"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Fort Hood Shootings: In Dealing with Islam, Political Correctness is a Suicide Pact

Will Malven

During the hours of news coverage following the tragic shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, one thing that stood out above all others was the reluctance of the news agencies to state the name of the perpetrator of this heinous act. Well after Fox and other news networks knew the apparent identity of the gunman, great care was exercised to avoid identifying Nidal Malik Hasan by name.

From the time that the shootings took place it took the Fox News Channel four and one half hours to provide the identity of the perpetrator by name. Shepherd Smith, the news anchor, even stated that he was "reluctant" to say the name of the perpetrator, because they were concerned about any reaction the name might evoke, until it was confirmed by the Department of Defense. He was not alone in this reluctance, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was also provided with the name of the alleged perpetrator but would not say who it was until it was confirmed by the Defense Department.

I am all for making certain that a reporter has his fact right before he goes on camera. In fact I would prefer to get my news more slowly if that delay is motivated by a desire to get the story right, but that has not been the case in our mainstream media for some considerable time.  For decades now the press has been more inclined to get the story out immediately and then correct the information as facts change...but not this time.

Compare how the Fort Hood shooter's identity was handled by the media with that of Jason Rodriquez following the tragic mass shooting that he perpetrated in Orlando, Florida yesterday.  Within an hour of the shootings occurrence, everyone who was watching the news knew the Mr. Rodriquez's name.

Why? Why the discrepancy? Certainly, some of the delay Thursday was due to the natural difficulties associated with obtaining information from sources on a military base. Access to information necessarily is more controlled on a military base than it is in the general public, but once the identity was known with some degree of certainty, why didn't the press reveal it with the same eagerness that it has displayed in other cases of this type? Why was the senator "uncomfortable" with identifying who the killer was? Why was the press so forth coming with the identity of the man in Florida and so slow to reveal the name of the shooter in Texas?

The reason for this reluctance is clear and has been manifest in our national media ever since the attacks on 9/11 were revealed to have been perpetrated by radical Muslims. There was, and still is, a reluctance to be seen as being critical of Islam and radical Islamists, by the mainstream media.

They have never been so scrupulous when dealing with Christians when, on very rare occasion one commits a heinous act. Every time a protest occurs at an abortion clinic, the protestors are readily identified as being a member of a "fundamentalist Christian" organization, or an "extreme right-wing Christian" group.

Why is it that liberals as a general rule are so reluctant to talk about radical Muslims or even to use the word terrorist when discussing radical Islamists who have been attacking American people for the past four decades?

Even in protecting our citizens, today's law enforcement organizations are proscribed from using, "racial profiling," as a tool for detecting potential terrorists. To an outside observer, it would appear that our political leaders are more concerned with not offending some special interest group...like the Muslim community...than they are with protecting and saving American lives.

Every time an attack like the one at Fort Hood occurs, we are admonished not to draw any conclusions about a certain group of people from the actions of one individual or small group of individuals. We are instantly and repeatedly reminded of non-Muslims who have committed horrible acts. The names of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski or some other lone crazy who perpetrated mass murder are readily at the tip of liberals' tongues to remind us that it's not only Muslims who commit these kinds of acts.

There is almost a religious fervor in their efforts to prevent anyone from concluding what is patently obvious to any objective observer, that Islam, the "Religion of Peace," spurs more of its adherents to violence than any other organized religion or political group on Earth.  There's not even a second place in this category.

Liberals are especially prone to use moral equivalency to excuse what is clearly a dangerous proclivity among Muslims throughout the world.  From the blog "Confluence" here is a typical liberal’s comment:

"...Islam is no more violent than any other religion.  Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who I respect to refrain from doing so as well..."

This comment is made in the face of facts that surround us in the world today. This was not an isolated act nor am I saying all of this "because of the deranged actions of” one individual. Radical Islamists are committing violent acts against their own people and against non-Muslims all over the world today. Bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq have killed dozens of civilians and our troops. Muslim terrorists are fighting and killing people in the Philippines, Somalia, Indonesia and America.

This liberal fool continues:

"Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who [sic] I respect to refrain from doing so as well.  The last thing we need is a backlash to come down on the innocent heads of Muslim men, women and children."

More false moral equivalency. How many terrorist attacks have "fundamentalist Christians" committed over the last four decades? How many American citizens have they killed? How many acts of indiscriminate murder? Such claims as this author "riverdaughter" makes are as dishonest and agenda driven as they are ludicrous.

Liberals and other who wish to excuse Islam always mention Charles Whitman who killed 14 and wounded 32 in 1966 at the University of Texas, or  George Jo Kennard who drove into a Luby's Restaurant and killed 23 people on October 16, 1991, or Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 and killed 168 people, or Seung-Hui Cho who murdered 32 people on April 16, 2007, or Jiverly Wong who killed 13 and wounded 4 on April 03, 2009.

While all of those are horrible occurrences, they have no common thread. They each are isolated, disparate events. Juxtapose those events with the fact that, according to the State Department, there were 248 "Significant Terrorist Incidents" that occurred between May of 1961 and the end of 2003 throughout the world.  Out of those, 133 or 54% have been caused by Muslim extremists.

Even disallowing 43 attacks against Israel which could be blamed on the long term war between Arabs and the Israelis, and 18 attacks against targets in Iraq which could be blamed on the American presence there, Muslims were responsible for 72 terrorist attacks throughout the world between 1970 and 2003. [As a side note, another group, also a cause celebre for liberals, communist (whether it be the FARC in Columbia, AFRC in Sierra Leone,  or even the Red Brigade in Europe), have been responsible for 49 terrorist attacks.]

So is it reasonable to wonder when someone named Nidal Malik Hasan who is a devout Muslim and who has been very outspoken in his opposition to Americas presence in Iraq and Afghanistan if there is more to the attack at Fort Hood than him being mentally ill?

The reasons for paying extra close attention to any and all acts of violence that are carried out by Muslims are obvious and the risk to our national security and the safety of every American citizen in not doing so for reasons of political correctness is great.

The level of idiocy and intentional blindness required for our government to take the approach to these acts of violence that isolated events and that one must not bring the words Islam or Muslim into the dialogue for fear of offending certain people is approaching that of criminality.

Evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being a Religion of Peace, Islam is a grave threat to our nation and our citizens and for that reason, perhaps America should consider removing all of our men and women in uniform who are Muslims from active service and banning any further enlistments of Muslims.

For those who claim "It's not fair," you're right it's not, but then it's not "fair" that 13 of our very best and brightest were killed Thursday by a Muslim with a grievance against America and our involvement in the Middle East. It's not "fair" that 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It's not "fair" that we have lost over 4000 of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not "fair" that 13 families are now in mourning for their lost loved ones and another 38 families are worried sick over how their loved ones are doing in their efforts to recover from the wounds Dr. Hasan inflicted on them...for no reason.

So don't tell me it's not "fair" to profile swarthy looking men between the ages of 17 and 40 because I don't care if it's "fair" or not; fairness is irrelevant. Those swarthy looking men have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and members of our military...not because they are suffering from PTSD or because "he was a troubled man," but because they hated America and chose to follow the path of a radical religion that teaches hatred and murder of all who refuse to submit to its teachings.

There may be nothing more to these deaths than the sad story of a sick individual who suffered a severe psychotic episode and killed a lot of people similar to the others liberals are so quick to mention, but to make that assumption without even investigating the obvious issues surrounding this man's history and the apparent care with which he planned this massacre is just plain stupid, arrogant, political correctness run amok.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones’ Storm Manifesto

Will Malven

Well, well. It appears that President Obama's Green Jobs Czar is unhappy that the organization that he helped create, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), has been garnering attention for its radical communist manifesto, so the organization has scrubbed the manifesto from its website.

No fear folks, thanks to the quick work of World Net Daily (WND) the endangered manifesto has been rescued from the oblivion of Google's archive pages and remains available. Here is a portion of the WND report with a link to the full article in the title:

Founded group with 'commitment to fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism'

Posted: August 30, 2009
7:15 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

STORM's manifesto, 'Reclaiming Revolution'

JERUSALEM – How is this for a quick clean up job?

Last week, WND reported the official communist-oriented manifesto of a radical group founded by Obama's environmental adviser, Van Jones, was published in full on the Internet.

Just hours later, the manifesto was removed and the entire website was taken down.

It is, however, still available in web archives.

As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.

In the spirit of protecting STORM's work, I am making a copy of the report available here...we wouldn't want Van Jones' work to undermine our nation to get lost in the shuffle now, would we?
President Obama has surrounded himself with the best extreme leftist and communist minds America has to offer. Since the President himself told us to look at the people with whom he surrounds himself if we wanted to know who he is, it is important to preserve these little insights into the beliefs of him and those around him.

STORM's manifesto, entitled "Reclaiming Revolution."

Here are a few of the highlights from this document (You may wish to read it for yourself because what I am going to say may shock you and generate disbelief):
·  They were very disturbed by the fall of the Soviet Union as "the world's first and most powerful socialist nation." [Their words, not mine]
·  They were equally disturbed that "the United States would become the world’s one and only super power." [Again a direct quote from this publication]
·  Following a reorganization of STORM following a scandal, they began a "regrounding & rectification" process with set goals to:
1.     Rebuild political and personal unity and
2.   Make "a definite and collective shift towards communist politics"
·       During the "Rectification study" they "worked to develop a basic understanding of Marxist and Leninist histories, theories and politics..."

·       They developed four workgroups,
1.     Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM)
2.   Workers Organized to Rid us of Capitalism (WORC)
3.   Culture & Propaganda and
4.   Theory Development
I guess that is enough to establish Green Jobs Czar Van Jones' communist bona fides...all of that from the first 25 pages and then only a few of the highlights.

I have omitted things like membership was restricted to 75% people of color and 60% women...hmmm...both racist and sexist...do tell.

Again I ask, if President Obama believes in America and in our way of life, why has he surrounded himself with people like Van Jones?

...or has he been lying to the American people all this time?

Perhaps President Barack Hussein Obama surrounded himself with these people because he agrees with their radical communist agenda. Perhaps the reason he has these people around him is because they believe what he believes, that capitalism is bad, that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because of the constraints our Founding Father placed within it. To quote him directly:

"the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

He is lamenting that "redistributive change" didn't happen, couldn't happen under what was the most liberal Supreme Court in modern history.

The TRUTH: Obama has surrounded himself with communists because he is at heart a communist. He took over the automobile industry because he hates capitalism, he took over the banking system to provide for the redistribution of wealth, he is attempting to institute the largest tax increase in recent history in the form of the "Cap and Trade Bill" so that he can redistribute wealth from those who have to those who don't, and he is attempting to pass "Health Care Reform" so that he can have complete control over our lives.

None of those acts has anything to do with helping others; they are aimed at the accumulation and exercise of power. Still doubt me? Then add the bill, S-773, sponsored by Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), now making its way through Congress that would
give President Obama emergency power over the internet.
If you are not beginning to wonder, if you are not concerned for your freedom, perhaps it is time you were.

I have not made any of this up; most of it comes from Obama and his own people.

Time to pay attention folks!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, August 17, 2009

Don't Be Fooled, Democrats and Obama Have Not Abandoned "Public Option"

Will Malven

Don't be fooled folks, don' buy the lies coming from Obama and the White House; they have not given up on what is now being called "the public option," nor have they given up on a single payer system for health care. At best we can hope for a temporary retrenchment while they reassemble their forces for another push.

It's one of the oldest cons in the game, lull your opponents into a sense of over confidence and then move to pass what you want why they are no longer paying close attention to what Congress is doing.
Their goal is single payer health care. It's been their goal since socialism reared its ugly head in America back in the 1920's. The words of Ronald Reagan back in 1961 are as relevant and ring just as truly today as they did back then:
Ronald Reagan's 1961 talk on socialism and health care

They have not given up, they have not ceded the battle field, they have not changed their agenda. All Democrats have done is acknowledge that they face a tougher battle to get their socialized medicine agenda passed than they initially thought.

What they have realized is that the American people do not like it when government attempts to control their lives. They don't want the same government that runs this bankrupt government to run health care and will oppose it once they figure out that that is what Democrats are attempting to pass.

The vast majority of Americans are happy with their health care coverage. Polls repeatedly show an 80-85% satisfaction rate among those who have insurance coverage. The American voter is not stupid, in spite of what the elitists of the Democrat Party, the mainstream media, and the White House believe and assert.

They may be slow on the uptake sometimes, but they are not uninformed. The people protesting against health care reform are better informed as to what is in the various bills than are the politicians and "journalists" who are attempting to defend it.

Only a fool...an arrogant fool would be puzzled by this resistance to a government take over; all one has to do is look at other government run or regulated programs.

·  Medicare - bankrupt
·  Medicaid - bankrupt
·  Social Security - bankrupt
·  US Post Office - bankrupt
·  Fannie Mae - bankrupt
·  Freddie Mac - bankrupt
Our entire federal government is bankrupt...we know because it is one of the few truths to come out of the White House. From Drudge:


Sat May 23 2009 10:32:18 ET

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits..."

Oh, I'm certain if he had the opportunity, he would avoid that admission...well that's the risk he takes every time he appears without his trusty teleprompter...you never know when the truth might inadvertently slip out.

There is no example of a government attempt at "compassion" to which any Liberal can point that is competitive with a private sector option (By the way, it's not "compassion" if it comes at the business end of a government gun, it's extortion-or "tyranny").

The main point is folks, don't fold up your signs and go home yet; the initial battle is won, but the war is going to be long and hard. What Obama and his people are doing is attempting to lull you back to sleep.

They will continue to push for more and more governmental control of your lives whether it be in health care, or some other aspect of your lives. They will couch it in terms that sound benign and they will camouflage their actions with euphemisms intended to deceive you as to what they are attempting to do.

Remember what Ronald Reagan told us back in 1964:

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

I'm not going to disagree with him, but I can think of some other scary nine word combinations like:

"Shut up and take it like a good citizen," or

"The President of the United States is Barack Obama."

Both of those are nearly as terrifying.

Just remember anytime anyone in the government tells you they want to help you, watch your wallet...and your freedom; both are or shortly will be in jeopardy.

Don't rest yet, the journey has only begun and as Robert Frost said,

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Folks, we've "miles to go" before we sleep.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Cries of “Racism” are the Last Refuge of Scoundrels: Democrats are Scoundrels

Will Malven

Now the Democrats are accusing Representative Wilson (R-SC) of being a racist for calling the President a liar. Unbelievable! Have Democrats no shame at all?

Clearly not...not for a long, long time.

The cry of "Racist!" has become reflexive in this society. Anytime anyone dares to differ with a black cause or dares to point out a disturbing fact (such as the disproportionately high crime rate) directly reflective of the African American community, out come the cries of "Racist!" [I state this knowing full well that by their standards, I am now a "Racist!"]

It's funny to me that the only people who are genuinely racist in America...outside of the extreme lunatic fringe element...are those on the left who are so race conscious.

The true definition of racism is not what you think about someone of a different ethnicity or race; it is how often you think about race and how much it influences your world view. Liberals view the entire world through the window of race (when it suits their political needs), thus they claim that anyone who objects to their political agenda-especially if that agenda is being espoused by someone of color-is a racist.

"Race consciousness" is racism. Thus now we have the real racists in America coming out to smear a very good man.

The second compelling fact about this attack on Representative Joe Wilson as a "racist" is that those who are using the tactic are doing so not because they actually believe that Congressman Wilson is a racist, but to advance their narrow political agenda of "Health Care Reform." Again we see that Democrats are fully willing to destroy anyone who gets in the way of their political agenda and will do so gleefully. The person, in this case Congressman Wilson, means nothing to them as a human being. It is their political agenda that is important and if you dare to stand in their way, they will attempt to destroy you.

Democrats are fully aware that all of the objections to Obama's aggressive leftist agenda are based solely on ideological grounds, not because he is "the first black president."

[Hmmm...I thought that honor belonged to Bill Clinton...wasn't he declared the first black president when he was in office?...Ah yes he was declared so by African American journalist Toni Morrison in the October '98 issue of the New Yorker.]

Conservatives object to the President's agenda on health care reform, as well as his "Cap and Trade" green agenda and his "stimulus package," because they are huge, budget busting, socialist power grabs aimed at the free market engine that built American into the greatest economy in the world, not because this particular socialist happens to be black.

Democrats make their charges of "racism" with the utmost cynicism.

In our society today the first person to point to another person's race, the first person to have their opinion of another person informed by that person's race, is invariably a liberal.

The first person to inject race into a political discussion is invariably a liberal and the first person to inject racial stereo-types into any political discussion is, again, invariably a liberal.

[Just listen to the names liberals call any African American who dares to take issue with their socialist agenda. That individual is immediately the target of such epithets as "Uncle Tom," "Step 'n' Fetchit," or "House Nigger," by the very people who claim to be fighting against such behavior.]

Though there may be a small minority who voted against Barack Obama because he was a black man, most who voted against him did so because of his political beliefs. He was the most liberal member of the Senate...based on his voting record, not on his race. His presidential platform was the most politically liberal agenda to emerge from the Democrat Party since Carter.

It amazes me that anyone could, with a straight face, assert that America remains a racist nation...yet we hear it from those on the left all of the time; usually when they are not getting their way.

The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the entire world, is a black man. He was not appointed; he was elected by the very people in this nation liberals are now attempting to portray as a "racist" nation.

No, I am not attempting to assert that Joe Wilson voted for or supported Barack Obama's candidacy, Joe Wilson is a conservative and therefore would never support a socialist liberal in a bid for office...regardless of his race. I am asserting that we who oppose Barack Obama and his agenda do so because it is bad for all Americans of whatever color.

Former President Jimmy Carter,
the single most incompetent man ever to hold that office in the history of the United States, the man who during the 2008 Democrat Primary described then Candidate Obama as "this black boy:"

This Jimmy Carter has now injected himself into the discussion by calling not just Joe Wilson, but all white Americans, especially those of us in the South, racists.

I am pointing out the cynical use of the claim of racism by those on the left. The cover of Newsweek Magazine this week features a white baby with the question, "Is Your Baby Racist?" Democrat political hack and MSNBC contributor Lawrence O'Donnell has declared that all opposition to Obama's plan is based in racism (he also implied that Congressman Joe Wilson was drunk).

Those who assert that those who are protesting Obama Care or Congress Care are racists who oppose his agenda because he is black are, in fact, the true racists. It is they whose opinions are informed not by the ideology of the individual targeted by those protests, but by his race...opponents oppose Obama not because he is a left-wing extremist, but because he is black...their collective focus on President Obama's race is racism.

The assertion by these people is reflective of their own deeply held racist beliefs. These people who are declaring Obama's opponents "racist" are the same people who assert that black and Latino students are incapable of competing in school unless they are given extra help in the way of quotas and bonus points on exams. These are the same people who believe that no African American is capable of competing without the assistance of some government bureaucrat instituting an affirmative action program.

They don't ever see minorities as equal to the task, they see them as weak and handicapped, ever in need of some liberal's condescension and help to get anywhere in life.

President Bush had it pegged exactly right when he described what ails our education system as "The soft bigotry of low expectations." The people who have those low expectations of minorities are these same liberal Democrats.

They are the people who see all working class people, not just minorities, as their "White man's burden."

Let me tell you something, when I want to hear from Jimmy "Malaise" Carter, I'll give him a call. He is undoubtedly the least intelligent, most superficial and incompetent man ever to achieve rank above his capability.

Remember what he gave us, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates. That is a man to whom Democrats turn to inform them on the plight of Americans?

You've got to be kidding me.

Barack Obama is a bad president not because of his race, but because of his Marxist political philosophy and his hatred of all of the things which make and have made America the great nation it is.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, August 7, 2009

Democrats Block G.O.P. Move on Rangel (Continue to Support Corruption)

Will Malven

Well it looks like Democrats still believe corruption can only occur it the perpetrator is a Republican. For the third time, Democrats have blocked any move by Republicans to have Charlie Rangel (D-NY) removed as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee...how about that folks? We have one of the biggest of the Democrat tax cheats heading up the committee in charge of taxing American citizens... the chief tax-cheat in charge of taxes...and Nancy "Culture of Corruption" Pelosi is four-square behind him (probably because she's worried that she will be investigated next).

Democrats continue to set the bar for corruption at levels Republicans could only dream of achieving.

The New York Times has this take on it (link in the title):

"Democrats Block G.O.P. Move on Rangel
By Carl Hulse

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Wednesday blocked a Republican effort to force Representative Charles B. Rangel from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee and instead referred the demand to the panel already investigating the New York Democrat.

As expected, the House voted 246 to 153 to essentially table the call for Mr. Rangel’s ouster by turning it over to the ethics committee. Representative John Carter, Republican of Texas, had sought Mr. Rangel’s removal in a resolution that said national attention to a series of financial lapses by the chairman of the tax-writing committee has “held the House up to public ridicule.”

Under rules governing consideration of such resolutions in the House, there was no debate on the proposal. But Democrats and a few Republicans said the House should take no action until the ethics panel reached a conclusion on Mr. Rangel’s belated disclosure of significant personal assets and initial failure to pay taxes on some income.

Mr. Rangel sat in the front row of the House chamber as the nine-page resolution recounting news stories and editorials on his financial miscues was read twice in full – a process that consumed about 30 minutes.”

Rangel recently amended his House financial disclosure forms to show $650,000 in previously undisclosed assets and he "forgot" about a $250,000 checking account. How? How is this in any way a credible lie to anyone other than an apologist for corrupt members of the Democrat Party?

This guy is one of those liberals who has never seen a tax hike bill he didn't like. He has advocated for usurious tax rates on "the rich" for pretty much his entire career, yet when called upon to pay his own taxes, he (conveniently) forgot $650,000 of income.

Now I don't know about you, but it would be pretty much impossible for me to forget almost three-quarters of a million dollars in income…especially if I was a United States Representative whose salary was $174,000/year. How do you forget what is essentially four times you annual salary in additional income?

Rangel has always been a clown (okay, I know...the entire Democrat Party leadership is composed of clowns and none funnier-or scarier-than Madame Speaker) and now we know that he is a very, very corrupt clown. So, the $650,000 question is (drum roll please) where is Nancy "Culture of Corruption" Pelosi on this? Pelosi issued a statement
proclaiming on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 that she was going to fight corruption:

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history,” Pelosi said. “The American people have been paying the cost for the Republican culture of corruption with a confusing, special-interest Medicare prescription drug program, higher gas prices at the pump, and skyrocketing home heating bills. Democrats will restore truth and trust to our government, and put the priorities of the American people first.”

Why is this woman, who declared war on governmental corruption, now keeping silent? Apparently keeping Charlie Rangel as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is part of her and her fellow Democrats putting "the priorities of the American people first."

Since January of this year, this has been the most corrupt, profligate, irresponsible, incompetent, and unaccomplished Congress and President in our nation's history.

With these continuing revelations about Rangel and the problems of Obama's cabinet nominee-tax cheats, Geitner, Daschle, Killifer, and Solis, is there anyone in the Democrat Party Leadership that isn't a tax cheat?

Given the tax difficulties of President Obama’s choices for members of his cabinet, it begs the question: Are all of President Obama's Czars tax cheats as well?

Is the reason he has chosen to use czars rather than filling the cabinet positions that remain open that czars are not vetted by Congress and therefore nothing is known about their tax records (or other aspects of their lives as well)?

Those are the questions that need asking...and answering.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment (Cornyn on the Attack)

Will Malven

More kudos for my senator, John Cornyn!!!

It appears that Senator Cornyn is as outraged as are most of us that the White House is calling for their operatives to snitch on every e-mail and blog that they deem "fishy" or that attacks Obama (doesn't)Care "unfairly."

ABC News - The Note reports that Senator Cornyn sent a letter to the White House calling for the suspension of that spying activity, saying:
“I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.”

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program -- and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.”

BAM! There it is folks, how's that for a "back in your face" Obama. No doubt at all what sort of hyperventilating by the MSM and Democrats had any Republican president, but especially President Bush 43, had created such a program.

Senator Cornyn ends his letter with a flourish by asking (quoting the article again)

"whether those who quote the president’s past statements -- such as his 2003 statement that he was a “proponent” of single-payer care -- qualifies as “disinformation.” He also asks what actions the White House would take against those engaging in “fishy” speech. [Emphasis added]

It is clear that at least one Republican Senator is concerned about Obama's desire to create an American version of the East German Stasi.

Hey Mr. President how about this?

5 U.S.C. § 552a,

United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall:

“maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”

Think maybe this entire program is a violation of the law, Mr. President? Can someone say "Impeachable offense?"

Setting Americans to spy upon each other, setting NGO's closely affiliated with the President and the Democrat Party to spy on the American people...this must be considered close to a high crime or misdemeanor.

This isn't some program intended for the protection of Americans from terrorists like President Bush's so-called spying, this is spying on the American people for political opportunism. Time to pull the plug on the Obama (mis)Administration before he declares martial law.

Thank you Senator Cornyn for watching our backs. Keep it up, you are regaining our confidence and support.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

Will Malven

Once again we see that Democrats in Congress will go to any lengths to prevent the truth from getting out about the Obama-care health care bill now in Congress. Proof once more that Democrats care nothing about the American people or solving their problems, they care only about controlling us.

Roll Call has the low-down on these devils and their efforts to keep the voters out of the loop:

Democrats don't want you to see it because it shows just how screwed up the health care plan really is. It is a bureaucratic nightmare of huge proportions.
July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff

Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.

The dispute centers on a chart
created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
The flow chart resembles a game board designed up by some crazed, uninformed, Liberal politician (which of course it was) with a maze of arrows and colored blocks, each of which represents some bureaucratic hurdle consumers must overcome before they receive treatment.

I doubt very seriously the famous cartoonist Rube Goldberg could have designed anything more complicated...or ridiculous.

Governmental interference caused the current financial crisis and Democrats are attempting to solve the problem with governmental interference.

Governmental interference caused the health care crisis and true to form, Democrats are hide bound to "solve" it with...you guessed it...more governmental interference.

Here's a clue to you Democrats out there. No matter how much you wish it were so, the federal government has never accomplished anything better, more efficiently, or cheaper than private enterprise...NEVER!!!

Given that undeniable fact; proven over and over again, why on Earth would anyone look to our federal bureaucracy to solve a problem as complex, far reaching, and intrusive on the individual's privacy as health care?

One can only surmise that it derives from profound and over-arching stupidity. Certainly there appears to be enough of it to go around within the Democrat Party; beginning with our current president and the majority leaders in both houses of Congress.

Well, I'm doing my little part to get the message out to Republicans and all American citizens. With the web and all of the alternate news sources it has, Democrats will fail in this effort to censor Republicans in Congress and once more prove that they oppose the free flow of information of value to their own constituents.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!