Obama Jokes

I recently received these from a friend. Some of them are actually kinda funny.

(Now I'll use simple words so the liberals will understand) Lighten up!

This was from the Rush Limbaugh Group!
People have been making fun of presidents from the beginning. However, if you make a joke about Obama, the Left labels you a "hater" or a racist." Well, we’re not haters or racists, but we do pride ourselves on being politically incorrect! We are publishing these jokes in the hope that you will get a laugh or two! Feel free to take any or all and spread them around.
: His followers don’t think they’re funny and everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

Q: What’s the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?
A: His followers don't think they're funny and everyone else doesn't think they're jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A: It stands between him and the First Amendment.

At a recent Obama speech there was a guy in the back of the hall screaming anti-American slogans and making hateful racist remarks. They turned the house lights up and it was Reverend Wright. For a moment Obama thought he was back in church and yelled, "Can I get an amen"?

           Q: What’s the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?
           A: The pizza can feed a family of four.


Obama has ordered GM to come out with a new model called the Pelosi. It’s a convertible, but no one wants to see it with its top down.

Q: What’s the difference between Simba and Obama?
A: Simba is an African lion while Obama is a lyin’ African.

Someone recently wrote, "A joke about Obama on the Letterman show is as likely as a joke about Mohammed in a mosque."

Q: What’s the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?
A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

Barack Obama: He has what it takes to take what you’ve got!

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a
penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.

If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved? ... America!

Q: What do Miley Cyrus and Barack Obama have in common?
A: They both stand onstage and attract young people with mindless yammer.

Obama’s campaign slogan was "Yes we can" and now it has become "Yes you will."

Q: What’s brown and in your pocket?
A: Obama’s hand.

No coup in Honduras

An article from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates that the recent events in Honduras are not the result of a military coup. Rather these events are demonstrated to be a triumph of constitutional government and the rule of law safeguarding a democracy that is very aware of the dangers it faces.

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.By Octavio Sánchez

Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

HR 45 - Criminalizing Gun Ownership

From revolutionradio.org

Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don’t fully comply.

It has started.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver’s License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.

This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we! have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.

And if you have any doubt where Barack Hussein Obama stands on this issue, his record speaks for him:

Gun Rationing
Obama voted in favor of legislation to prohibit law-abiding individuals from purchasing more than one gun a month. Illinois Senate, H.B. 2579, 5/16/03 [emphasis mine]

Obama and Self-Defense
Obama opposes law that permits law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune 9/15/04 [emphasis mine]

Freedom's Fight

A few posts ago, Northwest Minuteman pointed me to the blog Freedom's Fight

Freedom's Fight is a regularly updated, thoughtful blog and reading it has been a joy. You should *really* go over and check out Freedom's Fight. I've added them to my "Found on the Blogosphere" section.

Please feel free to comment with links to other good blogs. Because of past "flaming" I now moderate comments so it may take a few hours before your comment shows up.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin in the Continental Congress just before signingthe Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Chinese Instructions

Recently I received this email from my dad. I can only hope that Chinese government agencies (Communists) employ translators of a higher caliber than those utilized in this example (the Capitalist arm of China).

I bought a pen with a light from a man in the plaza in Acapulco last week. The reason I bought it was because he said it helped the "casa hogar de los ninos". Later he showed me a list of "casa hogares" and they were all over the world. Don't know if it is legit or not, but here is the instruction given on the back of the plastic holder the pen came in.:

Function: The electric power is ample, the convenience illuminate Write the fluent, a thing two use

Press the button then illuminate

Also on the other side of the pen's cardboard holder it says:

Assemble high can the battery, electric power hold out for long
time.

Incidentally pop tells me that, despite the humorous/atrocious translation, the pen writes and the light works.

Sotomayor : LA RAZA, judicial activism, etc.

I received this from RightMarch.com - it has some good info on nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I left in a couple of the links to send blast faxes to Congress. There is also a link to send a free message to your Senator at the bottom of the post and I put it here. As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to your U.S. Senators by selecting here.

Barack Obama's Nominee for the Supreme Court is a Member of LA RAZA -- Select Below to Tell the Senate to REJECT Sonia Sotomayor: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

ALERT: Not only has President Barack Obama picked a liberal judicial activist as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court...

... she turns out to ALSO be a member of the pro-illegal immigration group LA RAZA!

IT'S NOT TOO LATE. We can STOP the nomination of the far-left Judge Sonia Sotomayor? YES -- but only if YOU join your voice with hundreds of thousands of others, demanding she be rejected!

This is not some unfounded "internet rumor" -- none other than the prestigious American Bar Association has listed Sotomayor as a member of the National Council of La Raza, "a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police," according to WorldNet Daily.

"La Raza" means "the race"... and is a group that also has connections to organizations that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America! In fact, in 2006, the late Rep. Charlie Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan -- which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs (in Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas).

Can you imagine if a Republican nominated a Caucasian judge for the Supreme Court, who was a member of a group called THE RACE that advocated government programs and actions favorable only to white people? Seriously?

Don't forget -- Sonia Sotomayor is the same woman who stated at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that HER experience as a "wise Latina woman" would make her a better judge than a white man would be!

So, in Sonia Sotomayor, we're facing a judge who will "interpret" the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW itself. In fact, she has gone even further to say, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

As if that wasn't enough to prove her race-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that's not all she said:

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

Now, we find out she was also a member of LA RAZA. What's next -- going all the way, and nominating an actual illegal immigrant?

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Barack Obama threatened during the presidential campaign to nominate liberal judicial activists who would push their left-wing policy preferences, instead of simply applying the law in a neutral manner. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat and picked the most extreme nominee possible!

Over the last couple of weeks, Obama has stated that he wanted his pick for the highest court in the land to have "empathy" and not someone who's about some "abstract legal theory." He wanted someone who is going to be "compassionate" in deciding cases, and implied that his pick should not just stick to the rules handed down to us by the founding fathers. There's only one problem: that's what the Supreme Court IS about!

The real problem we face is this: what the far left have not been able to pass legislatively -- because the American people simply DO NOT support a far-left agenda -- they want to impose on the American people through the courts. THAT is why Obama has nominated Sotomayor: to push the Supreme Court further and further left, to advance that liberal agenda.

As proof, you only have to look at what liberals feel about her: Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by none other than Nan Aron of the VERY liberal "Alliance for Justice," who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had "been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that WE believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice."

BUT... the "Alliance for Justice" believes that the Supreme Court should be all about legislating from the bench and imposing that far-left agenda on the American people! And THAT is who Barack Obama has nominated to serve the rest of her life on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Judge Sotomayor has already proven her bias, both before and after her time on the bench. For 12 years, she was one of the most active board members of the "Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund," where she played an active role in their aggressive stances on issues affecting Hispanics like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights. According to the New York Times, "One of the legal defense fund's most important suits charged that a Police Department promotional exam discriminated against minority candidates. It was filed on behalf of the "Hispanic Society of the New York Police." The exams, the group charged, did not really measure the ability to perform in a more senior position, and were yielding "unfair "results: Too many whites were doing well, and too many Hispanics and African-Americans were not."

Apparently, two decades later, the now-Judge Sotomayor was still whistling the same tune: in one of her most controversial decisions, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!"

There are some serious problems with the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor that every single U.S. Senator NEEDS to look at when considering her for this high position. Here's the biggest one:

The Supreme Court itself says that this woman is WRONG!

Sotomayor has a TERRIBLE record as a Circuit Court judge, of being REVERSED by the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. In fact, OVER HALF of her decisions as a Court of Appeals judge have been STRUCK DOWN!

You read that right: OVER HALF of Judge Sotomayor's decisions as a Circuit Court judge that have come up for review have been REJECTED -- OVERRULED -- STRUCK DOWN by the United State Supreme Court!

If the U.S. Supreme Court says this woman is wrong, HOW CAN THE U.S. SENATE SAY SHE IS RIGHT???

The answer is, they should NOT. But it's up to US -- YOU AND ME -- to make that LOUD AND CLEAR to them!

TAKE ACTION: Even pundits on the left are critical of Obama's pick of Judge Sotomayor. Jeffrey Rosen, writing in The New Republic, discussed his investigation of her background, writing, "I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative." Going further, Rosen writes:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed shock and disappointment at Sotomayor's recent approval in Ricci v. DeStefano of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color.

So it's not just a bunch of biased right-wingers who are worried about Sotomayor's competence to be on the Supreme Court; even experts on the left, including lawyers and fellow judges who worked with her, have expressed serious doubts about her "intellectual capabilities" on matters of law!

Just four years ago, when speaking at Duke Law School, Judge Sotomayor "let slip" what is probably the most famous quote of her career: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she let her TRUE beliefs slip out: she stated that the court "is where policy is made!" She tried to correct her slip, by joking that "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make law,' I know, I know." In other words, she made it clear that she believes judges DO MAKE LAW!

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Knowing that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a supporter of pro-illegal immigration groups, that she's a far-left judicial activist, that she is intellectually unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and that people on the left AND the right feel the same way... How can we possibly just sit by and let Barack Obama impact this Court for YEARS to come, in the worst possible way?

The answer is, we CAN'T. So we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator AT ONCE, urging that they REJECT the Judge Sotomayor as unqualified to sit on the bench!

For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they STOP this liberal judicial activist from ascending to the highest court in the land!

In fact, we've set up two different faxes -- one for Republicans, demanding that they filibuster this nomination until Obama pulls Sotomayor's nomination (or she withdraws herself); and one to Democrats and Independents, demanding that they at least not allow her nomination to be rushed through and that her out-of-the-mainstream, far-left ideological beliefs be examined thoroughly.

We need to attack this nomination on all fronts -- so we've set up our Blast Fax system to do just that!

SEND YOUR BLAST FAXES NOW TO EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor/?a=2501

Please, take action right away to STOP this far-left-wing judicial activist from being confirmed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Sincerely,William Greene, PresidentRightMarch.com PAC

P.S. As hundreds of thousands of faxes now begin to pour in to the offices on Capitol Hill, the RightMarch.com PAC is ready to LOBBY HARD to make sure that our Congressmen follow through on our demands. But lobbying costs money -- so we need YOUR help to keep pounding away on these legislators to do the right thing!

By the way -- don't be fooled by President Obama's claim that Judge Sotomayor is a "bipartisan pick," just because President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court. The first President Bush nominated her in 1991 ONLY because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Democrat Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York! In 1998, when President Clinton nominated Sotomayor to the Second Circuit, 29 Republican Senators voted against her.

We need ALL FORTY Republican Senators voting against her this time -- PLUS at least a few more Democrats, to prevent her from ascending to the highest court in the land, and imposing her judicial activist philosophy on America for the rest of her life!

As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to your U.S. Senators by selecting here. Thank you!

No More Anchor Babies!

Received today from RightMarch.com

ALERT: We have a chance today to "plug up" one of the biggest holes in American national security -- a hole that has led to millions of illegal immigrants being granted the "right" to stay in this country, even though they broke the law to get here.

That "hole" is called "birthright citizenship" for so-called "anchor babies" (children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents) -- and a bill has been re-introduced to STOP it.

After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was introduced into the Constitution to allow slaves to become US citizens after the emancipation. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined. Since then it has been misused for decades to allow literally millions of illegal alien "anchor babies" -- and their illegal parents and families -- to remain in this country.

These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an "anchor" for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some hospitals in Texas, administrators estimate that 70% or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is, most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We MUST end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally -- including the anchor baby incentive.

TAKE ACTION: No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens.

You read that right. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Thankfully, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has once again introduced his Birthright Citizenship bill that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. The "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R.1868) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make it more difficult for children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship.

Under the proposed legislation, a person born in the United States, in order to gain citizenship, must have at least one parent who is:

• a U.S. citizen or national;
  
• a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
  
• an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

PLEASE, send a FREE message right away, urging YOUR U.S. Representative to co-sponsor and actively support H.R. 1868, the "Birthright Citizenship Act":

https://writerep.house.gov/

It's time to END "anchor baby" citizenship for illegal aliens!

1OO days Of the pOser [Obama]

Here is the link to the low down.

Do you remember his promise of "No more politics as usual." ? Yeah, that was funny.

Do you know the President?

We're in for a long four years.

TEA Party

I haven't blogged for a while. This administration DAILY demonstrates that they have NO interest in being financially responsible. See you at the TEA party.
http://taxdayteaparty.com/

TEA = Taxed Enough Already!

Siege at Wounded Knee 1973

The header to this blog says (as part of the explanation of the name of the blog) "I'm not talking about the war [on terror]. The title of this blog is an argument that an armed citizenry will keep any governing body in check better than an unarmed citizenry."

I checked with a couple people that were pretty aware of what made the national news in 1973 (about the Siege at Wounded Knee) and one told me:

"I believe it was reported as the government trying to control a bunch of terrorists."

That just gives me cold chills because I personally remember watching the news in 1993 and hearing reports that the government was "trying to control a bunch of terrorists" in Waco, Texas. (I think we all know what a sham that turned out to be)

I also remember hearing in 1992 that "an officer and a suspect in Idaho have been killed in a firefight between Federal Agents and suspected domestic terrorists".

The truth about the 1992 incident (Ruby Ridge) isn't so clear cut in favor of the government.

Witnesses have said the sharpshooter fired as Mrs. Weaver, 42, held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let Randy Weaver, their daughter and Mr. Harris inside.
Given what I know of the track record of Federal law enforcement, it is EASY for me to give the Native Americans at Wounded Knee the benefit of the doubt.

It really doesn't matter two hoots who occupies the oval office when it comes to federal law enforcement bending the rules and abusing their power. It has happened over and over again under Democrat and Republican presidents and I don't see any reason to believe that this One will take any steps to "Change" this.

"Buy 'em cheap and bury 'em deep".

Another one owes taxes

He can run a successful presidential campaign but he can't find qualified individuals that pay their taxes on time?

I really can't believe that somebody as smart as Barack Hussein Obama is this ignorant. These nominations of people who don't follow the law and don't pay their taxes is just another example of his attitude that "we won so we'll do what we want".

Are any of the Obamaniacs waking up yet?

Here is the story on Ron Kirk, the latest Obama tax evader.

How will the "Stimulus" bill effect our economy?

Sound is optional (but fun) on this one. You will want to watch it full screen so you can see the graphs and (trust me) you're going to want to pause it at least a couple times because some details go by pretty quickly.

As I've mentioned before, the GOP made two attempts (Bush-2003, McCain-2005) to stop the economic train wreck that we're currently in and they were thwarted both times by the DNC.

This video tells us what we're in for now.

No surprise - Racism in the Stimulus Package

Robert Reich basically says "If you have skills (and could actually contribute to ending a recession) or you don't have enough melanin in your skin, you can't have any stimulus money."

(That translation is for my liberal friends - the rest of us understand what is going on)





Can I now apply for government aid because I'm "melanin challenged"? (translation for liberals: that was a joke)

Question: if "wealth redistribution" is such a great idea, why aren't Barack Hussein Obama ( and his toadies) giving away their own personal money? It doesn't take any kind of great political acumen to steal one man's money and give it to another man. And it doesn't solve any problems.

Another Question: Where are all the altruistic liberals?
Answer: They are few and far between.

How Congress FAILed to protect our economy

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "...safety and soundness...is not an issue",
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) "...we do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac",
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) "...theres nothing that's indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae...".
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jack Reed (D-RI), and other elected Democrats DEFENDED Freddie and Fannie in 2003 & 2005 and REFUSED TO LISTEN to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL), Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and other elected Republicans.

Why???

WAtch the video and just check out the list of receipients of campaign contributions at 5:17 ... even the "One" and "Only", the great "hOpe" of the democratic party is listed. Don't expect much in the way of "change" any time sOon.

Alan Keyes on Barack Obama

Just listen.

Obama's Numbers Continue to Drop

Hmmm.... interesting.

Favorability ratings dropped 19% in less than one month? That's quite an accomplishment.

Obamacide

OBAMACIDE - the music video.

Join the resistance at www.fightFOCA.com

Here is Obama in his own words speaking to Planned Parenthood.

Obama Inaugural Ratings Fall Short of Reagan’s

This article from NewsMax.com points up an interesting historical fact that we didn't hear from the main stream media outlets.

Although the number of viewers watching the presidential inauguration coverage of Barack Obama was impressive, they fall short of those who saw Ronald Reagan take the oath of office for his first term in 1981.

According to Nielsen Media Research, 37.8 million television viewers tuned in Tuesday to watch the swearing-in ceremony, which was the largest inaugural audience in 28 years. Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 drew a whopping 41.8 million.

The article goes on to remind us that...

Obama's figures include telecasts on 17 broadcast and cable networks, while Reagan’s swearing-in ceremony nearly three decades ago could only be seen on ABC, CBS and NBC.

Interestingly enough, Obama's approval rating has done nothing but slide downhill since inauguration day.

Montana Wildlife Impact

From an internal US Forest Service memo, late October 2008:

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife here in the United States . . .

Anticipating a sweeping Democratic Party victory in the November elections, animals that were formerly self-sufficient are already modifying their behavior to take advantage of what they expect to be a new set of societal norms in the next four to eight years.

This black bear from Montana has ceased hunting for a living and is sitting outside the US Fish & Wildlife Service office in Kalispell, apparently waiting to be fed and to have his winter den dug by government employees.

The residents of Kalispell are calling him 'Bearack Obama'.

[Dear Liberal: The preceding is a joke. I'm only telling you this because, by voting for Obama, you demonstrated that you can't tell when somebody is pulling your leg. Have a nice day.]

Worth A Thousand Words

Early Barack Obama rally

I was looking around YouTube and I found this footage of an early Barack Obama rally





"He's Not the Messiah" (you gotta love Monty Python)

One hundred tons and counting...

Jan 20, 2009 was only the start of Barak Hussein Obama and his supporters littering the nation with garbage. This first 100 tons of garbage was literal. The garbage that came later was even worse.

Washington D. C. city officials put the crowd total (despite very cold weather) at 1.8 million.

For the first time in a long time, we now have a Commander-in-Chief & VP with ZERO military experience.

How's this for "change" - he gets a million plus "save the environment" types together and they trash the place. Conservatives have never trashed a place so effectively and so fast.

Keep your shovels handy folks, it's gonna be a long four years!

TV is NOT a right

This may come as a shock to a lot of people but television is not a "right". (I checked the Constitution, honest) I understand that it is the duty of the FCC to regulate the usage of the airwaves and that "the switch to digital" will free up a lot of those airwaves for newer technologies. Great, I have no problem with that. This is just another example of a government agency regulating something that should be in the public domain. (I'm not going to go off on a tangent about this because there will be plenty of opportunity to grind the "government buttinski" axe in the coming days... )

The thing that really bothers the most about this whole process is how hard the government is working to make sure that nobody loses a minute of viewing pleasure. The other day a local politician made the statement that "People have to have television access for their safety. To deny people access to television in this storm prone area would be criminal."

Well at least he was talking about something he knows - politicians in this area are experts in criminal behavior. But I digress...

To answer the politicians claim, No, people do not have to have television access [to stay informed of storm alerts] in this storm prone area. If we in this area are prone to any storms, it is hurricanes. Three days people, you get at least three bloody days warning if a hurricane is headed your way. I grew up in "tornado alley" and with your average tornado you are lucky to get fifteen minutes warning.

I have to wonder how much of this "no more TV" paranoia is borne out of the misguided notions of TV personalities and their belief that we somehow "need" them.

Long live radio. I looking forward to my TV being nothing more than a display for my DVD player.

The NEW Jimmy Carter

Most of the people that I know who voted for Barack Obama were not alive in 1976. I was there but I wasn't old enough to vote yet.

This article is a VERY good history lesson for some of us and a good refresher for those who were politically active by that time.

Officially President-Elect

It is official.

The man that has been referred to as "President-Elect Obama" in the mainstream media (or simply "President Obama" in their more unguarded moments) was officially declared the next President of the United States by the House after they tallied the Electoral College votes.

The AP story actually says "THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE".

No, its a ceremony. No surprise, no news. But this is part and parcel of the media's love affair with Barack Obama that we have been forced to watch during the past several months. These clowns have collectively thrown all pretense of "objectivity" out the window. (My personal favorite is Chris Mathews' quote "...when I hear Barack Obama speak I get a furrowing up my leg...and that's an objective assessment." )

The Fence Is Going Up!

One of the FEW responsibilities of a valid government is to protect the safety and security of it's citizens. To this end there has been *much* discussion as to what should (or should not) be done to protect the southern and northern (landlocked) borders of the United States of America.

This morning on the radio, one of our local radio commentators interviewed a judge from Cameron county concerning progress on the border fence.

Good fences make good neighbors, right? Funny thing is, when the border fence is referred to in Spanish, I have *never* heard it referred to as a "fence" (cerca). Without exception, people speaking Spanish refer to this as "El Muro" (The Wall). More than once I have been speaking with bilingual friends and the subject has come up. When I have asked the question "Have you ever seen pictures of the Berlin Wall coming down? This is not a Wall - this is a fence." the response has been "Well yeah but you know...".

That's the problem. I do know.

What is being built looks to be a sensible fence. It will not be located on the levies and have to be torn down in 2011. It will not be built inside city limits. Those two particular genius proposals (and all the resultant flap about "The Wall" cutting Brownsville in half as it followed the levy) are complete inventions of local Rio Grande Valley politicians. (I know you will be as shocked as I was to learn that politicians had actually lied...)

These same politicians are now hanging their hopes on Barack Obama to "Stop the Wall". But, by their own admission, Obama "has a lot on his plate" and he "might not be able to give the necessary attention to a small piece of South Texas".

All this would mean that, despite the best efforts of local politicians, the American government has actually taken steps to protect American citizens.

Love it or hate it, comments are encouraged.

The American Form of Government

Before you start ranting about the virtues of "democracy" just take 10 minutes and Watch This Video.

Hint: We (the USA) are NOT a democracy.