Wake up and smell the Liberal - Ignoramus Liberalis

GOP's "Pledge to America"

2010-09-24T11:40:00.002-04:00

A pathetic self-serving effort

GOP's "Pledge to America" is lame, inept and inadequate. The “Pledge” (if 100% successfully implemented) will only slow the bleeding of our liberties and prosperity, it will NOT stop the bleeding, restore America to its past glory or to its founding principles. We need a bold new plan to restore America. We need to turn back to what made America the best country in history, to God and our Constitution. Rolling things back to pre-Obama time is not enough, not even close. We need to undo all the damage done to our country by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR and all the communists, liberals and progressives over the last 100 years.
The “Pledge” is something the GOP was supposed to be doing all along. The “Pledge” is a gutless effort to gain power for the GOP, nothing else. We need “leaders” who will be led by the God, The Constitution and The People, not by their desire of personal gain and power. No more compromises - the RINO’s need to go, all of them!

Forsake Credit: Accomplish Much

2010-09-01T14:30:00.003-04:00

Do The Conservative Pundits Really Want To Defeat Our Domestic Enemy?

“You can accomplish much if you don’t care who gets the credit.” When President Ronald Regan’s words consistently stay our priority, we can defeat socialism and restore America to its former greatness. Yet we must relinquish our desire to acquire all the credit. Unfortunately, evidence shows that really Regan’s advice is not in the heart of today’s conservative pundits and defeating socialism is not their goal. The question is, can the conservative “leaders” defeat socialism or better yet, do they want to?

Considering the explosion of new media, talk radio, and Fox News in the last several years, what is the result of the efforts to restore our Republic and preserve our Constitution? Make no mistake, the American dream is on life support and our Republic and Constitution are in peril. Under leadership of the media’s so called conservative leaders such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Glenn Beck, this country has moved towards Western style socialism faster than ever before. Under such leadership, we managed to get George Bush elected twice who by no means served as a conservative when he expanded government and spending and the national debt. Also under such conservative leadership, our front-runners as presidential candidates were John McCain and Mitt Romney who are liberal republicans at worse, moderates at best, but definitely not conservatives. Under the conservative media’s “leadership”, America elected a pro-Muslim, anti-American and communist at worse, socialist at best President of the United States, thus giving us two extreme left supreme court justices, the takeover of the auto industry, health care, insurance, the financial sector, and even student loans. Under their “leadership”, we got Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the House and Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader. We have lost the White House and both chambers of Congress.

So the question is, should conservatives follow such “leaders” with such a bad track record? The answer is obviously “NO”. Yet the question remains, are they incompetent or do they have an ulterior motive? Each of them have acquired enormous wealth and fame spreading “their” message while gaining nothing but misfortune for this country. The evidence is more than clear that they have put their own personal gain above the country and the people. They benefit from this war against socialism. And they fear that gravy train would run dry once the war is won. Make no doubt about it, we are fighting a war for the soul and future of our country. And the conservative media’s leaders are like generals who need a continuous war to continually shine and reap the spoils. Once the war is won, the generals go back into anonymity, until they are needed again and called upon. And they do not want that!

Why else would Sean Hannity provide so much exposure to those like McCain, other liberal republicans, and flat out liberals like Bob Beckel. Rush Limbaugh only plays on his own sandbox, Ann Coulter will speak to anyone for money and Beck won’t ask the hard questions (avoids communism and the Russian influence in our society – he did a better job when he was on CNN) and partners with Bill O’Reilly who looks out only for himself. This is exactly where the rubber meets the road; where one either worries about one’s self or one’s country.

Fox News may be even more dangerous than MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC or CBS due to the fact that there is a perception that the broadcast exists to spread the message of GOP and conservatism and fight the overtake of socialism in this country. Make no mistake; Fox is not on the side of America, conservatives or the Tea Party. The only side Fox News is on is the side of Rupert Murdock, whose only goal is to make money, not to preserve this country. Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with making money. But we must realize the true agenda of Fox News rather than blindly take their broadcast as the conservative bible. One cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24): God, country and money, nor can one serve one’s self and one’s country. To truly serve one’s country, one must put one’s country first.

This country was founded on the virtue of freedom and must remain about freedom today. I personally sacrificed much for freedom. I gave up my family, friends, country and possessions. I forfeited the life I had just to be free. Yet, I’m not asking the conservative media’s leaders to sacrifice even half as much. But at least fight to win or get out of the way. When my freedom of speech here in America was being infringed upon because I criticized Obama and exposed him for what he is before he even got elected, none of the conservative media’s leaders were anywhere to be found. No matter how many times, I contacted them and made them aware of this constitutional infringement, WND (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=84939) was the only media to cover the story. The rest failed to stand up for one of their own who was ahead of them in speaking the truth about communism, socialism and Obama. They were either ignorant to the truth about Obama’s socialistic agenda or too gutless at the time to speak the truth and educate the public, or too afraid to be overshadowed by another media outlet. Regardless if they were gutless, selfish, or ignorant, why should we, the public, follow them? The public needs leaders who aren’t afraid or selfish enough to put freedom above one’s self.

Where were these leaders when Michael Savage was being sued by Council on American-Islamic Relations and where are they now, while he is being banned from Briton? Once again, no where to be found. Is it that they refuse to stand up for him because they don’t like him? For one of them to provide the opportunity for another to spread the message, one must be part of the in crowd or write a book. Yet, there are many with extensive experience and knowledge who could speak a great deal in fighting this fight against socialism, but lacks the ability to write, myself included. There’s an old saying that the pen is mightier then the sword. Yet, the spoken word can be more powerful than the sword or written word. After all, God spoke everything into existence and Proverbs 18:21 states: “The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.” Unfortunately, most media is more concerned about style than content, more concerned about form than victory.

Demonstration of this lies in Fox News’ desire to use young, nice looking blonds to spread the message of socialism over those who have actually experienced it. Do you seriously believe that a young good looking blond woman, born and raised in America, knows more about history and oppression than someone who lived half of his life behind the iron curtain and defected from it twice? When CIA wants intelligence about their enemy, they don’t go to a beautiful blond for information. They go to those who have the actual knowledge, expertise, and first hand experience.

I’m not writing this message because I’m bitter or envious. In fact, I’m furious that those whom we have entrusted to forewarn the public are using America’s peril to fatten their own pockets and fame, while there are many in this country, who, like me, have the experience, knowledge, and ability to forewarn the public, yet are not given the opportunity. Our forefathers sacrificed much and our soldiers continue to sacrifice and lay down their lives. For what? So we can have a communist in the White House? It’s time our conservative leaders make some sacrifices as well by putting the best interest of our country above personal gain. If they refuse, we must abandon them and find new leaders. To whom much is given much is required (Luke 12:48). Speak the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth and it will set us all free. The status quo will usher in the death of America.

Martin is a double defector from communism. He is most likely the only American to ever accomplish such a feat. Martin is a radio talk show host, public speaker, contributor, media and political consultant.
Read more about Martin's life at www.dzuris.com/about.htm

What Took So Long?

2010-06-17T23:27:00.000-04:00

Obama: More Pharaoh than Moses

2010-04-07T22:11:00.002-04:00

"News! News!" with D.J. Dolce - a production of Illuminati Pictures.

EXPOSED! Bart Stupak planned on voting for the health care bill all along

2010-03-27T12:20:00.001-04:00

The Trojan Horse in Health Care - Hatch Act and Unions

2010-03-13T11:33:00.001-05:00

Hiding amidst Obama’s Health Care Bill is a Trojan horse that will severely limit citizen’s participation in political activity.
Once the federal government grabs hold of and invests our federal dollars into health care, the Hatch Act applies. The Hatch Act severely restricts participation in political activity of any civilian who is employed by the federal government or by State or Local agencies which take federal dollars.
The government health care will of course become unionized and health care workers will have to join a union or at least pay union dues. And we all know how the bulk of union money is spent – to elect Democrats.
The intention of the health care bill is not to provide better, cheaper care; nor to provide coverage for those who have not. Frankly, it never was. If that were the case, liberals would open the process and investigate other options that would actually accomplish just that. Yet, the purpose of the health care legislation is quite simple. First, to obtain more government power and control and less participation and influence from citizens in governmental affairs; to build stronger and bigger unions - more union membership means more votes for the Democratic Party, and more money for their elections; to eventually establish a permanent rule of the Democratic Party, controlled by progressive socialists and communists; and ultimately usher in a socialist “Utopia”.

Coffee Party USA - A George Soros puppet party

2010-03-09T23:52:00.001-05:00

Exposed! The Coffee Party USA - A George Soros puppet party

Bill O'Reilly and socialism - O'Reilly NOT looking out for me

2010-03-03T16:09:00.001-05:00

Bill O'Reilly and socialism - O'Reilly NOT looking out for me

Chicago versus the 2nd amendment - does the Bill of Rights apply to States?

2010-03-03T13:25:00.001-05:00

Chicago versus the 2nd amendment - does the Bill of Rights apply to States?

The Census Is Getting Personal

2010-03-02T09:01:00.001-05:00

Planned Parenthood's Racist Commercial Part 2

2010-02-09T23:35:00.001-05:00

On his radio show Martin Dzuris tackles the Planned Parenthood's RACIST response to Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial - part 2 of 2

Planned Parenthood's Racist Commercial Part 1

2010-02-09T23:33:00.001-05:00

On his radio show Martin Dzuris tackles the Planned Parenthood's RACIST response to Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial - part 1 of 2

Obama can't pronounce corpsman and gets name wrong

2010-02-09T18:02:00.001-05:00

On his radio show Martin Dzuris tackles Obama's mispronunciation of corpsman and getting the corpsman's name wrong.

Obama censors Reuters story "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class"

2010-02-02T22:07:00.002-05:00

After Reuters published a story Monday about how backdoor taxes would hit middle-class Americans under President Obama, the White House complained about the story. Reuters pulled it Tuesday morning, saying a replacement story would be coming. Later in the day, it said the story was wrong and that there would be no substitute.

Here is the original story:

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free

Martin Dzuris Aircheck Demo

2010-01-29T15:58:00.001-05:00

Check out my demo for my radio show. What do you think?

Obama wants you to pledge loyalty to him and he is sending his Zombies to your front door

2009-09-19T09:43:00.001-04:00

Obama’s communist & radical friends directing our national policies and laws

2009-08-27T09:07:00.001-04:00

One of the avenues they are using is “green jobs”. Environmentalism is a form of communism & fascism.

The Apollo Alliance

2009-08-04T17:49:00.000-04:00

I have been trying to tell you all for a long time that they are all communists, Obama included.

Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

2009-08-03T16:01:00.000-04:00

Coming to a FIAT - CHRYSLER dealer in 2009

2009-06-11T17:41:00.002-04:00

ASSALAAMU ALAYKUM - What does it mean?

2009-06-08T12:02:00.001-04:00

Obama used this greeting in his Cairo speech, so what does it mean?

May Allah bestow peace and security on you.
If the two Muslims who meet are already acquainted with each other and there exists a bond of friendship, relationship or affection between them, this form of salutation fully signifies the connection, and, on the basis of it, gives an eloquent expression to the sentiments of joy, regard, love and well-wishing.
On the other hand, if they are strangers, it becomes a means of introduction and a declaration of trust and sincerity; or, in other words, one assures the other, through it, that he is a well-wisher and there obtains a spiritual tie between them.
Be that as it may, the teachings of Assalaamu Alaykum and Wa' Alaykum Assalaam as the forms of greeting among the Muslims is a most propitious instruction of the sacred Prophet and a distinctive practice of Islaam.
Salaam is one of the Excellent Names of Allah
Source:Islaam.org

Peace be unto you. It is a shortened form of the grand greeting: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh (Peace be unto you and so may the mercy of Allah and His blessings). The greeting is recommended to be only used between Muslims.
Source: Islamic-dictionary.com

An expression that Muslims say whenever they meet one another. It is a greeting translated as "Peace be upon you."
Source: Answers.com

According to Islamic law, a Muslim may only extend this greeting -- Peace be upon you -- to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, “Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,” i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims. Islamic law is silent about what Muslims must do when naive non-Muslim Islamophilic Presidents offer the greeting to Muslims.
Source: Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch.org

"But when you enter the houses, greet one another with a greeting from Allah (i.e. say: Assalaamu ‘Aleykum — peace be on you), blessed and good." (al-Noor 24:61)
The name al-Salaam is a Name of Allaah so the meaning of the greeting of salaam which is required among Muslims is, May the blessing of His Name descend upon you. The usage of the preposition ala in alaykum (upon you) indicates that the greeting is inclusive.

Mr. Obama said, "...When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."
Muslims use the term "peace be upon them" to ask for blessings on deceased holy men. In other words, its use construes all three in the way Islam does - as dead prophets - a treatment wholly at odds with the teachings of Christianity which, of course, holds Jesus as the immortal Son of God.
Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy

Martin on guns, speech & The Bible

2009-02-28T21:15:00.002-05:00

Obama National Anthem

2009-01-20T20:49:00.000-05:00

Obama radio critic finds talk show time slashed

2009-01-02T11:47:00.001-05:00

Program host: 'I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said'

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says.
Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris' coverage of local issues as well as national issues.
But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism.
Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama's call in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported.
In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn't new at all.
"We called them the 'peoples' militia' (in Czechoslovakia)," he told WND.
He said he's reviewed Obama's speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government and discussed those issues on his program.
"I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said," Dzuris told WND. "I'm just taking what he says, his influences, background," he said. "I lived all those things."
He said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989.

Read the rest of the article here

Don't Touch That Dial

2008-12-29T20:20:00.001-05:00

By John Gunner Gooch

Controversy isn’t something usually associated with the community’s radio station, WRHC 106.7 FM, but that was the case during a recent Radio Harbor Country membership meeting when program host Martin Dzuris filed an appeal and made his case to reclaim the second hour of his “Martin Dzuris Live!” show that the Programming Committee had voted to take away.Dzuris feels the decision to reduce his air time was based more on his conservative political leanings than his performance behind the microphone, and that has led the more liberal members of the Programming Committee to try to hold him to a more professional standard than his colleagues at the all-volunteer operation. Members of the Programming Committee have denied that discrimination charge, saying that Dzuris didn’t heed advice to tighten up the content of his show, and that taking it back to its original hour format would help do that.If you’ve never met Dzuris, I’d describe him as a character, and I mean that in the best way. He’s an interesting guy with an interesting background; an immigrant from the Czech Republic who truly appreciates our freedom of speech and other opportunities that were not so readily available in the country of his birth. He’s also not shy about using his freedom of speech to voice his opinions on hot button issues, and, love him or hate him,you have to admire his passion. His Monday evening show has gotten a buzz, has broken stories, and has engaged listeners who phone in to join the lively art of conversation by agreeing or disagreeing with his views on various topics. If dialogue is the lifeblood of a vibrant community, Dzuris is certainly doing his part to keep it pumping through the body politic.Fred Upton and Cindy McCain have been guests on his show, and so have Judy Truesdell and Kim Clark, not to mention Rev. Kenneth Mundt. He’s a longtime friend and supporter of Ibrahim Parlak, backing the Harbert restaurateur’s legal efforts to fight deportation back to Turkey and become an American citizen. If “Martin Dzuris Live!” isn’t your cup of tea, it’s preceded in the lineup by “Democracy Now,” and followed by the “Wilbur Fibble Comedy Hour.” That’s diversity, and an eclectic selection of shows that WRHC is rightly proud to be broadcasting.At this point it’s hard to tell how this controversy is going to end, but a decision on the appeal is expected to be handed down in the near future. Dzuris would like at least a six-month trial period of retaining his two hours on the air so he can prove to those in charge he is capable of making changes and being a little kinder and gentler to callers he may disagree with, while also taking steps to tighten up the content of his program.While the debate over the Dzuris situation got decidedly heated at times during the meeting, it was nice to see some cooler heads prevail near the end and ask for compromise and common ground to be found to resolve things in a more amicable manner. I also took it as a good sign that Dzuris stuck around long after the meeting adjourned to continue the conversation with some of his detractors and supporters. Managing to disagree agreeably is one of life’s biggest challenges, but somehow as a community and a country we’ve always been able to find ways to do that. One of the bright spots about living in this country is that our foundational similarities that bond us are much stronger than the differences that could otherwise pull us apart to the breaking point.“100 watts of power, 1000 watts of community” is the WRHC motto the late, great Mike Hojnacki came up with, and it’s a powerful statement for the little powerhouse of a radio station that always keeps things interesting.If you want to find out what happens to Martin Dzuris, don’t change that dial. Stay in touch, and stay tuned.

WRHC host sees political bias behind 1-hour cut for talk show

2008-12-22T08:31:00.002-05:00

By John Gunner Gooch
For The South County Gazette News

THREE OAKS - WRHC radio station program host Martin Dzuris has never been shy about airing his opinions during his weekly "Martin Dzuris Live!" program. During the Dec. 13 Radio Harbor Country general meeting, he was equally frank about a recent Programming Committee decision to reduce his Monday evening time slot from two hours to one.The Radio Harbor Country Programming Committee had voted 7-1 during a previous meeting on Dec. 8 to approve a motion to take away an hour of Dzuris' live broadcast, and also to reduce rebroadcasting of the show, a move that he's appealing to the station's Board of Directors.At the Dec. 13 general meeting, Dzuris said he feels the Programming Committee is discriminating against him and his show due to his conservative political viewpoints and political associations. He added that this violates some of Radio Harbor Country's bylaws including one that states the radio station values diversity and will take no action against any individual on account of his or her political association.
Read the rest here

Communism has come to America.

2008-11-05T10:57:00.010-05:00

November 4th 2008 - The Day We The People Murdered Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and Capitalism.

The 1st Communist president of the new USSA elected.
(United Socialistic States of America)

The dreams of our Founders are dead.

Abraham Lincoln: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"

President Obama will deliver on his promise of CHANGE.

Obama supporters celebrating with a Communist USSR flag.

Obama: The Death of the World’s Last Refuge

2008-10-30T00:16:00.003-04:00

I still can not come to grasp that the American people are on the verge of electing a committed Marxist/communist as our next president. When listened to carefully, one will notice that Obama wants to reshape our society into the same type of society from which I defected. I defected communism in 1989 escaping the government control and entitlements that Obama wants to implement in this country under a disguise of “equality and fairness”. I defected from social & economic "justice", wealth redistribution, national healthcare, class warfare, absence of free speech and a government that claims to “take care of you and solve all your problems”; a government that will provide you with a job, education, and “security” for seniors. In fact all of this equals oppression and control. I came to America for the American Dream; not the American Promise that Obama has created. To my understanding the American Dream is that one has the right of free speech, to pursue happiness and one’s goals without government intervention, to be dependent on oneself instead of the government, to be allowed to fail or allowed to succeed without punishment in the name of fairness. The American Dream consists of one advancing according to one’s ability and hard work rather than handed advancement based on one’s race, creed, or need. I’m sad to see the American Dream being eroded over the last 20 years that I’ve lived in this country. I can guarantee you that if we allow the new Axis Of Evil (Obama, Pelosi, & Reid) to rule this country, the American Dream will be quickly murdered and become the Nightmare of Communism.

Let’s not be afraid to call the kettle black. Obama is a Marxist and the only thing missing to make him a Communist is the actual membership in the Communist Party. When I defected communism, I paid a high price. I left everything behind to become a free man; my family, my friends, and my culture. But, I had a place to go. I ran to the country that always stood for liberty, freedom, and justice for all, the one and only USA. The only entitlement I expected was that the government will not infringe on my unalienable Rights endowed by my Creator and protected by the Constitution. If Obama wins, my family and I will be worse off than I was before I came here because there is no other place to go. The United States of America has also stood as a counter balance to Communism and as a hope to billions of people who yearn for freedom. A win by Obama will not simply be a tragedy for the United States, but for the rest of the world as well. The beacon light of the shining city upon a hill will shine no more.

Obama: Don't listen to the message. Feel the message!

2008-10-29T23:59:00.002-04:00

The New Axis Of Evil

2008-10-28T17:15:00.001-04:00

Obama - Pelosi - Reid

God Help Us!

2008-10-22T16:20:00.002-04:00

Wake Up, America

2008-10-08T13:30:00.003-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A nation that doesn't know history is destined to repeat its serious mistakes. People swayed by carefully crafted political propaganda relentlessly repeated and effectively delivered can easily lose their freedom and way of life.

How many times have you been told by soaring, almost hypnotic oratory that "the direct causes of our financial crisis and subprime real estate loan mess were the greedy banks, big corporations and the failed economic policies of George Bush"?
It's common to blame the one in power. This time, however, it's 100% wrong.
Every American, young or old, must be told who was really behind the subprime loan disaster that threw our economy off track and injured the good people who lost their homes — like those now boarded up in Cleveland and other major cities — plus the millions of other citizens hurt by yet another failed Big Government-run program gone awry.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress created the Community Reinvestment Act mandating that banks make more housing loans to lower-income and inner-city borrowers. It was for a well-intended social cause and even appeared to work in the 1980s.
But in 1995, President Clinton imposed even tougher regulations that forced banks to make dramatically more subprime loans to previously unqualified people with lower credit scores in higher-risk areas.
Government regulators rated banks by how well they performed in meeting these strict new CRA obligations. Failure to comply meant stiff penalties and limits on mergers, acquisitions and expansion.
Big Government forced the lowering of long-proven safe-lending standards. Most of the more than $1 trillion of new subprime CRA loans had adjustable rates. Many required no documentation of the borrower's income and little or no down payment.

Read the rest of the article here.

The Marxist Convention to start in Denver

2008-08-19T00:35:00.000-04:00

Obama The Marxist

2008-08-16T17:39:00.001-04:00

Obama's Radical Roots And Rules

2008-08-16T17:29:00.001-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.
One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."
Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted "change."
Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago's Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.
On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" written on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.
The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that "a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air." He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. "America was begun by its radicals," he wrote. "America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals." And so, "This is the job for today's radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, '. . . let us change it together!' "

Read the rest of the article here.

Obama - The One

2008-08-08T21:52:00.000-04:00

Young Obama's Red Mentor

2008-08-08T00:18:00.001-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing Barack Obama's early mentor. But they've downplayed the mystery man's communist background.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

As noted in the July 29 curtain-raiser to this series, the seeds of Obama's far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager growing up in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or media profile has portrayed.
Poet-journalist Davis speaks in Hawaii in this undated photo.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to the age of 18 — a man he refers to only as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
In a belated story on the relationship, the Associated Press describes Davis as "left-leaning."
In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him "a bitter opponent of capitalism." The report was introduced as evidence in the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee hearings probing the "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States."
"Davis scholars dismiss the idea that he was anti-American," the AP reports. But one of them, ex-University of Hawaii professor Kathryn Takara, acknowledges in a Ph.D. paper on Davis (not quoted by AP) that he'd been fingered as "a Communist."
Davis wrote militant poems as a black writer in Chicago, including one in which he hails the Soviet revolution: "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." He also attacked traditional Christianity, titling one inflammatory screed, "Christ is a Dixie N*****."

Read the rest of the article here

Obamanomics Flunks The Test

2008-08-05T15:59:00.001-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.
"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."
Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

Read the rest of the article here

Obama's Global Tax

2008-07-31T13:44:00.001-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.
Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."
What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats — from fascism to Nazism to communism — defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.
Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."
Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.
A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."
These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.
Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

Read the rest of the article here

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

2008-07-31T13:39:00.001-04:00

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

Read the rest of the article here

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

2008-07-25T22:14:00.002-04:00

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Read the rest here.

Obamination

2008-03-17T17:17:00.003-04:00

By Erik Rush
How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that professed the following credo?

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America’s animal rescue and public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.

And those holding the branding irons would be 100% right.

Yet, in the “About” section of the U.S. Senate website for Barack Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois and contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, it states that Obama and his family “live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.”

So…?

Well, to say that the Trinity United Church of Christ (http://www.tucc.org/)
is afrocentric in the extreme would be a gross understatement. It’s not simply afrocentric, it’s African-centric. In fact, one could argue that this organization worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ, and gives the impression of being a separatist “church” in the same vein as do certain supremacist “white brethren” churches – or even Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Shocking? An overstatement? An overreaction?

One can see for oneself on the Trinity United Church website, which is replete with confirmation of what I present here. What follows is an excerpt from their Mission Statement:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black
Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and
Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value
System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.”

Sound familiar? Of course it is, since it’s identical to the 12-point list at the beginning of this column – the one from the theoretical white supremacist candidate’s church; the only difference is the substitution of the word “Black” for “White.”

Trinity United Church of Christ’s congregation also claims to hold to a “10-point Vision” which is similarly afrocentric, or if you will, separatist. Again, like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United more resembles a cult than a church. Only this one has as one of its most prominent members a serious contender for the White House.

And George W. Bush’s born-again Christian status scares people?

These revelations, of course shed all the light we need on Obama’s inscrutability; since before he announced his candidacy, both the Right and Left have commented on the lack of information vis-à-vis just who Barack Obama is and what he’s about.

From The Chicago Tribune, February 06, 2007, Column: Against Middleclassness? by Rich Lowry. “Vallmer Jordan, a church member who helped draft the precepts, said they were designed to empower the black community and counter a value system imposed by whites. ‘The big question mark was racism,’ he said. ‘Black disempowerment was an integral part of that historical value system. It became increasingly apparent to me that we black people had not developed our own value system . . . to help us overcome all we knew we had to battle.’”

“A value system imposed by whites…” Is Jordan speaking of the value system that kept families together and promoted morality, industry and integrity, or the one imposed by liberal dependency pimps since the Civil Rights Movement?

True enough that many blacks did abandon values; again, this was due to the corruption of the black clergy by white socialists and their black foremen. Trinity United seems to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Gravitation toward an Africanized “year-round Kwanzaa”-based pseudo-Christianity seems less of a solution than returning to the moral and social conservatism Blacks held prior to the aforementioned socialists gaining their stranglehold in the black community.

So is Obama seeking to be our first black president, or our first stealth black nationalist president? You see, were he a run-of-the-mill insincere Christian of convenience like Bill Clinton, Obama might belong to a run-of-the-mill, lukewarm, large nondescript church. But he doesn’t. He belongs to a church which is (as I indicated before) blatantly afrocentric and even suggests the supremacy of Africa’s descendants in America.

Granted that the Left will have no qualms about this highly questionable affiliation, but what about all of the American swing voters to whom Obama has built broad appeal by presenting himself as sort of a generic, open-minded moderate Democrat (as Bill Clinton also did, by the way)? Are they going to go for a candidate whose heart is actually closer to that of a refined Black Panther?

Trinity United clearly embraces things African above things American. The content of their website makes this undeniably clear. Aside from this tack being divisive, separatist and calls into question its adherents’ identification as Americans, if they’re looking for values, they – and Obama – would be better served by looking to modern political conservatives and traditional Christianity than retrograde African precepts and the Democrat Party.

Obama’s affiliation with this church, if I must call it that, should be as alarming to the American voter as a Republican candidate for president belonging to the Aryan Brethren Church of Christ. Any argument against this assertion is politically-correct delusion, reverse discrimination and a hypocrisy – a very dangerous one.

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts

2008-03-11T11:18:00.002-04:00

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

The McCain / Lieberman Ticket

2008-02-08T13:58:00.000-05:00

Last month the AP reported that Lieberman denied an interest in becoming VP on the McCain ticket. Conventional wisdom tells us that John McCain must pick a conservative or someone who can deliver the South. As this election has proven, conventional wisdom no longer applies. McCain will likely pick Lieberman as his VP or at the very least a moderate Republican.
Let’s analyze the situation. Super Tuesday, over 14 million voters on the Democratic side voted compared to the Republican side which had only some 8 million voters, of which only 75% were Republicans. It is obvious that many conservatives stayed home. McCain prevailed because moderates, independents, & democrats voted for him.Why would one believe that suddenly in the general election, conservatives will rally around McCain and enter the voting booths? In his speech to CPAC, McCain acknowledged without apology that he is moderate. McCain will continue to do what has worked for him in the past. He will continue to target moderates, independents, & democrats and a conservative VP candidate would thwart such a strategy. Yet Lieberman will advance his standing with this group of voters. McCain won on Super Tuesday by winning in the Blue States and a conservative VP will fail to deliver those blue states in the general election. Yet, Lieberman can deliver those states, especially if Hilary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee given that 50% of the Nation claims to despise her. And the South will go McCain’s way without a conservative VP due to his support of The War on Terror.
I fail to believe that the Republican base will rally around McCain just to defeat the Democrats. It didn’t happen in the 06 elections, why should one believe it will happen this year. In 2006, The Republican Party failed to show its base (Conservatives & Evangelicals) that they will adhere to conservative principals which lost them the vote for Congress. Today, the Party continues on its moderate path. McCain has proven over the last few years where his political ideology lies. He is the end of the Republican Party as we know it. Just as the Democratic Party has for decades used the Black vote by consistently making undelivered promises, the Republican Party has used evangelical Christians and conservatives by doing the same. The difference is that evangelicals and conservatives grew tired of undelivered promises and expressed their exasperation with the Party in 2006. Without the base of the party, the Republican Party cannot survive. By giving us McCain, the Republican Party once again is failing to deliver to its base with or without a conservative VP. Although a percentage of evangelicals are becoming more moderate, it’s not enough to carry McCain through and the base of the Party will stay home on November 4, 2008.

Party of Reagan has become an embarrassment

2008-01-10T12:49:00.000-05:00

.... are you as angry as I am?

With the Michigan Primary Elections approaching, I'm becoming more and more angry with the entire political process and the two major parties. As a resident of Michigan, and a Republican, only 1/2 of my vote is going to count in the primary election. Michigan moved its Primaries to January 15, therefore breaking a Republican National Committee (RNC) rule, which states that no State may hold its primaries before Feb. 5th without facing penalties. Michigan has pretty much always been irrelevant in the primaries. For once, Michiganders wanted to be relevant therefore changed its primary to January 15 and by doing so, the RNC penalized Michigan Republicans by stripping us of 1/2 of our delegates.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has signed into law Senate Bill 624 that establishes January 15, 2008 as the date for a statewide presidential primary for the 2008 presidential election cycle. The bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both the state house and state senate and is supported by leaders from both the Democratic and Republican state parties.

Under the new law, any political party that received less than 20 percent of the total vote cast for president at the last presidential election is not eligible to participate in the presidential primary. Based on 2004 results, the Republican and Democratic parties will be the only participating political parties in the 2008 presidential primary. There's nothing like "legally" eliminating the competition and keeping a 2 party stronghold on power.

The rules of the Republican National Party as adopted by the 2004 Republican National Convention states, "Be it resolved that the Republican Party is the party of the open door. Ours is the party of Liberty, the party of Equality, of opportunity for all and favoritism for none. It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans."

What a bunch of Hog Wash. I guess these rules only apply if you don't step out of line. How does this statement apply to us Michigan Republican voters now that our primary election date has moved up? Where is the broadest possible participation of voters when we are being stripped of 1/2 of our delegates? Now our vote is no longer equal to other States, it is only counted as 1/2. So their statement is meaningless without actual adherence to it. Iowa's voters are definitively being treated with favoritism having the first say about which candidate will be the nominee every time.

And as if this is not enough, to top it off, Democrats will taint our 1/2 vote. The Democratic Party has a similar rule that no State may hold its Primaries or Caucuses before February 5 with the exception of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So the DNC penalized Michigan's move of the primary date by stripping them of ALL of their delegates and discouraged the Democratic Candidates to campaign in Michigan. Michigan, in its seventh year of a slumping economy with the nation's highest unemployment rate and lowest rate of economic growth under governor Granholm’s rule, lost millions of dollars that the Democratic campaigns would have brought to the state. Quite frankly, I don't expect anything better from the Socialistic, oops I mean Democratic Party, but I do expect better from the Republican Party. Now that the Democratic voters are totally disenfranchised from their own candidates, many will be crossing over to vote for Republican nominees, therefore tainting the Republican voters' real choice of the Republican nominee.
Several liberal groups are already at work to “mess” with the Republican primary process by voting for Republicans. MoveOn is encouraging its members to vote for Ron Paul. The former Michigan State Rep. LaMar Lemmons III, (D-Detroit, who supports Obama) formed a new group called Democrats for Huckabee.

If the Republican Party doesn't wake up and start acting the like the party of Ronald Reagan maybe it is time for myself and other fellow conservative Republicans to look elsewhere. Remember the Federalist or Whig Party? They became irrelevant and disappeared.

TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: Straighten up or get out!

2007-10-21T22:39:00.000-04:00

As a life-long conservative, I have voted republican since I became an American citizen. However, I am becoming quite angry, disappointed and disillusioned at where the Republican Party is heading. The “conservative” Republican Party is supposed to stand for: God, Country, Low Taxes, Small Government, Family Values, and Adherence to the Constitution. I don’t blame James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, for not endorsing any of the Republican Party frontrunners and thinking about supporting a third party. The Republican Party’s track record has not been good lately and it appears that they are consistently moving away from the party’s values.

These days we hear much from the Republican’s phrase “Rule of Law”. This freaks me out. I’m sick and tired of every politician, regardless of democrats or republicans, consistently wanting to impose new laws. Whatever happened to small government? Small government means fewer laws. I want a politician that is going to stand up and say, “I will not go to Washington to make new laws; I will go to Washington to abolish laws.” Just as we need to cut taxes, we need to cut laws. The amount of laws that govern our everyday life is enormous. We need to drastically cut them down and make them simpler so one doesn’t have to hire a full-time attorney just to live modern day life without fear of breaking some law. Our Republican candidates have forgotten why we sent them to Washington; to serve us and adhere to our values rather than compromise our values to get re-elected. Does the term public servant mean anything to them? They are there to serve us, not there to make life-long careers for themselves. Certain things cannot be compromised, our values is one of them. One cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. I’d hate to be in their shoes on that Great Judgment Day. They have lost fear of God and fear of the voters.

The Republicans were in control of the house and senate for quite some time. What have they accomplished for our conservative values? They can’t even unite against the liberal threats. They promote presidential candidate front-runners, which Christians cannot support. It shouldn’t be about choosing the lesser of two evils, where one must vote for a republican frontrunner just so a democrat doesn’t win. We should promote and vote for a candidate that reflects most of our conservative values. Much blame is put on President Bush for signing every spending bill. What about the republicans in Congress passing these bills and even allowing them to come before our President? Where is their accountability? President Bush has become an easy target for the Democrats and a scapegoat for the Republicans. So that brings us to another conservative value: Personal Accountability. Where is it? Congress sure can’t find it. When the Republicans were in power, they acted like hungry pigs just getting to the trough and stuffing themselves until they burst.

The Republican Party and conservatives have become very tolerant of the Republican candidate’s lack of conservative values just so a democrat will not win. Obviously, this strategy is not working. It is time now to stand up for our values and choose candidates that will protect them.

The Republican Party is not fighting hard enough to keep God in our public life. They are allowing God to be stripped away from our political and public life and are allowing other religions to be promoted and favored over Christianity and Judaism. The latest example is when Congress passed the bill honoring Ramadan.

I’m not even going to talk about the Republican Party supporting hate crime legislation (protecting certain groups of people is not equal rights), gun-control laws, sanctioning the murder of innocent babies, tax heights, lying and deceiving, and immigration. Republicans are pathetically week when it comes to our defending our nation from our enemies. Instead of crushing them, they try to appease them. I say it’s enough! It got so bad that I cannot even proudly proclaim myself as a republican. I am leaning more toward labeling myself as a constitutionalist. I even purposely failed to renew my membership to my County’s Republican Party.

I believe we, as conservatives need to separate ourselves from the Republican Party and ask for change. If the Party continues down this path of destruction and refuses to change, we need to divorce ourselves from the party and find a new partner who is in alignment with our conservative values. We should not continue to settle for Republican candidates who fail to uphold and support our conservative values (which by the way, is getting worse each new election cycle). We should strive for better candidates. The time for tolerance of anti-conservative values needs to come to an end. If not, we are only heading for disaster. However, I’m not willing to give up on the Republican Party just yet. But just as God chastises those He loves, I think it necessary to point out the Party’s road toward destruction. Maybe a communist president, like Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore is what this country needs to make Americans angry enough to clean house as they did when the King was in power. If our forefathers had tolerated the tea-tax, where would we be today? They would have never tolerated what we have become accustomed to tolerating. Make no mistake; we are no longer free people. We’ve become a bunch a cowards, enjoying the wealth of our country and not willing to pay the price for God, Country, Low Taxes, Small Government, Family Values, and Adherence to the Constitution. Have we forgotten “Give me liberty or give me death!”?

THE IMMIGRATION CONSPIRACY

2007-10-21T22:16:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of rhetoric going around from both parties when it comes to illegal immigration. Yet, neither of the parties talk about legal immigration. Both, illegal immigration and legal immigration are a mess. The reality is that neither party wants to clean up either one of these messes.
Regarding illegal immigration, neither party wants to solve this issue because they both like the status quo and use it for political pondering. Each side will make sure to put a poison pill into any immigration bill so it won’t get passed. The Republican Party campaigns on border enforcement and no amnesty (For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. —Matthew 6:14-15). Yet, when they had the opportunity to close the border (during the 6 years they were in control of the legislative and executive branch) they didn’t even attempt to do so. Yet they refuse to take any personal accountability for the number of illegal’s in this country today. Don’t blame Bush, the republicans in the House and Senate haven’t even passed bills that would secure our southern border to present to the President. They only started screaming about it when election time came and in the processed vilified President Bush for properly trying to solve at least part of the illegal immigration problem. Our country needs workers, therefore, the Republican Party does not close the border, nor does it go strongly after the employers that hire illegal immigrants. They only strongly TALK about going after such employers. This is turning the problem on its head. It is like killing the patient to get ride of the cancer. If you close the border then you needn’t worry about illegal immigrants coming here and getting jobs illegally. It is also pathetic to pass blame to the Mexican government for not closing their border. Why should they close their border and prevent their citizens from leaving. That is not democracy! So do we want Mexico to become a dictatorship? It is solely our responsibility to close the border. But the republicans have blamed everyone else for the illegal immigration problem. By not closing the boarder, the Republican Party was complicit in allowing the illegal immigrants to come here. Yet they refuse to take responsibility and would rather harshly punish the illegal immigrants.

The Democratic Party (controlled by the ultra-left wing) doesn’t want to solve it for two reasons. One, Immigration laws are hurting the support for the Republican Party. And two, they totally want to change the United States and its demographics. The immigration problem helps to accomplish that cause. They also want to destroy our economy and illegal immigrants help destroy it by failing to pay taxes and using tax dollars through medical, educational, and social services.

Moving onto legal immigration, neither party even talks about it. Let me tell you, it is a nightmare. One actually gets punished for trying to legally reside in the United States. Few Republicans (James Sensenbrenner, just to name one) are notorious for constantly introducing anti-legal immigration laws. The rights of US citizens are being totally violated when they marry a non-US citizen. One would think that as an American citizen, one can marry whoever he or she wants AND has the right to have his/her spouse live with him/her in the US. WRONG! It boils down to the government controlling whom one can and cannot marry. If the non-citizen falls into certain parameters, the government will refuse to allow the non-citizen spouse to live in the U.S., thus forcing either the citizen reside outside his own country, or reside without his spouse. I’m not just speaking of U.S. citizens marrying outside the U.S. I’m also talking about US citizens marrying non-citizens who are here legally such as being here on a work or student visa. It is a God given right for families to be together and no government should have the power to unjustly violate that right; especially for honest mistakes such as filling out an application wrong. Where are our rights given in the Constitution? We cannot violate the rights of United States citizen due to unconstitutional immigration laws. Families being torn apart for years due to a mistake on an immigration form is wrong morally and constitutionally! Whatever happened to the burden of proof of guilt lying on the government rather than the burden of innocence lying on the individual?

But it’s not just our government failing in the immigration issue. As a Christian, I’m also angry at Christian organizations when it comes to this issue. The only exception is the Catholic Church. Christians have obviously forgotten Christ’s teachings. Christ said in Matthew 19-6: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Let me ask, where will the allegiance of the families affected by bad immigration laws lay? The allegiance of families affected by immigration will always turn to the Democratic Party. Many true conservatives will abandon the Republican Party when they personally have to deal with immigration issues. Children being separated from their parents will never vote for the Republican who forced them from their parents! Republicans, conservatives, and Christians need to wake up and do the moral thing, the conservative thing, the Christian thing, and not cut its own feet and loose an entire group of voters to the other side. Republicans are loosing more than they are gaining and they are too blind to realize it. By breaking up families, The Republican Party is raising a bunch of democrats. And by raising a bunch of democrats, they are raising a bunch of anti-Americans. One can never go wrong when he breaks things down to basic elements and then does the right thing regardless of what outcome one thinks it may have. Immigrants made this country and the immigrants aren’t the ones who will eventually kill this country. The democrats and today’s republicans will by their actions and Christians will by their lack of action.

THE WALL

2007-10-16T00:30:00.000-04:00

There is much discussion about “the wall”, the barrier on our southern Mexican border. This proposed wall is being labeled as "evil" by the looney left. There have been many walls that this non-existent wall is being compared to such as the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtin, and of course the Israeli Wall (which prevents the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist). Is a wall good or bad? It is NEITHER. It is a wall. It is a tool and it is the purpose for which the wall is used that is good or evil. A wall for the purpose of preventing people from leaving has an evil purpose. A wall for the purpose of preventing undesirable people from coming into the country has a good purpose. It is that simple. A wall built on our southern border, built by the Mexican government for the purpose of preventing Mexicans from leaving their own country is evil. A wall built by the US government for the purpose of preventing illegals, terrorists and drugs coming into our country is good. Hello, an inanimate object cannot be good or evil!

Two Dozen Qualities of a “Good Far-Leftist”

2007-10-15T12:18:00.000-04:00

Written by Erik Rush
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand for the convenience of the woman.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, nudity and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Liberal Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
23. Don't believe anything a Conservative says, they are all liars -- never forget that.
24. Fight the establishment on everything, even at the expense of safety of the country. It is important to weaken in order to gain control.
/// end

Jackass is as Jackass does. Ignoramus Liberalis.

Can a GOOD Muslim be a GOOD American?

2007-07-18T14:50:00.000-04:00

Picture is a courtesy of Faithfreedom.org

I received this e-mail; I don't know the author of it. I am positng it as I received it:

"I forwarded that question to a friend that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 ).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christians God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Qurans 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans."

End of e-mail. Short , but to the point.

“Radical Muslims”, “Islamo-fascists” and “Extremists” are GOOD Muslims, Muslims who follow the teachings of Koran. Islam is not a peaceful religion, never has been. Islam’s founder Muhammad was not a man of peace and Islam has never taught peace, freedom or tolerance. Islam in fact teaches hate, violence, oppression and anti-semitism.

Take a look at Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress (took his oath of office on the Koran) with past ties to the Nation of Islam, a group linked to anti-Semitism.
This is what Ellison, a Muslim convert, said to an atheist human-rights group late last week at a meeting of atheists at a Minnesota library, referring to the German parliament:
"9/11 is the juggernaut in American history and it allows... it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
So the congressman says 9/11 was the Reichstag fire, which was set by Hitler's people so he could seize power – comparing president Bush to Hitler.

If It wouldn’t be so pathetic it would be hilarious. A Muslim speaking about human rights to atheists? What an oxymoron. It is obvious that Islam does not promote (quite the opposite) human rights and atheists fail to realize from were human rights come – our creator.

Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

There are still too many people who believe Islam is a peaceful religion and that atheists have our and USA’s best intentions at heart. Go figure.

Jimmy Carter Is A Jew Hater

2007-06-24T18:57:00.001-04:00

....and a lover of terrorists, dictators and communists

Does anyone still doubt that Carter hates Jews, America, liberty and democracy?
Does anyone still doubt that he loves Islamofascists, tyranny, oppression, dictators and anyone who hates Jews?
During his speech to Ireland's eighth annual Forum on Human Rights, the 83-year-old former president said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election in which Hamas won 42 percent of the popular vote and a majority of parliamentary seats.
Carter said that election was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (what a joke, Arafat received the same price), said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."
Far from encouraging Hamas's move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.
"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.
Carter said the United States and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" - but Hamas this month routed Fatah because of its "superior skills and discipline."
He said plans to reopen international aid to the West Bank, but clamp down on aid to Gaza, would imprison 1.4 million Gazans. He called for both territories to be treated equally.
"This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction," he said. "All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there's no effort from the outside to bring the two together."
Carter was pessimistic this would happen soon."I don't see at this point any possibility that public officials in the United States, or in Israel, or the European Union are going to take action to bring about reconciliation," he said.

The Hamas Charter, written in 1988, puts forth "The Slogan of the Hamas," which reads as follows: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path, and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief." The Charter says that jihad, or holy war, "becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission."The Hamas Charter explicitly abjures negotiated settlements as mechanisms for peaceful coexistence: "There is no other solution for the Palestinian problem other than jihad. All the initiatives and international conferences are a waste of time and a futile game." According to the Charter, those against whom jihad is to be directed are the Jews. "The Nazism of the Jews," it says, "does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people's livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor." Hamas seeks to fulfill the Qur'anic scripture which reads: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

His latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." The book declares that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights”.

From his book: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Notice that Carter doesn’t call to end of suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism right away, but rather after Israel accepts international law and the Roadmap for Peace. What Carter is saying is that until that happens Palestinian suicide bombings and acts of terrorism are justified. What a humanitarian to condon the murder of innocent women and children in buses, shopping malls, and coffee shops. (you will not find this passage in subsequent editions of his book, Carter said he will leave it out)

In an interview on Harball with Chris Mattews Carter said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think - yes." (The Hutu in 1994 killed 1 million Tutsi’s in 3 months.)

Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the original Camp David accords. That reputation, however, rests on shaky grounds. Truth is, Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Washington. They used the King of Morocco and Ceausescu of Romania. When they had their plan essentially worked out, however, they called Carter. Sadat and Begin needed someone to pay the bill, and who but the United States could fulfill that function?

The Arabs heavily fund the Cater Center. Why? The answer is easy, because Carter is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. Carter always supported the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people.

In 1987, Carter had "interceded" on behalf of Martin Bartesch. Bartesch was deported from the U.S. in 1987 for concealing the fact that he had served as a guard at a Nazi concentration camp. Carter forwarded a letter he had received from Bartesch's daughter to the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, adding a handwritten note that stated "I hope that, in cases like this, that special consideration can be given to affected families for humanitarian reasons

On August 15, 2006, Carter said in an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel "I don't think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no." (referring to the Israel-Hezbollah war of that summer)
In the 1990s, Carter became quite close to Yasser Arafat. After the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia was mad at Arafat, because the PLO chief had sided with Saddam Hussein. So Arafat asked Carter to fly to Riyadh to smooth things over with the princes and restore Saudi funding to him — which Carter did. Carter even wrote speeches for Arafat! Upon the death of Palestinian terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter issued the following statement:
Yasser Arafat's death marks the end of an era and will no doubt be painfully felt by Palestinians throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland. While he provided indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement and was instrumental in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from the negotiating role in more recent years.

Some of Carter’s “accomplishments” and statements:
- ushered the dawn of the modern Islamofascists by withdrawing U.S. support of the Shah of Iran. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, had been a strong ally of America since World War II and was one of the "twin pillars" upon which U.S. strategic policy in the Middle East was built. However, his rule was strongly autocratic, and he went along with the plan of the Eisenhower Administration to depose Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Though Carter praised the Shah as a wise and valuable leader, when the Iranian Revolution broke out in Iran, which led to the overthrow of the monarchy, the U.S. did not intervene. The Shah was subsequently deposed and exiled.
- released all assets belonging to the Iranian government and all assets belonging to the Shah found within the United States to Khomeini and guaranteed that the hostages would have no legal claim against the Iranian government that would be heard in U.S. courts. Made a then-secret arrangement with Khomeini not to invade Iran.
- visited Cuba in May 2002 and met with Fidel Castro. He was allowed to address the Cuban public on national television with a speech that he wrote and presented in Spanish. This made Carter the first President of the United States, in or out of office, to visit the island since the Cuban revolution of 1959.
- praised the murderous North Korean tyrant Kim Il Sung with these words: "I find him to be vigorous, intelligent... and in charge of the decisions about this country." Carter added, "I don't see that [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation." Pyongyang, he observed, was a “bustling city,” where shoppers “pack the department stores,” reminding him of the “Wal-Mart in America, Georgia.”
- hailed Marshal Joseph Tito as "a man who believes in human rights," and said of the murderous Romanian dictator Ceausescu: "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics... We believe in enhancing human rights."
- told the Haitian dictator Raoul Cedras that he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country."
- ended support to the historically U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua and gave 118 milion in aid to the Marxist Sandinista National Liberation Front Revolution after Somoza had been overthrown
- friendship with Daniel Ortega, former strongman in Nicaragua. In 1984, when the Reagan administration was trying to put maximum pressure on Ortega to submit to democracy, Carter urged Habitat for Humanity to build in Nicaragua. In 1990, of course, Carter traveled to Managua to monitor the elections and to certify what he figured — and hoped, it seemed — would be a Sandinista victory. When the democratic opposition won instead, Carter was remarkably churlish, even bitter.
- wrote members of the U.N. Security Council (during the run-up to the Gulf War) — including Mitterrand’s France and Communist China — urging them to thwart the Bush administration’s effort.
- legitimized the 2004 fraudulent elections in Venezuela in which the communist dictator Chávez has “won”.
- On repeated occasions during his Presidency, according to numerous Soviet accounts, Carter encouraged Moscow to influence American politics for his benefit or for the detriment of his enemies. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs how, in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet embassy. Explaining to the Soviet Ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan, Hammer asked for help: Could the Kremlin expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls? "Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.According to Georgii Kornienko, first deputy foreign minister at the time, something similar took place in 1976, when Carter sent Averell Harriman to Moscow. Harriman sought to assure the Soviets that Carter would be "easier to deal with" than Ford, clearly inviting Moscow to do what it could through public diplomacy to help his campaign.Even when he was out of office, Carter still tried bitterly to encourage Moscow to do damage to his enemies during an election. As Dobrynin recounts, in January 1984, the former president dropped by his residence for a private meeting. Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and went on to explain that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
- stated in his book, "Living Faith." on human rights violations in USSR: "We each had a definition of human rights, and differences like this must be recognized and understood." Also stated that he couldn't argue that the USSR's health care and housing trumped America's.
- cut the U.S. defense budget by $6 billion
- gutted America's intelligence services, proudly telling America (and its enemies) of his executive order prohibiting assassinations
- gave up the Panama Canal in 1976, a U.S. sovereign territory since 1914 to Panama dictator Omar Torrijos, who seized power in a 1968 military coup
- withdrew troops and nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1977 and scrapped the U.S.' mutual defense treaty with Taiwan
- awarded China with full diplomatic relations in 1979
- negotiated with North Korea to end that nation's nuclear program. Dictator Kim Jong Il pried $4 billion in aid from Carter for promising to end his nuclear program. Carter praised him for his "humanitarianism." After Kim took the cash, he restarted his nuclear program, this time targeting Japan and Los Angeles. Oh, and he also systematically starved millions of his own people.
- undermined the election of Bishop Abel Muzorewa as prime minister in Rhodesia (afterwards named Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, today Zimbabwe) in 1979 to protest the exclusion of candidate Robert Mugabe. In response to Carter's pressure, new elections were held, giving Mugabe the victory he has held onto as Africa's worst dictator.
- killed off the B-1 bomber and neutron bomb programs
- signed the first directive for secret aid to Islam fundamentalists in Afghanistan on July 3, 1979

Living behind the Iron Curtain (what I had for half of my life) you could easily tell which US president was friendly to communism and which one was not. The communist leaders loved Carter and hated Reagan with a passion.

Jimmy Carter is a true modern liberal and the father of the current wacky liberalism in the U.S. Elect Hillary, Edwards, Obama or any other democrat/liberal in 2008 as the U.S president and you can expect more of a drive for “human rights”, “freedom” and “liberty” in the spirit of Jimmy Carter.

Sources: Jerusalem Post, ibdeditorials.com, Center for Research on Globalisation, MSNBC.com, Der Spiegel, The Jerusalem Fund

Mike Gallagher Supporting The Troops?

2007-06-24T00:45:00.000-04:00

I think Army Spec. Alex R. Jimenez would disagree.

I saw Mike Gallagher (a conservative syndicated radio talk show host) yesterday on Fox News advocating for the deportation of Yaderlin Jimenez, the wife of Army Specialist Alex R. Jimenez, a Purple Heart recipient, currently MIA during his second tour of duty in Iraq. Army Spec. Jimenez disappeared when terrorists ambushed his unit May 12 in Iraq. The Jimenezes married June 14, 2004, in New York, shortly before he left for his first deployment to Iraq. That same day Yaderlin was encountered by U.S. Customs and Border officials and charged with entering the country illegally. While in Iraq serving his first tour, Army Spec. Jimenez filed an immigrant petition to obtain a green card for his wife. Yaderlin Jimenez illegally entered the U.S. in 2001.

Mike Gallagher claims he supports our troops. Gallagher wants Army Spec. Jimenez’s wife deported. I wonder what Army Spec. Jimenez would think about Gallagher’s “support” of him. What a hypocrite! (I know he provides assistance to the children of the men and women who have died while serving in the Armed Forces, but in this case he is dead wrong) He cares more about his stupid beloved dogs Rory and Buster than our soldier's wife. Oh I almost forgot the dog Elmo.

While Gallagher is advocating the deportation of his wife, Army Spec. Jimenez is being tortured or has already been killed for the rights and freedoms Gallagher enjoys. At the same time Gallagher is denying Army Spec. Jimenez’ right to have his wife in the U.S. Yes, right. Certain unalienable rights are endowed to us by our Creator and I believe that a U.S. citizen has the right to live with his/her spouse in the U.S.

Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I am sure many married couples are overwhelmed with happiness by being forced to live in separate countries.
I believe if a soldier is voluntarily putting his life in jeopardy for our freedoms and rights, the least we can do for him/her is to allow his/her spouse to stay in the U.S. regardless if the spouse entered illegally. We shall not infringe on the soldiers right to pursue happiness. Entering the U.S. illegally is a civil infraction, a misdemeanor, and the punishment should fit the crime. The right of a U.S. citizen should trump an infraction of an immigrant (legal or illegal). Gallagher himself said that it is “cruel” to deport her, but she broke our immigration law and we should do it anyway.
I guess Gallagher forgot about the VIII Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Mike Gallagher sure has a funny way of supporting our troops and upholding the Bill of Rights, at least in this case.

I think Gallagher and some other “conservatives” are starting to suffer from the “Liberal Disease”. Liberals hate Bush so much that they can’t see straight and oppose anything associated with Bush. This is the same with the opponents of the Immigration Bill. They hate the bill and amnesty so much that they are totally blinded and can no longer distinguish right from wrong. They are like a plow horse with blinders. To call them “racists” is ridiculous; but I do understand some of their fears, fears that they are too afraid to mention publicly. The main one would be the change of America’s demographics. Obviously, most of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. are Hispanic. Let’s be frank, the Hispanic possess the majority of the Americas, Central, South, and Caribbean. Their track record when it comes to freedom and rights is pretty pathetic. They have a history of corruption, dictatorships, communism and failed economics. We don't want that imported to our country. However, we cannot fix one wrong with another wrong. Especially when we failed to secure our border a long time ago and allowed this situation to occur. We need to take some responsibility for our actions.

Mike, maybe the next time you drive over the speed limit or jay walk, we should lock you up in prison for 10 years. Who cares about the punishment fitting the crime.

Huseyin Parlak Deported To Turkey:

2007-05-15T00:52:00.000-04:00

HAS OUR GOVERNMENT GONE TOTALLY INSANE

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
-- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller

Huseyin Parlak, brother of Ibrahim Parlak was abruptly arrested by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and deported to Turkey today while on a scheduled “routine” visit to the office of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Detroit.

Just for the record, I am the spokes person for the Parlak family. But anything I say on this blog, strictly represents my views and not necessarily the views of the Parlak family. I will not be as nice as they are.

In the case of the Parlak brothers, DHS has been deceiving the media, the public, Parlak’s support group, and the Parlak family. In the case of Huseyin’s deportation, not only did they deceive, but they flat out lied to the Parlak family and their lawyers. 30 days ago, at Huseyin’s last meeting with DHS officials, he and his lawyer were both told, “Looks like you will be here for a while. Report back to us here in 30 days and then every 90 days after that. We will wait with your deportation until your appeal is ruled on by the 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals” as they granted him a work permit.

Yet today, May 14, 2007, 30 days after that statement, he appeared for his 30-day “routine” report and he was detained, put on an airplane, and deported back to Turkey.

The normal deportation process detains the deportee but gives him and the family a 72 hour notice before deportation so they may supply to the deportee clothing, money, personal belongings and say goodbye. Yet no such courtesy was given to the Parlak family. Huseyin Parlak’s attorney stated that he has never seen a deportation take place without such courtesies.

Let me just state that Huseyin was in this country legally, hasn’t broken any laws, and applied for political asylum due to the political situation in Turkey. Huseyin also requested to voluntarily deport to a country of his choosing but the Immigration Court denied his request.

Has ICE and DHS gone totally mad? They are not deporting criminal illegal aliens, yet they deport a productive member of our society that has never broken our laws! Where are their priorities? How much money and resources are being wasted on deporting someone like Huseyin instead of people who truly need to be deported? (I can tell you it runs into the millions of taxpayer’s dollars.) Or is it just laziness? I guess it is easier to deport someone who is following our laws, makes his whereabouts known, and reports for requested meetings with ICE and DHS instead of trying to find real criminals that are in hiding. Or is it plain incompetence? Our government actually releases criminal illegal aliens from their custody back into our society and then deports someone like Huseyin? What ever it is, it is pathetic and goes against the fabric of our country and our Constitution. We as a country are not suppose to deport law abiding members of our society to countries where their life is in danger and where they are being persecuted for their ethnicity or political views. This country was based on giving sanctuary to those kinds of people. We as citizens hold the power and we should exercise that power to stop certain branches of our government from ignoring our Constitution. Under our Constitution,

Huseyin has the right for due process and due process has not yet taken its course. This case is still pending in the 6 Circuit Court Of Appeals. The sad thing is that “legally” ICE was able to deport Huseyin because our Congress in its ultimate wisdom passed some immigration laws that are unconstitutional. This is a sad day for oppressed people all around the world. DHS & ICE have sent a clear messaged to the oppressed: “If you are oppressed, don’t come looking to the USA for sanctuary and protection! Not only will we refuse permission for you to stay in the USA, but also we will not allow you voluntarily go to a different country. Instead, we will send you back to the country from which you fled persecution.”

Do me a favor, stand up for freedom and our Constitution and take off your political blinders. Both parties are equally guilty when it comes to our horrible immigration laws. And if you think that the situation of immigrants does not affect you, then think again. After they take the rights away from immigrant, who do you think is next?

Martin Dzuris’ version of Martin Niemöller’s poem:

When they took the rights of the immigrant
I remained silent.
I was not an immigrant.

When they took the rights of the Kurds
I remained silent.
I was not a Kurd.

When they took the rights of the oppressed
I did not speak out.
I was not oppressed.

When they come to take the rights from me, the American citizen
Who will be left to speak out?

A Real Solution To The Immigration Problem

2007-05-07T00:05:00.000-04:00

For some time now there has been a heated debate about illegal immigration. To take out all the nonsense of each political party, here’s what it really boils down to. Liberals/Democrats do not want to close the border. They want an open border policy where anyone can come in at any time without US controls. Then they want our tax dollars to pay for social services, education, and health care, when most illegals don’t even pay taxes.

Do I really have to go into how dangerous their plan is when one considers terrorism, the economic drain on our citizens, and the change of our Country’s demographics? Many of these immigrants do not conform to our culture or learn our language. The real intent of the liberals is truly to change this country from inside out and illegal immigration is one of the tools they are using to accomplish that goal.

Anyone with some common sense can see this and there is really nothing one can do to change the liberal agenda. So lets look at the Republicans. For 12 years, the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and for 6 of those years, the Presidency. Instead of, as a majority, agreeing and coming to a solution, they had their own agendas, fought each other’s, went against the president, and ultimately accomplished nothing to fix the problem.

However, they did have a large part in creating the problem. Republicans failed to close the border while in power and at the same time, they passed laws making it extremely difficult to migrate to this country legally. For example, if one applies for a green card from outside of the US, he/she is not allowed to visit the States while the application is pending. Yet, most applications remain pending for approximately 10 years. Most people want to immigrate to the US because they have family here. So to try to immigrate legally means they cannot visit their family for 10 years. This is just one example of how one can be punished for trying to enter legally. I could write a whole book of examples. So with leaving the boarder open, creating absurd and difficult laws, and at the same time implementing policies through our embassies that make it difficult to visit the States, what did Republicans expect would happen? Of course, the number of illegals increased tremendously. Republicans are hypocrites! They tell the American people they are for legal immigration while in the mean time, behind close doors, they passed bills that make it extremely difficult for legal immigration. Thus creating a higher illegal population.

Now the problem remains and Republicans have lost the majority. Some Republicans want every illegal immigrant, even their US born offspring, deported. But they will not tell you the true reason for wanting it. They will ramble on about how the illegals broke the law and how it is unfair to those legally waiting. Quite frankly, coming her illegally is a misdemeanor. And who really cares about the people who are not here. We must first look to our Country’s own interests which is to solve our problem of illegal immigration. Republicans are complicit in this problem, but they do not want to accept responsibility for it. How hypocritical for a party that preaches personal responsibility. I guess it only applies to us individuals and not to them as a party.

Do not get fooled by Republican propaganda, “Let’s close the boarder first and then deal with illegals later.” Mark my words, later means deportation of all illegals. And this is coming from a party who preaches family values. Where’s their concern for illegal families? But lets put compassion for illegals aside. Let’s simply take a look at right vs. wrong. Is it right to break up families across different countries or deport US born children because the parents committed a misdemeanor? Doesn’t the punishment need to fit the crime? Especially when Republicans allowed this situation to happen in the first place.

Another Propaganda: “We might provide a path to citizenship or guest worker program, but the illegal aliens will first be forced to return to their own country.” That is a flat out deception and taking advantage of the ignorance of the American people when it comes to immigration laws and policies. No illegal will leave under those conditions because illegals know that once they leave, our immigration laws apply to them. Under our immigration law, if one has previously broken immigration laws, he/she is not allowed to re-enter the States for the next 5 or 10 years depending on how long he/she was illegally in the US.

Another Propaganda: ““I am for legal immigration! My grandparents came through Ellis Island! We don’t want Amnesty!” When their grandparents came through Ellis Island, they were checked for diseases and if none were found, they were allowed in the country. That has no bearing on today’s immigration. And let’s be honest. True amnesty is forgiveness without consequences. All this talk about amnesty is pure deception “Amnesty with punishment” is NOT amnesty. Paying a fine is a punishment. So Republicans, stop playing with words and solve the problem.

Republicans, do the right thing! There is one thing you can learn from the Democrats. As much as they disagree on something, when it comes to voting on bills, they vote united. When it matters, they unite regardless of their differences. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Present a bill that will close the border and provide a path for illegals to obtain work permits and green cards. And like all other misdemeanor offenses, force illegals to pay a fine. I can almost certainly guarantee you that the democrats will not agree to this bill because they don’t want to close the border. But what will be accomplished is that the democrats’ agenda will be exposed and you can take advantage of that in the upcoming elections. By uniting, you may just have a chance of winning.

Republicans, be honest with the American people about your true agendas and stay true to your platform about Family Values and Freedom. Close the border and make current illegals legal. Then we can focus our limited resources on deporting criminal aliens and new illegal immigrants that have not established their lives here; rather than wasting time and money trying to deport some illegal mother of three citizens who wants to work to support her children. Conservatives, have a backbone, stand up for what is right and don’t act like liberals. You might give this country a chance and yourselves a chance in the process.

Or to solve the problem, we can also implement the solution Eric Rush described in his book, Annexing Mexico: Solving the Board Problem through Annexation and Assimilation. The Title speaks for itself.

Oh by the way Liberals, a wall or a fence works very well. Take a look at communist countries, Israel, & Ancient China.

This country was made by immigration, made great by immigration, and will continue to be great with immigration!