Sunday, July 31, 2011


Here is an interesting article I found on the internet.

By Daniel Greenfield

Herman Cain is being lynched for taking a stand. And the people doing it are Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives. Commentators who complain about the “race card” are eagerly laying down the “bigot card” because Cain did what few candidates are ready to do. He clearly spelled out the problem with Islamic involvement in American public life.

If as some insist, Cain’s campaign was brought down by his statements about Islam—then Republicans have accepted the Dhimmi Principle that the viability of a candidate depends on taking a moderate position on Islam. A moderate position being skeptical, but not particularly confrontational. A position that easily leads back to that old “Handful of Extremists” saw.

All this comes down to is an Islamic vetting of presidential candidates. And everyone attacking Cain over it has given CAIR their victory.

All the little condescending pieces on how Cain was a good candidate until he went a little too far off the reservation deserve a head pat from a black gloved hand. What better victory for the Islamists than to have conservative pundits falsely attribute Cain’s campaign problems to his opposition to Islam?

What did Cain say that was so wrong? He questioned how Muslims could reconcile a theocracy with participation in American public life. And he came out on the side of communities fighting back against mosque projects. And that’s bigotry. Don’t ask why it’s bigotry. It is. And if you don’t believe me, go ask CNN or the Washington Post.

Playing the bigot card is cheap and easy. It’s free. And value free.

The real question we should be asking, is it permissible to question the bona fides of members of an ideology that has murdered millions around the world and thousands in America? Can we actually ask whether a theology that calls for the subjugation of the world disqualifies you from taking an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States?

There are two obligations here and they are incompatible with one another. We cannot look into the soul of another person, but the contradiction between the two must be asked and answered. And if we cannot do that, then we have already given up freedom of speech and thought, and exchanged it for the conformity of political correctness. So we say that after a Muslim kills he may be criticized, but not before the fact. And close our eyes to the origin of the act.

Is there a “Good Islam” and a “Bad Islam”

Is there a “Good Islam” and a “Bad Islam”. The Islam of decent people and of evil terrorists. But where do we find this “Good Islam”?

Not in Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. What about Indonesia, with its genocides, Malaysia with its church burnings or Egypt with its persecution of the Copts? Forget Muslim countries then, what about countries with Muslim minorities. Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines. How many heads would you like to see.

Why must we ask is the Muslim world less pluralistic, less free and more intolerant than the countries where they are demanding the right to impose their theocratic legal system on others. And what exactly will happen when they gain that power?

Can you imagine that America will retain its freedoms under a president who believes that the Koran is the writ of heaven, that non-Muslims are inferior, that women are subhuman and that only laws based on the Koran are just?

Can you imagine that police chiefs who believe that women cause their own rapes will protect rape victims? Why even bother asking, when cabbies who believe that seeing eye dogs drive away angels refuse to carry the blind.

When cartoonists go into hiding and Muslim soldiers open fire on their fellow troops, there is no serious debate to be had over what happens when the Koran and the laws of the United States intersect with one another. And the results are bloody.

If religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted in the Muslim world, and if even religious and ethnic majorities are set on by Muslim minorities in the non-Muslim world, then how hard is to figure out what comes next for America? Do we really need a map or a diagram. Should we go once again to the Ground Zero Mosque to understand how much contempt and how much deception is woven into the campaign to subjugate us. To wipe away our laws and freedoms and replace them with the ravings of a 7th century bandit who murdered and raped his way across the desert, turning a multicultural society into a fanatical wasteland.

It is easier not to deal with these uncomfortable questions. To assent to CNN and the WaPo and all the other outlets of the manufactured consensus. To nod your head and say, “Cain went too far. There may be some bad eggs out of Mecca, but we shouldn’t be bigots.”

So let’s talk about bigotry

So let’s talk about bigotry. Talk to the Copts of Egypt, the Christians of Pakistan and Malaysia, or the Jews of Iran. Learn about bigotry from them and what happens when political power is vested in the hands of members of a cult that preaches the absolute political dominance of their theocracy.

Do you want bigotry? The cemeteries of the world are filled with the victims of the Koran. And their number grows year by year. Go the graves of the murdered and the dead, and mumble to them about bigotry. Tell them that singling out Muslims isn’t nice. It’s not proper. It’s not the American Way—or that flavor of the American Way cooked up by liberals around 1965.

When Orwell wrote 1984, few Americans imagined being too afraid to speak their minds. Now it’s 2011 and we are learning to be afraid. And when someone stands up to speak what we know is the truth, then we shiver and bring out the rope. We lynch him as a sacrifice. The way that Europeans denounce Israel, and prosecute Koran burning. An offering for the Dhimmi altar.

This isn’t about Cain, who has backtracked his earlier comments. This is about cowardice. Not physical cowardice, but the cowardice of the mind. The timidity of stepping beyond a reasonably safe opinion and following it to its logical conclusion. Of even raising the subject. And the glee of destroying the man who steps slightly to the right of you. Who dares to say what you do not.

Should we be banning Muslims from public office or keeping mosques out of communities?

Should we be banning Muslims from public office or keeping mosques out of communities? Certainly we should be able to have that question, without cries of “bigot” coming from people who should know better.

If nothing else, the butcher’s bill we have paid in the last decade gives us the right to ask those questions. The dead on our side and the killers on theirs means that we have paid for the right to ask those questions in blood. And we go on paying for it with unrecognized sacrifices and unspoken terror. A conspiracy unmasked there, a bomb plot exposed here. An assault there, a rape here.

But will we ask those questions? The Constitution won for us Freedom of Speech, but what worth is it if isn’t used. It won for us Freedom of Religion, but what use is it if we allow that freedom to be taken away from us by a theocracy that does not recognize the existence of such a thing. There is no need to take a red pencil and X out any parts of the Bill of Rights. By allowing them to fall into disuse, by destroying the reputations of anyone who makes use of them, we will have accomplished the same thing.

It is startling to me sometimes to see how much bolder the Europeans are than us. What would the condemners of Cain make of Geert Wilders and Oriana Fallaci, or Brits like Pat Condell. Europe may be under siege, but it still has men and women who rise up and speak the truth. And we who have Freedom of Speech enshrined in the Constitution are prisoners of politically correct timidity.

Maybe your back has to be up against the wall to be able to speak out that way. And maybe we must wait for our own No Go Zones, and our own Islamic Councils. To see firsthand that we are losing the country. Maybe when that day comes it will be the shushers of Cain who will be shushed and the ridiculers of a man who dared to speak the truth who will be humbled . When speaking out in the face of terror is no longer a crime and when challenging theocracy is no longer out of sorts.

I would hope and pray that it doesn’t take that. That we need not be schooled to desperation before we are allowed to ask whether we can retain our freedom under the rule of a creed that calls every man a slave.

Saturday, July 30, 2011





“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” 

Barack Hussein Obama said it in March of 2006
(Congressional Record, p. S2237 [March 2006])

Friday, July 29, 2011


Around the world we see some forty nations collectively screaming down at Israel just for existing, and Obama and the UN thinks they should declare the Palestinians a separate nation and give them full recognition.  Of course it has never occurred to the UN and Obama that if a Palestinian state is declared a separate nation, when they lob the first rocket is lobbed into Israel, the nation of Israel will be well within its bounds to declare war against the attacking nation.

In Kenya, women are stumbling into refugee camps with dead babies in their arms and their own bodies nearly wasted from famine.

After nearly a decade at war, young Americans still are being killed and maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We now are engaged in "kinetic military operations" in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan and against pirates off the coast of Somalia.

The so-called "Green Revolution" has left in its wake unstable "transitional" governments in Egypt and Tunisia that are vulnerable to radical Islamists.

In Bahrain, strategically important headquarters to the U.S. 5th Fleet, Saudi special operations and Interior Ministry intelligence units now enforce "civil order" through measures described by opponents as "police state tactics."

In Syria, Bashar Assad's violently repressive regime continues a vicious campaign of rape, plunder and murder orchestrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in an effort to retain control over the Syrian people.

In Iran, the ruling theocrats have completely ignored a fourth round of limp-wristed U.N.-imposed "international sanctions" and accelerated the process of building nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.

We’ve got gay history coming up in California schools, gay marriages in New York; ‘Don’t ask Don’t Tell’, being junked in the military and the Defense of Marriage Act being attacked in the Senate.

We don’t  know why Obama’s social security number has been issued from a state he never lived in, and we may never understand why he bows to Saudi Kings.  We may never know for sure where he was born because according to several experts, his birth certificate is a fraud.  His record as a senator and a lot of other info about his early days remains obscure and unclear.

Right now, in spite of everything else, the economy and the national debt is top priority in most peoples minds.  In order to get the debt ceiling raised, the democrats are resorting to scare tactics like saying that Seniors may lose their medical coverage and their social security checks, and the Military may not be paid.

Why is it the scare always has to do with SS, Medicare, & our Soldiers pay?
Why not stop your pay, your staff, or Congress and the Senate to save more money for our country?  Why use Seniors, Soldiers, & our Needy as examples?

Take the money from those who take no risks and reap the benefits!! Instead of threatening to withhold Social Security, VA and disability payments of people who really need the money.... Lets hold the paychecks of all house & senate members, then see how fast they resolve the debt ceiling crisis !

Raising the debt limit will help fix the economy like raising the blood alcohol limit will help fix drunk driving.

Ponder these facts: This time last year Obama and his cronies claimed that we would have a "Recovery Summer." But look where we are now!
    • 9.2% unemployment
    • 19.1% ACTUAL unemployment (including those that aren't looking for work anymore)
    • $14.4 trillion in debt
    • 1.9 million jobs lost since the so called "stimulus"
    • More people than ever in history are on food stamps
    • People are on unemployment longer than any time since the Great Depression
    • 59% disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy
Yet Obama refuses to believe that his policies aren't working!


Thursday, July 28, 2011

Dear Yankee

Eight things you ought to know before you start writing stories about Rick Perry. You’re welcome.

by Paul Burka

Here we go again. As you know, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, is contemplating a presidential run, which means that any day now, your boss will be sending you down here to take the measure of the man. Though he managed to avoid the 2012 spotlight longer than any other candidate, Perry, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has lately become, in the words of a recent NPR report, “the eight-hundred-pound gorilla on the sidelines of this race.” The trickle of stories about him has become a stream, and the minute Perry declares his candidacy, that stream will become a flood, a flood that will carry you straight to Austin. I am writing you this note in the hope that it will help you avoid the political and sociological clichés that Texas is subjected to every time one of our politicians seeks the national stage.

It’s an experience we’re all too familiar with. A Texan has occupied the White House in 17 of the past 48 years—just over a third of the time. Texas has become an incubator for presidents, as Virginia and Ohio were in America’s distant past. I’ll grant you that the presidents we have sent to Washington, from LBJ to George W. Bush, have not always served as the best advertisements for Texas. Nevertheless, we have endured a disproportionate amount of bad writing about our state from journalists who don’t know very much about the place, and I for one can’t bear to suffer through another campaign of it.

So please, heed this advice. Rick Perry, as you have no doubt already discovered, is not the easiest man to write about. He is secretive and leery of the media (sometimes to the point of hostility), and he has a strategically valuable knack for being underestimated by his critics. I have been writing about him since the eighties, when he began his career in the Texas Legislature. Along the way I have learned a few things, which I have arranged in this handy list of Eight Points to Keep in Mind When Writing About Rick Perry.

1. Perry is not George Bush. Don’t assume that because Bush and Perry served together in the Capitol, or because they’re both Republican Texans who wear boots, the two men have a lot in common. They don’t. As governor, Bush positioned himself as “a uniter, not a divider,” championing education as one of his main priorities. Perry has been the opposite kind of chief executive: dismissive of Democrats and fond of political maneuvers that put the heat on moderates within his own party. And in the legislative session that just wrapped up, he presided over a budget that cut $4 billion from public schools. The cultural differences are striking too. Perry, the son of a Big Country cotton farmer, is at ease with a populist tea party message; W., the scion of a political dynasty, always seemed more comfortable with the country club set. They have followed starkly different paths. When W. began his political career, he had a famous name, access to his father’s huge national fund-raising base, and the backing of the establishment wing of the Republican party. As a late arrival in the Republican ranks, Perry had no fund-raising base and little name identification. He had no choice but to gravitate to the conservative wing of the GOP, where he could prove up his conservative bona fides. Nor is there any love lost between the two men. When Perry ran for lieutenant governor, in 1998, Bush’s camp wanted everyone on the ticket to run positive races; the Perry team defied the order, and ever since, relations have been frosty. There is one other critical difference. Bush lost his first race, for Congress. Perry has won every race he’s ever run.

2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right. Only twice has he made strategic errors that brought him into conflict with his hard-right base. One was an edict that twelve-year-old girls be inoculated against cervical cancer (it was quickly overturned); another was his promotion of a giant system of toll roads called the Trans-Texas Corridor, which stirred up significant opposition from landowners. These two bobbles aside, Perry has a genius for sensing where his base is on any given issue.

3. Perry is cannier than you think he is. Perry revels in political plays that are initially misunderstood by the press and his critics. Take his secession “gaffe” on tax day 2009, when he responded to a TV reporter’s question with an acknowledgment that if the federal government continued to interfere with Texas, the state might have to leave the union someday. His response may have repelled Democrats and independents, but it hit a nerve among conservatives and led to his shellacking of Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary for governor.

4. Texas is not a “weak governor” state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, “I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.” Rick Perry, to a tee.

5. Perry is not a male hair model. The late Molly Ivins coined the nickname Governor Goodhair, and it has stuck, especially with ­liberals and journalists from up north. It is true that Perry has a much-remarked-upon coif, but don’t let this lead you to assume that he’s soft, or feckless, like that other recent walking shampoo ad, John Edwards. Perry is a hard man. He is the kind of politician who would rather be feared than loved—or respected. And he has gotten his wish. Perry does not have many friends in the ­Legislature.

6. Perry is from the middle of nowhere. The first place you need to go to understand Perry is Paint Creek, where he grew up. Paint Creek is not a town. It’s a watercourse that runs through the cotton fields of southern Haskell County. Perry’s parents were tenant farmers, and not just tenant farmers but dryland farmers, which is as hard as farming gets. In a June 2010 interview with TEXAS MONTHLY editor Jake Silverstein, Perry described an incident involving a new couch that his parents, who “rarely ever bought anything,” had just purchased. “There were places in our house that you could see outside through the cracks by the windows,” the governor recalled, “and this dust storm came in and there was a layer of dust all over that new couch. And it just, you know, kind of—it was a hard life for them.” In the interview, Perry also described taking baths in the number two washtub and using an outhouse until his father built indoor plumbing in his early years. “We were rich,” Perry said, “but not in material things. I had miles and miles of pasture, a Shetland pony, and a dog. . . . I spent a lot of time just alone with my dog. A lot.”

7. Perry is an Aggie. Like many Texans with rural roots and sympathies, Perry attended Texas A&M University. This is the other place you need to go to understand him. Of course, it has changed dramatically, so you’ll have to envision it as it was when Perry was there, around 1970. A&M was uncompromising in those days. There was a saying, regarding the road to College Station, that was directed at students who resisted the A&M military culture: “Highway 6 runs both ways.” You either bought into the school’s traditions or you didn’t. Perry bought all the way in, becoming a yell leader. To this day, Perry’s style on the stump is that of the Aggie yell leader (“Are you fired up?”).

8. Don’t discount the luck factor. It is uncanny how often good fortune has been in ­Perry’s corner throughout his political career. His opponents self-destruct, as Jim High­­tower did in 1990, when Perry, a big underdog, won his first statewide race, for agriculture commissioner, and as Kay Bailey Hutchison did in 2010. In 2006, when he was at his most vulnerable, Hutchison opted not to challenge him. Perry got only 39 percent of the vote, but because there were four major candidates in the race, he won with a plurality. This spring, he lost two top aides to the Gingrich-for-president campaign, only to see Gingrich self-destruct and the aides return with national campaign experience. The list goes on and on. If you look at Perry’s career, it seems that fate is always arranging the universe so that its favorite son will be in the right place at the right time.

So there you have it. In closing, I would like to request that you please do your best to avoid tin-ear clichés about barbecue, cattle, oil, football, and the Alamo. Remember, this is an urban state of 25 million people. We don’t go to sleep at night dreaming of William Barret Travis drawing a line in the sand. We do admire our rural history, as this month’s cover attests, but our vitality is in the cities. Enjoy your visit, best of luck, and please get it right this time.

Yours truly,
Paul Burka

Visit the Perry Trove, a complete collection of everything we've ever published about the governor, and more.

Legal Guns Would Make Norway Safer

By Michael Reagan


How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise: in Texas, 3 minutes; in Montana, 7 to 8 minutes; in Arizona, 2 minutes; and in Nevada, 3 to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts, and allowed Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns, the massacre might well have been prevented. There's a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

That was certainly true in Norway where Anders Breivik, a lone gunman, launched his assault on youth campers of Utoya Island. According to press reports he fully expected Norway's special forces to swoop down and stop him at any minute. It didn't happen. Faced with unarmed victims he was given plenty of time to kill 68 innocent people who could not defend themselves. Had just one of them been armed, Breivik could have been stopped dead and lives would have been spared.

Moreover, if anyone had paid attention to Breivik's rants they would not have been surprised when he acted on them, especially since Breivik had preceded his attack by setting off a car bomb in the heart of Oslo.

Tragically, Norway's anti-gun hysteria resulted in laws restricting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, leaving them exposed to gun violence at the hands of criminals such as Breivik, who simply ignore anti-gun ownership laws. Despite the Second Amendment, which protects American citizens' rights to access to guns for self-protection, the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms is under constant assault.

In his best-selling classic "More Guns, Less Crime," John R. Lott, Jr. has proven that guns make us safer. And in the book "The Bias against Guns," he shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth.

With irrefutable evidence, Lott shot down gun critics and provided information we need to win arguments with those fanatics who want to ban gun ownership, leaving criminals who ignore anti-gun ownership laws armed.
History teaches us that governments faced with an armed citizenry are restrained from usurping the rights of individuals. It is thus no surprise that governments which seek to exercise dictatorial powers over their citizens inevitably seek to restrict of outlaw gun ownership by their citizenry.

In an interview with the University of Chicago, Lott said that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws -- called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

He noted that criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. He shows that there is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens who have gun permits and the crime rate, noting that as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. He adds that for each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. That's just common sense.

Our Founding Fathers understood the need for an armed citizenry. Thanks to the colonists who were armed, America triumphed over the strongest army in the world. They insisted that their fellow Americans have a right to bear arms in order to guarantee their liberties and safeguard them from those who would deny them the freedom they won on the battlefields of the American Revolution.

We need to be ever vigilant -- there are always those who would trample on our rights as free Americans. As long as we retain the right to self-defense guaranteed by the right to own and bear arms, our freedoms will be secure.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of "The New Reagan Revolution" (St. Martin's Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at, or e-mail comments to

Wednesday, July 27, 2011


La Raza is a racist group that can best be described as the Mexican version of the KKK.

It is a Mexican racist organization, and an advocacy group for millions of illegal aliens to receive amnesty.  It’s also a group with a stated goal of re-conquering the U.S. southwest that they claim was stolen from their ancestors as a result of an imperialist war in 1845.

In the midst of a fiscal crisis—that his administration claims will lead to Armageddon—President Obama took time out to visit with them.  Obama’s appearance—in the midst of a no-hold-barred fight with the GOP over the debt ceiling— is obviously a maneuver to solidify the Latino vote in the 2012 presidential election. It is common knowledge that the Democrats—although quick to deny it—encourage illegal aliens to vote, which is why progressives such as Obama oppose Voter ID legislation.

In an obvious quid pro quo, La Raza has teamed up with a federal agency to promote one of the administration’s many government cash giveaways with Spanish ads encouraging Latinos—including legal and illegal immigrants—to apply for U.S. taxpayer dollars to pay for housing.

Just a few weeks ago a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for La Raza, which for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars, has catapulted since Obama hired its senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.

In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million. Additionally, NCLR (national council for La Raza) affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor.

The new campaign warns Hispanics that time is running out to get up to $50,000.00 from Uncle Sam to pay their mortgage, past due charges, taxes, insurance and even legal fees associated with their home. The money is being disbursed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a billion-dollar EHPD (Emergency Homeowner Loan Program), according to a public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.

In 2008 the agency revealed that some 5 million fraudulent or defaulted home mortgages were in the hands of illegal immigrants, who obtained the loans from banks that were pressured by the government to offer them, according to a report from attorneys at Judicial Watch.

In fact, the agency in charge of preserving and promoting public confidence in the nation’s financial system, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, began pushing banks to offer services to illegal aliens years earlier and many still do today.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Bank allows Mexican illegal aliens to electronically transfer funds from the United States to Mexico.

It’s logical to assume that the involvement of the nation’s most powerful open borders group, the NCLR, in promoting government-funded mortgage aid is geared, at least in part, towards undocumented immigrants. The EHLP expired but recently got extended amid record-high unemployment to help people keep their homes.

La Raza—which has seen its federal funding skyrocket since one of its top officials, Cecilia Muñoz, got a job in Obama’s White House—wants to make sure Latinos get a piece of the pie. Two weeks ago it launched a Spanish-language public service campaign to highlight the program’s “fast-approaching” deadline.

“The biggest challenge now is ensuring that people know about this opportunity and take advantage of it during the short period that it is available,” according to the NCLR director who announced the campaign that will help Latinos “seize” an “opportunity.” In the ad HUD Assistant Secretary Mercedes Marquez alerts Hispanics of the imminent deadline to get their government cash and directs them to a Spanish HUD website that assures the money will be disbursed in a “fair and impartial manner.”

Last year Marquez, a strong ally of the open borders movement, awarded a La Raza affiliate known as Chicanos Por la Causa (Chicanos for the Cause) nearly $40 million in grants to “stabilize neighborhoods and rebuild economies.” The money came from a Neighborhood Stabilization Program that has doled out $2 billion to community groups to combat the negative effects of “vacant and abandoned homes.”

Tuesday, July 26, 2011


Our Justice System is biased toward illegal aliens and unions
Remember when the unions trashed the State Capitol of Wisconsin—the media did not complain and no charges were brought against those that were part of the conspiracy to close the Capitol to decent people.

Then a couple of months latter, the same thing was tried in Sacramento. This time it was only a few hundred, not thousands. 

Looks like unions can commit no crime—even demanding bribes from workers—no bribes, no work—is allowed.

Boeing decides to spend a billion dollars, create one thousand jobs in the Carolina’s, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) says NO. The unions complained and Obama’s minions listened.

Recently Delta flight attendants voted NO on the joining of a union. Guess they did not want to pay a bribe in order to work. So, the NLRB opens an investigation of Delta.

How corrupt is this? Workers say NO to corrupt unions and the Feds decide to investigate.

Then you have the sanctuary city movement. This is the effort to say that if you break the Federal immigration laws, local government will protect you from the Feds. In San Francisco, the Mayor used tax dollars to ship teenage drug dealers, illegal aliens, to San Bernardino, to hide them from Federal law enforcement.

The District Attorney of San Francisco used tax dollars meant to put crooks in jail to pay for attorneys for illegal aliens facing deportation.

In Texas, a well known illegal alien, deported a few times, killed a cop. Now local law enforcement is concerned.
We have an Attorney General, Eric Holder, who can teach the KKK something about bigotry. He allowed racists to use baseball bats to intimidate voters in Philadelphia.  Holder said nothing wrong with that.  About 20 years ago, an Assembly candidate in Orange County, a Republican, used poll watchers.  He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in an intimidation lawsuit brought by Hispanics. They claimed just having legal poll watchers were intimidating—yet Holder thinks swinging baseball bats are OK?

And then, as if all this bias wasn’t enough, we have those stupid “hate-crime laws” which I have always maintained are unconstitutional.  They have never made any sense to me.  A crime is a crime pure and simple. What difference does it make if you hate, or love, or are totally indifferent toward the victim of your crime?  And, as if hate crime laws were not already bad enough, exacerbating that is the biased enforcement.

Now it seems no actual crime is necessary, the mere fact that you hate someone is in itself a crime. Take for example former NBA star Tim Hardaway. He was persecuted by the press for making the remark that he hated homosexuals. The way the News Media jumped on this story, you would think that he had physically attacked someone.

Not that I advocate hatred, but I think most people have at one time or another hated someone. I know we should hate the sin but not the sinner, but as long as you take no action on your hatred, you should have the right to hate whomever you chose. One thing we certainly do not need is "thought Police".

October 10, 2004, eleven Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for criticizing homosexuality. They were arrested under a Pennsylvania hate crime law, which is almost identical to the federal hate crime law which did not exist at that time. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate crimes legislation.

The bill adds extra penalties to violent crimes when they are deemed motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. It's the first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at race, color, religion, and national origin. 

After signing this new law, Obama celebrated it by saying that in this nation we should "embrace our differences."  WHAT?  Law isn’t suppose to be about embracing our differences, it’s suppose to be about providing equal and non-arbitrary protection to all citizens.

Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War, guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously -- that there are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law -- has been a justifiable obsession of blacks. 

A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that should be unacceptable to all Americans.  However, It’s the law; it is illegal to say anything bad about any person who is a member of a minority. However, sense I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male who is not gay, you may feel free to say anything you like about me.

So, why am I on the soap-box about hate crime laws and selective enforcement?  Here is why.  In the New York City subway a week ago this past Sunday, 29-year-old Jason Fordell was attacked by a group of black men who taunted him for being white.  Yet NYC police "are unsure" if the incident is a bias crime.

The problem started when Fordell transferred to a crowded train at 42nd street, where he encountered four black men who began harassing him.  The New York Daily News reports on what transpired next, writing:
"People started saying stupid little comments - cracker this, white boy this, f----t this," Fordell said. "I told them the only reason they were saying this is there was four of them and one of me."

...As the train continued into the Bronx, the confrontation became physical, he said.
"I was in a headlock, punched and kicked on the floor," Fordell said.

Then a passenger decided to join in - declaring, "Oh, I get a few shots, too," before kicking and punching Fordell in the head, according to cops.
..."Everyone on the train was egging them on," said Fordell.

Fordell suffered numerous injuries, which included head-bleeding, a badly swollen eye and internal injuries, as evidenced by blood in his urine.  The assailants also stole a bag he was carrying that contained $2900-worth of handmade leather accessories, which Fordell sells at an East Village nightclub.

Despite the epithets hurled by Fordell's attackers, this crime hasn't yet been transferred to the NYPD hate-crimes task force because, we're told, the authorities aren't sure if it was motivated by bias.  According to a Daily News source, "They have to look at whether that was the motivation before the robbery."

Really?  I think we all know full well that if Fordell were black and the attackers were white, it would be a clear-cut hate-crime from the get-go.

If this keeps up, soon we'll be like Britain.  In that once-proud civilization, the police are so afraid to tackle Muslim criminality that their efforts to cover it up have reached comical proportions.  And it will keep up unless we experience a deep cultural renewal.  This means pulling leftist ideology up by the roots in academia, the media, the entertainment arena and beyond.  Mere political victory won't change a thing.

Governments are more and more the arbitrator of who and what we can hate, and we are just suppose to accept that hate is whatever they deem it to be. This is why we should all be so adamantly opposed to the idea that people have no legal right to hate. The Tim Hardaways of the world have every right to hate whomever they wish, and we have a right to scorn and ostracize them for it. But to say they have no right to voice their beliefs is to deny the fundamental freedom of speech.

Hate crime laws are worse than just redundant, they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional because they are discriminatory.  By conferring special status -- enhanced protection -- on certain government-favored groups, they violate the very principal of equality before the law.
Hate-crime laws are simple wrong as a matter of principle, since they attempt to punish criminals for their motivation, rather than targeting their illegal behavior.  Federal hate-crimes laws also duplicate state hate crime laws, which in turn duplicate long existing state and local laws.

I do not dispute that hatred and bigotry are reprehensible. But they aren't crimes in and of themselves. The law books are already filled with statutes that punish individuals for behavior that injures other people or damages property. Enhancing those penalties because the perpetrator may be a bigot is an affront to our legal traditions of equal protection under the law.  If a white man mugs a black man, and steals his wallet, who is to decide if he mugged him because he is a bigot, or simply because he wanted his wallet. Prosecutors of supposed hate crimes must pry into defendants' lives -- books and magazines read, Internet sites visited, the nature of his or her friends -- to uncover evidence of illegal thoughts.




Letter to Mr. Rand, Executive Director of AARP.


Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren.
Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood, I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our 'house' and invaded our home without our invitation or consent.
The President has insisted we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator's language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, or pay for their food and clothing.

American home invaders SHOULD BE arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. My husband Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream
America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY. (aka - make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government's free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government's free handouts. It is a "slippery slope" on which we must not embark!

As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said "Socialism is GREAT - UNTIL you run out of other people's money."

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same...With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you. I am disappointed as all get out in AARP!!!

I am more scared for our country than I have ever been in my entire life!!! AND, I am ANGRY!!! I am MAD as h---, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore! It's my money and we need it NOW!

Walt & Cyndy Miller
Miller Farms Equine Transport - Mid-America




The EPA sending money (YOUR MONEY) to China

also see

Monday, July 25, 2011



IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free... The offer is true. Mort Zuckermann, US News and World Report, a Democrat, was interviewed on Fox and confirmed it. IBM has confirmed it. You won't believe it.

What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"

And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?

And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US history?

Well, it's all true.  Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.

Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping of The Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010: We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works.  They turned us down."

A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.

Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, said, "It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really puzzling... These are very, very responsible people and don't have a political ax to grind.

In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.

Be sure to click on the link for Mr. Palmisano's statement and 'hear' this yourself.

Ask the President:

What are you going to do with $181 Billion Dollars if you're not paying bills?

The House and the Senate Agreed on deal

but Obama says NO.

White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis

A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.

As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.

Sunday, July 24, 2011



Electric Cars Can Create More Carbon Dioxide Emissions Than Gas Cars


An auto blog ( ) recently summarized a British study finding that electric cars may not necessarily reduce carbon dioxide emissions:

Electric cars can create higher emissions over the car’s lifetime than their gasoline-powered equivalent, partly due to the pollution created from the factories that manufacture electric car batteries…

The study found that while in the past, tailpipe emissions have been used as the main measure of an electric car’s carbon footprint, when the emissions from the car’s total lifespan are taken into consideration, including the car’s production and disposal, some of the CO2 savings made from driving the car are offset. The study contends that “overall electric and hybrid vehicles still have lower carbon footprints than normal cars.”

The study found that compared with 24 metric tons for a gasoline-powered car, a mid-size electric car produces 23.1 metric tons of CO2 over its lifetime. But an electric car would have to drive about 80,000 miles before it would start saving more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car. Many electric cars will never reach 80,000 miles in their lifetime[;] electric cars get less than 90 miles on a charge, so they’re typically driven only short distances…Additionally, electric car batteries must be replaced after about four years. When the emissions connected with replacement batteries are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car increases to 12.6 metric tons, compared with 5.6 metric tons for a conventional car. Because recovering and recycling the metals in the battery consumes a great deal of energy, disposal produces double the emissions.

We may be witnessing the beginning of a process similar to what happened with ethanol: Initially beloved by environmentalists, ethanol soon fell into disfavor once people took into account the full consequences of turning food into fuel.  Not to mention the fact that don't run worth a crap on it and get worse mileage to boot.

Why Don’t Consumers Like Electric Vehicles?

The simple fact is that electric cars right now are very inconvenient compared to gas-powered cars. Consider the journal entry of the BBC’s Brian Milligan who recently drove an electric car from London to Scotland, charging it only at public stations:

It took 4 days, some serious thermal underwear, and copious amounts of waiting.  But my electric car and I finally made it to Edinburgh.
There were plenty of nervous moments, and a rather low-key entry to the Scottish capital. After all, I was driving at 30mph and was shivering with cold.
On the last leg I’d got suddenly over-confident, and had a serious dose of range anxiety.
It has been a slow journey but Brian and the mini finally made it to Edinburgh. At one point my range indicator showed 48 miles charge left on my battery, with 50 miles still to go. Hence the slow speed, and the lack of heater.
Including the time spent both charging and driving, I managed an average speed between London and Edinburgh of just 6mph.

With reports such as these, we can see why electric vehicles need a shot in the arm from a carbon tax or other government policy.

I think I'll stick with gasoline and diesel for a few more years.



Friday, July 22, 2011


General Electric paid ZERO TAXES on $5.1 BILLION in profits.

And in a totally unrelated story, Obama ask his good friend Jeffrey Immelt (CEO of G.E.) to be his economic adviser.

The house has passed a bill that would lower Tax rates AND close most of the Tax Loopholes.   It will never pass the Democratic controlled Senate, and even if it did, Obama will not sign it into law.

Thursday, July 21, 2011


Until recently, I thought Obama was a lot like Jimmy Carter. 

There are some similarities to be sure, but he is not a Carter 2.0 by any means.  He is however just like the person described in the following paragraph.
He was a youthful leader with a law degree elected on the promise of reforms that would revitalize a world power trapped in the economic doldrums by its bureaucracy and huge debt. His approach of international engagement attempted to break through his country’s global isolation by forging new ties and treaties with old enemies. And faced with a troubled war in Afghanistan, he authorized a temporary troop surge and counterinsurgency strategy, followed by a phased withdrawal shortly thereafter.

Who was this man?  It sounded like I was describing Obama, didn’t it?  The answer is Mikhail Gorbachev.  Yes. I’m talking about the former leader of the Soviet Union, the man with the red map of Afghanistan on his head.   If you recall, he is also the leader who presided over the dismantling of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

On June 22nd, Obama delivered his final phase of the Gorbachev Afghanistan strategy, the reversal of the surge followed by a handover of responsibility to the Afghan national forces. The numbers are different. Gorbachev’s surge took place in 1985.  Obama’s in 2009. But both Gorbachev and Obama approved the surge in the same year that they took office
The Russian surge took their troop numbers to 140,000. Our surge took them to 100,000. The Soviet’s Afghan allies also had much higher troop numbers than our Afghan allies do, but similar rates of desertion and non-performance.  The Russian counterinsurgency strategy was more aggressive than ours, but it came with a much higher casualty rate. Almost five times higher. But beneath the numbers, the trajectory was nearly the same.

The similarities however go beyond this.  Obama has been chosen to play a similar historical role.  That is the role of dismantling a major world power.  Obama won his election by 53 percent.  Gorbachev won his by 59 percent.  

To many liberals, America looks like the Soviet Union did to conservatives back then, an empire built on a discredited economic and political philosophy that is standing in the way of history.  And they see themselves as reformers guiding it into a new era.  A Post-Communism era for the USSR and Post-Capitalism and A Post-Nationalism era for the US and Europe.

While Gorbachev was introducing a certain amount of private enterprise into a socialist system, Obama is tearing out the last remains of free enterprise and replacing it with socialism.  These reforms are opposite in direction, but identical in nature.  Both men were and are slowly dismantling a system that their backers did not believe in anymore. Rather than reform it through revolution, they avoided confrontation with a process of slow reforms that would let them keep their power while slowly turning the system into something fundamentally different, while preserving their own wealth and power.

The end result of that approach in Russia, after some twists and turns, is a crony capitalist government run by the former KGB.  What it will look like in the United States isn’t as obvious, but the EU provides a likely road map.  If Russia went from a Communist government with no democracy to a crony capitalist one with very limited democracy—the United States is going from a federalized democracy to a socialist government with no democracy.  There will still be people at the top and at the bottom, but far fewer people in the middle who are not members of the ‘Party’.  And there will be no legal way to change the system.

The people behind this think of themselves as being on the right side of history. The United States, as well as any nation state based on free elections, free enterprise and common national identities, is to them a historical aberration being set right by global unions, open borders and progressive government.

May God save us and what is left of our country.