Wednesday, June 29, 2011

God & Country

BANNED in public schools

 By Lloyd Marcus  Wednesday, June 29, 2011 

Remember the hit song by Marvin Gaye, “What’s Going On”? Patriots, what the heck is going on with U.S. public schools and our kids? There is a deliberate effort to diminish our children’s respect for God, country, freedom, liberty and our culture. The schools are BANNING, in essence, Christianity, patriotism and individualism.

Just a few examples:
U.S. Open, NBC cuts ‘Under God’ from Pledge of Allegiance
American Flag Art Banned in classroom
Bible Banned From School
Teens Banned From High School Graduation for Wearing Military Sash
High school Valedictorian, Banned from saying “How God changed my life” in his speech.

Meanwhile, celebrating Gay and Lesbian Pride Day is considered an important part of the public school curriculum.  (This video will blow you away!)

While I can not confirm how wide spread, I do know many public schools are filling our kids’ minds with a belief system opposite of their parents. The public schools’ “Operation Dumb Them Down” is step one in preparing our children to drink their socialist/globalist kool-aid.

Karen Schoen, a former teacher wrote…
“In the 60-70’s The Anti-War, Anti America, anti-family, anti-religion youth were prompted into the teaching profession as a way to beat the draft. Teaching was a draft exempt profession.

We (myself included) learned the works of Marx and Dewey and how to get this message to our students.
We were taught to lie, use psychology, break down the family, separate children, promote the environment, and treat boredom with drugs.

We were taught to use subliminal messaging to instill ideas not factual information, this is called indoctrination.

We were also taught divide and conquer techniques and to discuss class warfare pitting one group against the other. (Obama is a master at this technique. He demon-izes achievers.)

I taught the worst classes in Brooklyn with over 35 kids in a class and my students sat on the stage to get honors at graduation.

It is the curriculum, that is the only problem. I fought my principal about the failing of this new curriculum until I had to leave.

Reading, math, writing, critical thinking, logic, reason and factual information has been stripped out of our schools.

Factual information regarding American history, civics, economics, nationalism, family values, religion are no longer found in schools.

Cognitive thinking through consensus is now the norm.
The goal is dumb students=dumb citizens = dumb legislators who will pass horrific bills without reading them.

As you know the poor and minorities will be the biggest losers as generation upon generation will be nothing more than indentured servants working for crumbs doled out to them by the government through continued generations of people on entitlements. People are taught to be entitled and accept their minimal slot in life. (Witnessing the devastated lives and early deaths of several of my relatives, I can testify about the tragic consequences of government replacing daddy in the black family.)

It is no surprise there is no outrage on the debt, these schools are teaching that the more debt you have the more prominent you are…”

Parroting Marvin Gaye, I ask, “What’s going on”? Answer: the public school agenda is to steal generations of our children turning them into useful idiots. They promote socialist programs, social justice, world citizenship and destroying any concept of American as a sovereign nation. In a nutshell, they’re going after our kids, folks! They must be stopped.

Again, I thank God for TEA For Education, a non-profit. Here are excerpts from their Mission Statement.
“The mission of Tea for Education is to fundamentally change public education in America.

The ultimate goal of Tea for Education is to re-direct the focus of the public education system in America away from the leadership of the teachers unions and government bureaucracy and toward a free market in education that is structured to benefit the children first.”

Yes, That’s what I am talking about! Patriots, we must rally around these good guys and support them. If you feel lead, get involved.

What is going on in our schools is un-American and evil.
Contact info for TEA for Education
Bruce Gardner Beverly Elliott
828-506-5007 828-400-5556

“The only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Taking back America includes taking back our kids.



Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Does the Constitution matter?

July 4th

The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.

Not only did July 4, 1776 mark American independence from England, it marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time -- and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.

The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the King of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called "the shot heard round the world."

Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot -- and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.

Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been "exceptional." You couldn't be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document -- the Constitution of the United States -- by opening with the momentous words, "We the people..."

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way -- and that includes many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs -- find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven't really changed much in a hundred years.

The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution: "Does it still matter?"

A long and rambling essay by Time magazine's managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution "did not know about" all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, "When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone,"

In Mr. Stengel's rehash of this argument, he declares: "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today."

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular "events" or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government -- and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel -- Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, "You could look it up."

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn't, then your Freedom doesn't matter.

Federal Judge Decides Life Begins at Conception:

Planned Parenthood’s Request Denied

By Christian Newswire  Monday, June 27, 2011
CHICAGO,—This past Friday, Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, says this is a victory for Life: “We are pleased that Judge Pratt has upheld the concept that life begins at conception.”

Last month, the Thomas More Society filed a “friend of the Court” brief (available here) for Indiana legislators in defense of Indiana’s law that denied state funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and mandated that abortion providers inform women that “human physical life” begins with fertilization. Indiana is the first state to attempt to defund abortion providers.

“While this is a significant partial victory for Life, we will press on to ensure that the full law will go into effect to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana,” Brejcha said. “We stand ready to defend Life in other states as they plan to defund Planned Parenthood and require doctors to tell women that life begins at conception.”

I personally have always believed that life begins when the heart begins to beat, which if I remember correctly is around 2 ½ weeks after conception.  I realize that in this case, it isn’t of any real significance because a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant until after that point.

However, it is a very significant point in the case of stem cell research.

I also believe the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.


Are they giving us the whole story?

The main stream propaganda machine seems to be keeping the lid on a disturbing situation in Nebraska for some reason.

Monday, June 27, 2011



By Michael Oberndorf, RPA  Sunday, June 26, 2011
A little noticed story in the Washington Times last week should scare the heck out of real Americans. George Soros, whose name should now be pretty familiar to most conservatives, is involved in a far-left scheme to elect Secretaries of State, gaining control of election machinery and thus, the outcome of elections.

As many have learned, Soros is an unrepentant, apparently sociopathic fascist, who got his training from the Nazis during WWII, confiscating the property of fellow Jews who had been shipped off to the death camps. He is also the man who made billions manipulating currencies and wrecking the Malaysian and British economies. Soros is a major source of money behind a number of radical leftist outfits, like, the Center for American Progress, the now defunct, but reorganizing ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation, Huffington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderbergs.

The group in question here is the Secretaries of State Project (SSOP), formed in 2006, supposedly to “to stop Republicans from ‘manipulating’ election results.” Over the years, it has become clear that when the left accuses conservatives or Republicans of something, it is a sleight of hand move to cover up the fact that it is they, the left, who are doing that very thing.

They have been far too successful with this strategy, having won 11 of 18 elections, including Nevada, Minnesota, and Ohio. All three states have had recent elections where fraud was obvious, or highly likely. In Nevada, Sharon Angle was slightly ahead of Harry Reid in the polls just before the election, but was defeated by an impossibly large margin, most likely, from the votes of illegal aliens. Al Franken kept “finding” uncounted ballots that, miraculously, were all for him, and accepted by the Secretary of State. In Ohio, voter fraud was described as “massive” and pooh-poohed by the Secretary of State. Nothing to see here, folks. Let’s just move along, now.

SSOP is anything but a grassroots, ordinary American, represent the working class organization. To give you an idea of who is behind SSOP, along with billionaire Soros, donors include furniture company heir John R. Hunting; computer company executive Paul Rudd; medical-supply firm heiress Pat Stryker; venture capitalist Nicholas Hanauer; ex-Clinton administration official Rob Stein; Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike; real estate developer Robert Bowditch; charitable foundation co-chairman Scott Wallace; clothing executive Susie Tompkins Buell; real estate developer Albert Dwoskin; child psychologist Gail Furman, also chairman of the Furman Foundation, a major donor to extreme “progressive” organizations; and Taco Bell heir Rob McKay.

But wait. These are the Big Rich. Many have inherited their wealth. How can they be “progressives?”
Could it be that “progressive” is a euphemism for “fascist?” Indeed it could.

The point here is that these enemies of freedom are extremely well funded and have systematically been working at undermining our election system for at least five years, while we have trustingly slept. It is a simple fact that the Republican leadership seems to have been incompetently unaware of all this. Until the Washington Times article, I had never heard of SSOP, nor knew how successful they have been. I hope the Republican leadership was as ignorant as I. If they were not, and knew all of this, then their negligence in informing the party rank-and-file suggests complicity verging on the criminal.

We are way behind in getting where we need to be to ensure that the 2012 election is not completely stolen by the inventers of election fraud. The Tea Parties are our best, and perhaps only, hope to play organizing catch-up. States with Democrat Secretaries of State need to have Tea Party committees that demand and get election monitoring and oversight abilities as soon as possible. In addition, every state that has a Secretary of State who oversees elections needs to make placing a conservative in this office its top priority. Great candidates for the other offices cannot win if the elections are all rigged.

We are no longer the America that could point a righteous, accusing finger at the phony elections of banana republics, and communist and fascist dictatorships. That all changed with Democrat Lyndon Johnson and his incredibly corrupt Great Society welfare state. The once anti-communist labor unions who have been the base of the Democrat political machine, are now, like Marxist Obama-Soetoro’s personal favorite, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), openly pro-communist. Corruption and fraud rule on the left. 

We must act swiftly, fearlessly, and decisively. To hesitate is to be lost.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Hugo Chavez in Critical Condition

After Surgery in Cuba

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is reportedly in critical condition after undergoing surgery in Havana, Cuba, unnamed U.S. intelligence sources told the El Nuevo Herald.

Chavez is “in critical condition, not grave, but critical, complicated,” the source told the newspaper; the Spanish-language, sister publication of the
Miami Herald.
Nobody has heard Chavez speak since he talked by telephone with Venezuelan state television on June 12, saying he was quickly recovering from the surgery two days earlier.

The only glimpse of Chavez came when the Cuban government released photos of the Venezuelan leader at the hospital with Fidel Castro and Cuban President Raul Castro on June 17.

Venezuelan Vice President Elias Jaua said Chavez is attending to his day-to-day government duties while recuperating.

Venezuelans are accustomed to near daily speeches and television appearances by Chavez that can last several hours, even when he's traveling abroad.

Not to worry, they have government healthcare.

Saturday, June 25, 2011


There is real history — and then there is perceived history.      
All too often, the two are wildly different. 

In 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Marxist named Oswald, who had previously defected to the Soviet Union and then returned to the U.S. with a Soviet wife. He was an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and had attempted to assassinate a right-wing general named Edwin Walker earlier in the year.

But, the liberals who write the history books found these facts inconvenient, so they created a very different version in which the "atmosphere of hate" in of Dallas Texas, led to the terrible political violence.  In other words, it was right-wing extremist that assassinated John F. Kennedy. This perceived history was recycled as recently as the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  ABC's Christiane Amanpour, interviewing Jean Kennedy Smith, noted that the Kennedy assassination was "eerily relevant" and asked Kennedy to evaluate the "political atmosphere" in the country today.

During the Viet Nam war protest years, American liberals began to consider anti-communism a kind of prejudice or mental disorder.  Hostility to communism was akin to racism, sexism and other character flaws.  Reagan's description of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" convinced liberals that Reagan was a dangerous buffoon. Yet starting in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, liberals began to find their anti-anti-communism embarrassing. And so they created a perceived history — one in which the Cold War was a time of consensus, a time when, as former Sen. Bill Bradley put it, "We knew where we stood on foreign policy."

More recently we've witnessed the creation of new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008.  The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street greed.  It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted.  And they codified their manufactured history in a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, which completely avoided the true problem.

One of the most liberal biased newspapers on the planet is the New York Times, but apparently some of their reporters are not as far left as the rag they work for.  I say this because a great account of the financial crisis "Reckless Endangerment," has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

The story centers around James Johnson, a Democrat with a raft of prestigious connections who was an adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry.  He was appointed as chief executive of Fannie Mae in 1991, and started an aggressive effort to expand homeownership.

Back then, Fannie Mae could raise money at low interest rates because the federal government implicitly guaranteed its debt.  In 1995, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this implied guarantee netted the agency $7 billion.  Instead of using that money to help buyers, Johnson and other executives kept $2.1 billion for themselves and their shareholders.  They used it to further the cause — expanding their clout, their salaries and their bonuses.  They did the things that every special-interest group does to advance its interests.

Fannie Mae co-opted relevant activist groups, handing out money to Acorn, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other groups that it might need on its side.

Fannie ginned up lobbying campaigns, for example, in 2000, a bill was introduced that threatened Fannie’s special status.  The Coalition for Homeownership was formed and letters poured into Congressional offices opposing the bill.  Many signatories of the letter had no idea their names had been used.

Fannie lavished campaign contributions on members of Congress.  Time and again experts would go before some Congressional committee to warn that Fannie was lowering borrowing standards and posing an enormous risk to taxpayers.  Phalanxes of congressmen would be mobilized to bludgeon the experts and kill unfriendly legislation.

Fannie executives ginned up academic studies.  They created a foundation that spent tens of millions in advertising.  They spent enormous amounts of time and money capturing the regulators who were supposed to police them.

Johnson made $100 million while supposedly helping the poor. Representative Barney Frank, whose partner at the time worked for Fannie, was arrogantly dismissive when anybody raised doubts about the stability of the whole arrangement.  With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were all Democrats claiming to do good for the poor.  Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one suffered more than the poor.

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank's partner).

"Reckless Endangerment" includes the Clinton administration's contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead "in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with ... the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts."

"Reckless Endangerment" utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not "unregulated capitalism" — that led the economy to disaster.

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. — Winston Churchill

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Looking For The Union Label


Seems like they’re all alike.


White House Executive Order on Rural Council

 By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh  Thursday, June 23, 2011
On June 9, 2011, few people paid attention to the Executive Order establishing the White House Rural Council. It was several days before people started inquiring, prompted by a few articles on Agenda 21, including mine.

This piece of legislation from the Oval Office establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population.

Section 1, Policy states, “Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead.”

There is no definition what rural America is. In fact, there are no definitions in this Executive Order at all. I emphasized the word “sustainable” because it is part of the “sustainable growth” plan of United Nation’s Agenda 21. Think of “sustainable” as what is acceptable to the federal government.

Why do we need a rural program? Is this not the ultimate trap to force us into Agenda 21 compliance of One World Government? All rural communities already have education, local laws, state laws, hospitals, and an enviable quality of life.
This order is taking control over our existing executive bodies in the state and local governments. They will do so through federal grants with strings attached, enticing struggling farmers to accepting them as a short-term solution, thus entrapping them into future abdication of property, water, and agricultural land use. The feds are not helping them, they are stepping in to enslave. The government never gives “something for nothing.”

The order promises to “expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.” The feds have already curtailed access to water use and public lands in many states through EPA regulations or appropriation of land such as in California and Utah. The fact that they are planning to expand land use for recreation is a joke in itself.

The feds will control local governments through supplemental grants that will be hard to reject in times when revenues are dwindling and budgets are falling short of local needs. Local governments will no longer be able to voice opinions and concerns and citizen grievances will be ignored.

Local governments will no longer be able to set policies without feds approval. Cap and trade implementation will be forced in rural areas and nobody will be able to stop it. Land use, public planning, and food production will be regulated by unelected federal bureaucrats who will set quotas of food production, water use, energy use, and land use. Based on my experience and history, central government planning has terrible consequences, causing shortages, disruptions, famine, and even death.

There will be more federal jobs, more political appointees, no elected representatives, at a time when we are broke, cannot afford, and should not borrow more money from China at the rate of 41 cents for every dollar spent.

Agenda 21 is the program of One World Government to de-grow our economy by controlling every aspect of what we do and how we live. In their view, we deserve to be punished for having polluted the globe through our expansionist economic policies that have kept third world countries backwards. No mention is ever made of the corrupt presidents that rule these third world countries who are responsible for the sorry economic state of their respective dictatorships.

No less than 25 federal agencies are charged with total control of rural life:
  • Department of the Treasury,
  • Department of Defense,
  • Department of Justice,
  • Department of the Interior,
  • Department of Commerce,
  • Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services,
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development,
  • Department of Transportation,
  • Department of Energy,
  • Department of Education,
  • Department of Veterans Affairs,
  • Department of Homeland Security,
  • Environmental Protection Agency,
  • Federal Communications Commission,
  • the Office of Management and Budget,
  • the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
  • the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
  • the Council of Economic Advisors, the Domestic Policy Council,
  • the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration,
  • the Council on Environmental Quality,
  • the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs,
  • and the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs
Why is the Homeland Security Department involved in rural planning and land use? Should they be when they have no oversight, they can do as they please. They answer to Sen. Joe Lieberman only who then reports to the president.

The Domestic Policy Council and National Economic Council will coordinate this executive order. Why do we need to control 16% of the population that lives in rural areas? Because rural Americans still have control over resources, over our food supply, and they are resistant to globalization. Whoever controls the food supply controls the population.

Once rural areas are controlled by the fed, there will be no resistance, and rural life as we know it, will no longer exist. They will target certain regions, town by town, through ICLEI, until we are compliant with Agenda 21 goals, which are to stop energy development, energy use, land use, and conservation of all resources to the point of de-growth, a type of total population control. Once we are enslaved, there will be no mitigated resistance.

Global government is real, it is here, and we are ignoring the signs, the rules, regulations, appointments

The government will work under false pretenses, using Homeland Security with its unlimited power and resources and other departments, through school districts, grants, agricultural associations, farm banks, police, and other local organizations.

Global government is real, it is here, and we are ignoring the signs, the rules, regulations, appointments, Patriot Act, executive orders, and the newly created councils. We no longer have three branches of government, a two party system, checks and balances, the rule of law, justice, or a Constitution that is followed.


Wednesday, June 22, 2011

A Runaway Agency

From The National Review

The Obama administration’s takeover of the health-insurance system stands out in many Americans’ minds as the distillation of its radicalism, but even more remarkable is its radicalization of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), part of its tireless campaign to aggrandize the cartels known as labor unions. Now the NLRB plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will.

Obama’s NLRB is contemplating new union-election rules that would give employers less time to organize a countercampaign. There is absolutely no reason for doing so other than to weaken the employers’ position. Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose. Under the fast-track votes contemplated by the new NLRB guidelines, that time would be reduced to less than three weeks, possibly as little as ten days. You’ll notice that it is only the employers who face a time limitation: The unions may spend as much time as they choose organizing their campaign before filing the petition for a vote. In some cases, employers have no idea that their workforces are being organized for unionization until that petition is filed, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. And even if they know that union organizers are approaching their workers, employers already face significant restrictions on how they respond.

As usual, employers’ property would be commandeered, and businesses would be required to share records, electronic files, contact databases, etc., with their antagonists. (Of course there is no reciprocal obligation on the unions.) In addition, employers’ right to use legal and procedural channels to resist unionization of their workforces would be reduced.

This is every bit as crucial to the unions as was the “card check” proposal, which would have abolished secret-ballot voting in union elections, allowing union organizers to intimidate dissenters. It may prove even more effective a tool for amplifying the unions’ power. On top of this, the Specialty Healthcare case, currently under review by the NLRB, could change the union-election rules by rewriting the definition of a “collective-bargaining unit.” Current rules define those bargaining units as enterprises or major divisions of enterprises; the changes being contemplated would allow any two workers who hold the same job to conduct a union-organizing vote on their own, empowering the unions to cherry-pick sympathetic workers and take over a workplace piecemeal.

Such anti-democratic initiatives are dear to the heart of America’s union bosses, whose power is declining along with union membership, as is the income they derive from forced union dues. Their numbers are declining because they have been extraordinarily successful in organizing capital-intensive industries such as steel and automobile manufacturing, and then destroying them, driving jobs and investment overseas to more investment-friendly climes. (And “investment-friendly” does not mean “low wage”; does Nagoya look poorer than Detroit to you?)

None of this should be surprising. When President Obama installed labor radical Craig Becker, formerly the top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (a key Obama ally), at the NLRB, it was obvious that the administration intended to fundamentally reshape our labor laws — without ever holding a vote in Congress. Taken alongside such abuses as targeting Boeing for having the audacity to expand its operations in a right-to-work state, the NLRB is the very picture of a runaway agency pursing a narrow, partisan political policy rather than any legitimate public mandate. The increasing radicalization of the NLRB invites a proportional response — a national right-to-work law would be an appropriate remedy. In any case, the Republicans’ 2012 nominee and congressional candidates should remind Americans daily what the Obama administration has attempted to foist upon American employers and the means he has used.

Boosting unions & killing jobs

From The New York Post 

Here's a truth-in-advertising warning to foreign investors about this week's glossy White House sales pitch: Even as President Obama promises he's "taking steps to ensure that we remain the destination of choice for investors," his National Labor Relations Board is putting the screws to America's employers.

The most obvious example is the NLRB's ham-fisted attack on aircraft-manufacturer Boeing. Arguing that the company moved production of some of its Dreamliner jets to right-to-work South Carolina from Washington state in order to punish a union, the board ordered Boeing to close its new South Carolina plant and do the work back in Washington.

Obama insists he wants government to "partner with the private sector" to create jobs, but the NLRB's action will have the opposite effect. Indeed, it could cost 1,000 existing Boeing jobs in South Carolina, and eliminate still more jobs that would've been created once the new production line was fully up and running.
Add in the chilling effect: Any businesses looking to expand will have to worry that the heavy hand of the NLRB could come down on them should they shift work to one of the 22 right-to-work states.

Bill Gould, who served on the NLRB during the Clinton administration and agrees with much of what the NLRB is doing these days, has called the Boeing challenge "unprecedented."

But the Obama NLRB has clearly signaled that it puts the interests of Big Labor ahead of everything else, including its proper role as neutral enforcer of the nation's labor laws. Examples from just this year:

* The board is pushing to give unions the right to enter a workplace even if their intent is to harass customers and employees. The NLRB says companies shouldn't be allowed to treat union officials any differently than they do charitable organizations they let on their premises, such as the Girl Scouts or the Red Cross.

* It wants to force employers to post pro-organizing notices in about 6 million workplaces, most of which aren't unionized, under the guise of informing workers about the National Labor Relations Act. But the posters wouldn't inform these workers about aspects of the law the unions don't like -- such as the right to vote out a union or withhold union dues spent on politics.

* The board is moving ahead with lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota over provisions in their state constitutions -- enacted through ballot initiatives last fall -- that require secret ballots for union-organizing votes. Labor unions, in an effort to expand their ranks, have been pushing hard for the opposite -- a "card check" system that would let them know who has and hasn't voted to organize. The NLRB's lawsuit conveniently fits into this effort.

* The NLRB is also pushing to let unions cherry-pick groups of workers within a company to organize, without giving those who oppose the union the opportunity to vote, changing an established definition of a "bargaining unit" that has been in place for more than 50 years. The result would be a costly, chaotic mess for businesses trying to juggle multiple unions and different sets of work rules, benefits and wage rates.

* The board is now pushing through rules that eliminate key checks and balances from the process by which a workplace can be unionized -- in the name of speeding things up, it's upending decades of precedent to make it easier for unions to force themselves on workers, who will have less information.

In all this, Obama shares full responsibility. He not only appointed the NLRB's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, he did an end-run around Congress by using a "recess appointment" to put Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, on the board over bipartisan objections.

In this year's State of the Union speech, the president said that to "win the future," the country has to "make America the best place on Earth to do business." If he really wants to achieve that, he must tell the people he's appointed to run the National Labor Relations Board: Arbitrary, costly and unfair enforcement of labor laws isn't the way to win the future or attract foreign investment.


South Carolina Worker Sues Federal Government

Over Possible Loss of His Job

I hope and pray he wins in court.

 - Warner Todd Huston  Monday, June 20, 2011
Barack Obama’s interference in the business operations of Boeing new Dreamliner manufacturing project will likely cause thousands of workers in South Carolina to lose their jobs. Because of this, one Palmetto State worker is suing the federal government for its part in his probable future job loss.

This is a story about Obama’s status as the top bought-and-paid-for union hack in the country and how he is attempting to use his powers to wield regulations as a tool to punish an American business for wanting to open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina all because the president feels that a union will be hurt in the process of the creation of thousands of new jobs.

As it happens, airplane manufacturer Boeing wants to open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina for its new Dreamliner plane because the manufacturer had been having so many union-caused troubles in its Washington State plant.

Once the workers in South Carolina found out that Boeing intended to open a new plant in their state they held a meeting and decided to boot out the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union so as to make their fellow workers even more attractive to Boeing to entice the venture to completion in South Carolina. These workers knew that the union would hamper the efforts to create new jobs for South Carolinians.

This caused the union to run to its bought-and-paid-for commander in chief in Washington D.C. To help the union, Obama directed his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to inform Boeing that it would not be allowed to build its new business in South Carolina simply because the IAM had lost its power over the workers there.

As a result of this unprecedented interference by a federal regulatory body under the thumb of the most anti-business president in American history, the National Right to Work Foundation’s attorneys have filed suit for Boeing employee Dennis Murray, the man who led the effort to toss oust the machinist’s union in his Charleston plant.

For his part, Obama and his NLRB have been claiming that Boeing’s new plant in South Carolina would cost the country thousands of jobs. But this Friday, National Labor Relations Board’s acting general counsel Lafe Solomon could not provide a House Oversight Committee hearing any proof that there would be any job loss.

What is clear here is that the federal government had no facts at its disposal to base its action against Boeing on in the first place. The NLRB moved forward on its action with no facts and no solid finds but only with a base assumption it made no effort to confirm beforehand. Obama’s NLRB went forward with only one goal: giving unions a payoff. And remembering that unions paid Obama millions during his political career, the whole thing smacks of quid pro quo and not legitimate government interests.



Tuesday, June 21, 2011


Why More Troops at Korean Border Than U.S. Border?
Monday, June 20, 2011

 ( – Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu said the Obama administration’s decision to extend the deployment of 1,200 U.S. National Guard troops along the U.S. border with Mexico until Sept. 30 is “pandering” and that those numbers “fall far short” of what military power is needed to keep the country safe.

Babeu noted, for comparison, the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to help defend it against North Korean aggression; U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea for 58 years.

Babeu is the sheriff of Pinal County in southern Arizona and is on the frontlines against illegal immigration, human traffickers, drug smugglers, and potential terrorists. He was named the 2011 National Sheriff of the Year by the National Sheriff’s Association on Sunday, June 19.

“What are we doing?” Babeu told by telephone. “We need 6,000 armed soldiers on our border to protect America. Homeland Security starts at home.” He was talking about the National Guard.

Babeu said that only 520 guardsmen are deployed in Arizona, a state with a 276-mile border with Mexico and the state that has, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the greatest influx of illegal aliens. In 2010, approximately 212,000 illegal aliens were seized in the Tucson sector of Arizona – or 47 percent of all illegal aliens taken into custody.

“The gravest national security risk that we face is right here with the unsecure border with Mexico,” Babeu said. “Right from the beginning, these 1,200 [National Guard] soldiers fall far short from what’s really, truly needed to achieve a secure border.”

Babeu said that 6,000 troops should be deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border: 3,000 in Arizona and 1,000 in each of the three other border states for a two-year period.

Babeu also said it was “tremendous” to have received the Sheriff of the Year award, which he said he accepted on behalf of the 700 men and women who work with him, the citizens of Arizona and for the state. Babeu added that he believed the work law enforcement is doing in Arizona also played a role.

“I think it has everything to do with us standing up for America, standing up for the rule of law and not being shouted down by the president and his men trying to make like somehow we’re being un-American for enforcing the law and wanting a secure border,” Babeu said.

He said he thinks President Barack Obama has made race the issue instead of fulfilling his job of protecting the American people by enforcing immigration laws.

“It’s not about race, color or national origin,” Babeu said. “It’s about enforcing the law, Mr. President. That’s our job.”

The White House announced last week that it would extend the deployment for the 1,200 National Guard troops for three more months.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Environmentalists Destroy Marine Environment

The most prolific marine ecosystem on earth is being systematically destroyed on orders of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior

By Humberto Fontova  Monday, June 20, 2011
The most prolific marine ecosystem on earth is being systematically destroyed on orders of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Where the BP oil spill failed miserably, Obama’s Dept. of the Interior now triumphs.

First came the “moratorium” on Gulf drilling. “That’s kicking a man when he’s already down,” said former offshore oil worker (and current country music superstar) Trace Adkins last May in an interview with CNN. The Obama administration itself admits to 8-12,000 job losses in Louisiana from the moratorium. But Louisiana now has 25,000 more unemployed than before the moratorium, which continues de-facto in the form of stonewalling and lollygagging on issuing new drilling permits. So that “man” is still down and reeling from Federal kicks.

Another kick came last September in the form of a Federal “Notice to Lessees.” “As part of our sustained effort to improve the safety of energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf and strengthen environmental protections,” decreed U.S. Dept. of Interior Sec. Ken Salazar last September 15th,We are notifying offshore operators of their legal responsibility to decommission and dismantle their facilities when production is completed.”

Dismantling their production platforms could cost oil operators”$6 billion to $18 billion in lost future production,” according to a report by Mark Kaiser and Allan Pulsipher of the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies.

“Boo-hoo-hoo” say some Feds. “Yawwwwn” say others. “Production?” “costs?” “profits?”—come on! Where’s the Federal “Environmental Expert” affected by such stuff!

So let’s try this: the most prolific and “diverse marine ecosystem” ever recorded by marine scientists was created by the “facilities” the U.S. Dept. of the Interior is hell-bent on dismantling (offshore oil platforms.) Acting as artificial reefs over the past half century, the natural beauty, teeming fish life, coral colonies, and “bio-diversity”, created by these structures is amply documented in several studies commissioned by none other than: the U.S. Dept. of the Interior!

One recent report by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Minerals (a division of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior) boasts that: fish densities are 20 to 50 times higher at oil and gas platforms than in nearby Gulf water, and each platform seasonally serves as critical habitat for 10 to 20 thousand fishes.”

In fact, villainous “Big Oil” produces marine life at rates to shame “wondrous” Earth Goddess Gaia “The fish Biomass around an offshore oil platform is ten times greater per unit area than for natural coral reefs,” found Dr. Charles Wilson of LSU’s Dept. of Oceanography and Coastal Science. “Ten to thirty thousand adult fish live around an oil production platform in area half the size of a football field,” For proof click on this video.

An LSU study found that 75 per cent of all offshore fishing trips in Louisiana target these fish- teeming “reefs.” Recreational fishing and diving trips to these “reefs” generate an estimated 5,560 full time jobs and $324 million annually for Louisiana. But Salazar’s decree now forces oil producers to plug 3,500 nonproducing wells and dismantle about 650 platforms by 2020. These represent 800 acres of critical Marine habitat. 80 per cent of these oil production “facilities,” btw, are owned by independent producers rather than “Big Oil,” as in Exxon or BP.

The Feds mandated this dismantling and plugging from the days the very first platforms went up over half a century ago. But production from these wells wasn’t a simple matter of letting it gush until the oil ran out. “Many wells fall idle when extracting the oil becomes unprofitable at a certain price,” explains Don Briggs, President of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association: “plugging wells and tearing down platforms will ultimately lead to the loss of oil from idled wells that would become attractive for further production down the road as the price of energy rises, but not if the companies have to rebuild the infrastructure to tap it.”

“SEE!—SEE!” shriek the greenies. “Big Oil finds—then HIDES all that oil from us—waiting to GOUGE us with even HIGHER gas prices!” Others call it the law of supply and demand. And if it’s “not nice to fool mother mature” history shows it’s even more catastrophic to try and fool markets. Point is, historically, Federal rules proved elastic, even by Federal standards. A modus vivendi had existed where platforms remained standing and wells unplugged until “one year after the lease (by the oil producer from the Feds) expired,” rather than until “production stopped.”

No longer. The Obama Team has cracked the whip. “We have placed the (Oil) industry on notice that they will be held to the highest standards of planning and operations in developing leases,” stressed Sec. Ken Salazar.

Accidently drop your boat anchor over coral off the Florida coast and you’ll be fined up to $25,000 pursuant to Federal Regulations. Catch and keep a Gag Grouper, Amberjack or more than 2 Red Snapper per fishing trip in any U.S. Federal waters and you’ll be fined $600 per fish, pursuant to Federal regulations.

Yet endangered coral in the Gulf of Mexico is being blown up, blow-torched, and winched out of the Gulf by the ton to bleach in scrapyards—as mandated by Federal Regulations. Tons of Red Snapper, Grouper, Amberjack and thousands of other “endangered” or “threatened” fish species are being dynamited in the Gulf of Mexico and left as Shark-chum—as mandated by the same Federal Regulations. Most of these “facilities,” you see, are “dismantled” with explosives detonated around its legs below the Gulf floor. Behold the usual collateral damage here.

“It smells like death here,” said Texas fishing caption Brent Casey about a Gulf coast scrapyard piled with sections of dismantled oil platforms. “I wish you could see these 75-foot piles of metal covered in coral. It’s just insane. Forty years of habitat—gone.”

Not exactly “gone.” After the production of “endangered” fish stops and the “endangered” coral is sandblasted off, the habitat is mostly sold as scrap metal to China, as reported by Davis Sikes of the The Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

So where’s the Greenies on this, you ask?
They’re with the despoilers. “This (Dept of Interior decree) is an important first step in cleaning up what’s become a dumping ground for the offshore oil and gas industry,” said Peter Galvin, of the Center for Biological Diversity. Galvin’s Center, by the way, bemoans the fate of the earth’s coral reefs in particular, and filed a petition with the Feds to place 83 species of corals (including several that thrive on those very offshore oil platforms) on the Endangered Species list. “The world’s corals and coral reef ecosystems—these rainforests of the sea—are in crisis,” wails the Center for Biological Diversity. “In just a few decades all their rich biodiversity could disappear completely.”

“Global Warming,” needless to add, is the culprit according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Marine habitat responsible for this proliferation of (so-called) endangered species from Coral to Gag Grouper is human-made, you see. And as PETA chieftain Ingrid Newkirk observed: “Humans are the biggest blight on the face of the earth!” Earth Goddess Gaia certainly helped the proliferation of marine life in the Gulf of Mexico—but only by piggy-backing on habitat erected by this infernal “blight” known as man. Worse still, this amazing marine habitat was created by the Snideley Whiplash/Darth Vader of Greenie nightmares: Oil companies.

It is time for the new game:

 "Who Said It?"

The rules are simple. I will give you a quote and you have to guess what great American said it. Your three choices are President Barack Obama, former Vice President Dan Quayle, or former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Good Luck!!!!!

1) "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

2) "I've now been in 57 states; I think one left to go."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

3) "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

4) "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about. It it it would cost about the same as what we would spend. It. Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us. (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to. It. It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

5) "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system"

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

6) "I bowled a 129. It's like - it was like the Special Olympics, or something."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

7) "Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

8) "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

9) "It was interesting to see that political interaction in
Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of I don't know what the term is in Austrian wheeling and dealing."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

10) "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin

I'm sorry. This was a trick quiz. All of the correct answers are the same person. Each of these quotes are from Barack Obama. And now you know why he brings his teleprompter with him everywhere he goes...even when talking to a 6th grade class!!!

How many of these quotes did you read about or hear from the mainstream media? Do you think the mainstream media might have given more coverage to these statements had they been made by Sarah Palin?

The leader of the free world was elected because he reads well. The man is an idiot.

Friday, June 17, 2011



Democrat Sex Scandals

I friend of mine who happens to be a Liberal Democrat, made the absurd statement in a recent email, that Republicans have as many sex scandals as Democrats.  Oh yes, I have friends who are liberal, they can’t help the fact that they have been brain-washed.
I put together a quick list on the Democrats.  I avoided all the non-sex type scandals, you know, the ones like Rangle (he has had a bunch) and William (cold cash) Jefferson who hid all that stolen money in his freezer, and SO many more.

So here you are Dave, a short list of Democrat Sex Scandals

1.   John F. Kennedy   Oh yeah, Robert Kennedy was involved in a couple.  It was rumored he even had an affair with Jackie Kennedy.
2.    Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne (1969)
3.    Wayne Hays (1976): Affair with secretary
4.    Allan Howe (1976): Solicited sex with two prostitutes (both of whom were undercover cops)
5.    John Young (1976): Staffer alleged sexual harassment
6.    Fred Richmond (1978): Charged with soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy.
7.    Gerry Studds (1983): Reprimanded for having sex with a male teenage House page
8.    Gary Hart (1988): Affair with model Donna Rice.
9.    Barney Frank (1989): Affair with male prostitute, who also conducted business in Frank's home.
10.    Chuck Robb (1991): Admitted to receiving a nude massage from a former Miss Virginia.
11.    Brock Adams (1992): Eight women accused him of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.
12.    Mel Reynolds (1994): Sexual relationship with 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
13.    Bill Clinton (1998): Affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
15.    Gary Condit (2001): Affair with (murdered) intern Chandra Levy.
16.    Paul Patton (2002): Affair with nursing home operator; when the affair ended the state of Kentucky filed numerous violations against her business.
17.    Bob Wise (2003): Affair with a state government staffer
18.    Jim McGreevey (2004): Resigned as NJ governor after admitting that he is "a gay American"
19.    Neil Goldschmidt (2004): Admitted to having a relationship with a 14-year-old girl in the 1970s.
20.    Roosevelt Dobbins (2005): Congressman from Arkansas, pleaded guilty to fondling a 16-year-old.
21.    Gavin Newsom (2007): Affair with the wife of a top aide.
22.    Antonio Villaraigosa (2007): Affair with a television reporter.
23.    Tim Mahoney (2008): Admitted to multiple affairs.
24.    Eliot Spitzer (2008): Involved in prostitution scandal.
25.    Paul Morrison (2008): Affair with administrative staffer while Attorney General of Kansas, pressured her to reveal information about Kansas D.A.
26.    Marc Dann (2008): Attorney General of Ohio had an affair with a staffer.
27.    David Paterson (2008): Admitted that both he and his wife had extramarital affairs
28.    John Edwards (2008): Had an affair with a campaign employee while running for President.
29.    Kwame Kilpatrick (2008): Text messaging sex scandal
30.    Sam Adams (2009): Portland, OR mayor lied about relationship with 18-year-old male intern.
32    Anthony Weiner posted pictures of his weiner on the internet.

 I know there are many more, but this is enough to make my point.