainly did after our articulate president's visit on Sunday. I mean, once the teleprompter has spoken, everything is made clear, is it not.

The Legislative Process

Our congress at work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

This clip causes me to feel embarrassed to live in Pennsylvania, home state of the lead character in this pathetic display.

Full-body scanners?

In light of the terrorist threat, what should the Conservative position be concerning the use of these full-body scanners at airports and elsewhere? How do we maintain consistency in our values yet protect ourselves as best as possible from terrorism?

A Liberal by any Other Name…

[Note: This piece was written by my good friend, Christian D. Malesic. Brian.]

Those on the Left side of the political spectrum have always wrestled with labels, wearing them proudly until they become dirty words and then throwing them quickly to the curb. Nonetheless, in order to communicate with one another, our language needs a term that describes the political views of those who oppose the Conservatives of the Right.

Historically speaking, they were ‘Progressives’ then ‘Liberals’ now they want to be ‘Progressives’ again. Around the start of the 20th century (circa 1900), the term Progressive came into popularity and common use. It was used proudly by many on the left to describe their political ideology until sometime in the 1940s when it began to fade away. Essentially, the Progressives themselves showed the American public what it was that a Progressive believed through President Woodrow Wilson’s anti-Capitalism and pro-Socialism stances on to which President Franklin D. Roosevelt placed an exclamation point with his New Deal.

As politics played out in the ‘40s and early ‘50s it was clear that the term ‘Progressive’ invoked negative thoughts in the minds of the public. Meanwhile, the word ‘liberal’, derived from the Latin word liberalis, had been floating around since at least the 14th century and carried with it a very positive meaning. Before the 1960s, in very simple layman’s terms the common usage of ‘liberal’ meant “free from restraint to study, to think, to speak” as in ‘Liberal Arts Degree’. As the 1960s came into full swing, the American Leftists stole the term ‘Liberal’ to describe themselves, knowing full well that they stood for the exact opposite of the freedom that the word ‘liberal’ represented. They then allowed ‘Progressive’ to die a slow death.

It didn’t take long for the common man to realize that a Liberal was a re-packaged Progressive who stood against the values and historical traditions that made America great. President Lyndon Johnson made that message clear with his Great Society, forever ruining the term Liberal.

In the last few decades, ‘Liberal’ became the “L-word” and politicians ran from the label as fast as their doublespeak could carry them. They were a political ideology without a name. Often they would don their most sheepish face and attempt to ask innocently “why do we have to use labels at all.” Conservatives continued to call them Liberals, not understanding that the word had become a modern day insult. After all, Conservatives were proud of their label and the principles & values that their label represented.

On 23 Jul 07, then Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton let out the battle cry heard around the world – we will begin to re-use the term ‘Progressive’ to define ourselves – in the CNN-YouTube Democratic Debate. In her words, when asked straight up, “How would you define the word ‘liberal’ and would you use this word to define yourself?” she replied, “… I prefer the word ‘progressive’ which has a real American meaning going back to the Progressive Era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a Modern Progressive…”

So there it is! A Progressive is a Liberal is a Progressive again. But, since the Left would have you forget history and the words of our Founding Fathers, they don’t want you to make that connection. Somehow, they want you to think that they are not Liberal which is seen as a bad word. They are something different - Progressives, a new and good word. Sure, we may argue the differences between a Mallard and a Pochard in a college classroom; but, to many of us common folk out here – If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

We’ll just call them Liberal Progressives so that everyone clearly makes the connection.

[Christian D. Malesic holds Bachelors degrees in Political Science and Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University and Business Management from Elizabethtown College. He currently serves the citizens of the Central Dauphin (Pa.) School District as the President of the School Board. He is the President and CEO of CM Squared, Inc., an electrical contracting firm.]