Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Democrats leave Iowa Capitol

House Democrats leave Iowa Capitol in protest of gun bills

Iowa House Democrats this morning left the Capitol in protest of two gun bills the Republican majority had planned to debate today that critics contend would make the state part of the “Wild, Wild West.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy accused House Leader Linda Upmeyer of failing to properly inform legislators about planned debate today on the bills.  The short notice hindered Democrats from offering amendments to improve the bills, McCarthy said.

But Upmeyer, R-Garner, shot back this morning that Democrats did have adequate warning, and suggested their flight from the Capitol was an attempt to make a political scene.

“Iowans didn’t send us down here just to do easy stuff,” she said. “The Second Amendment is a question that many Iowans would like placed before them. I don’t know why they’re afraid to have a debate on a subject just because they don’t like the subject. That seems ludicrous to me.”

One bill would alter the state constitution to specifically include gun rights. Another would rewrite the law on “reasonable force” so that a person may use force — including deadly force — against someone who they believe threatens to kill or cause serious injury or who is committing a violent felony.

“(Upmeyer) said they will debate those bills today whether we like it or not,” said McCarthy, D-Des Moines. “I told her that we’ve been double crossed, and we will not be debating those bills today.”
In response, Democrats have moved to an undisclosed location.  Republicans hold 60 of 100 seats and could debate the bill without Democrats since they have a quorum. The majority party sets the calendar for debate and guides the course of business on the House floor.

“We have been double-crossed as a caucus, and we’re not going to sit back and be treated with historic misuse of power,” McCarthy said.

In a statement released after the Democrats exited the Capitol, McCarthy said the Republican leadership told Democrats yesterday the gun legislation would not be considered today. Because they didn’t believe the bill would come up today, he said, Democrats did not file all the amendments they wanted to offer on the bills prior to the deadline set in the House rules.

When met by a reporter after the Republicans adjourned from a party caucus, Upmeyer rejected McCarthy’s argument. The gun bills were noticed in the same manner as any other bill that could come before the House, she said — in a calendar that is updated and circulated to lawmakers everyday.

When Democrats asked what the Republicans intended to bring up today, Upmeyer said she gave them a list of non-controversial bills, but left consideration of other bills “open-ended.”
“Every member knows that anything that comes out of committee and is placed on the calendar is eligible,” Upmeyer said.

A House spokeswoman added that Democrats had in fact already offered an amendment to one of the gun bills, indicating that they had had ample time to develop proposed changes.

Upmeyer said she was not sure whether the House would convene and begin considering bills in the Democrats’ absence. As of 11  a.m., the chamber remained at ease, with Republican lawmakers sitting casually at their desks or chatting in small groups on the House floor.

The House spokeswoman said both Upmeyer and House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, had attempted to contact McCarthy, but received no response.

Chris Rager, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, described today’s events as “disappointing.” He noted that some Democrats have voiced support for some of the bills.

“I haven’t heard from Rep. McCarthy on it but I know he has supported us on gun legislation in the past,” Rager said. “I’m a little confused that he didn’t keep the caucus here. I would have thought he would have been supportive of this legislation.”

Here are the bills:

House Joint Resolution 2009: Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Constitutional Amendment
This resolution would begin a process to amend Iowa’s constitution to include a “right to keep and bear arms.” The proposed amendment echoes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

To pass, the resolution must be approved by both the House and the Senate in two consecutive general assemblies before voters would weigh in on the issue.  It means that the earliest a vote could occur would be 2013, should the legislature act this year and next.

House File 2215: Reasonable force/Stand your ground
The bill would rewrites the law on “reasonable force” so that a person may use force — including deadly force — against someone who they believe threatens to kill or cause serious injury, or who is committing a violent felony.  The bill specifically says that a person is presumed to be justified in using deadly force if the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to his or her life.

Iowa’s current law allows potential victims to use deadly force against a perceived threat only if an alternative course of action also entails “a risk to life or safety.”


As we witness surging Muslim violence against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt and even here in America, the response seems increasingly that the victims must apologize to the perpetrators. 

I am not concerned about what Muslims do in the Middle East.  We cannot, and should not attempt to police the world.  I am however concerned, as we all should be, about what is happening here in the United States.   Our government, from President Obama on down, has been apologizing and seeking forgiveness for offending Islamic sensibilities by accidentally burning Qurans.  This was felt necessary even in a case where the books had been defaced by captured Afghan jihadis as a means of encouraging their comrades to further acts of violence against us.

It seems that Christians are also widely considered to be at fault for having churches, Bibles and religious practices that offend the dominate Islamists in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.  Certainly, no apologies are forthcoming when the Christians are murdered or forced to flee for their lives, their churches and sacred texts put to the torch, etc.

And here in America last week, a Pennsylvania judge felt the need to dress down a man assaulted for parading in a Halloween costume he called “Zombie Mohammed.”  Far from punishing the perpetrator, a Muslim immigrant, Judge Mark Martin sympathized with him for the offense caused, noting – seemingly without objection – that it was a capital crime to engage in such free expression in some countries.

Worse yet, the judge suggested that the victim in this case had exceeded the “boundaries” of his “First Amendment rights.”  Such a view seems to track with the Obama administration’s collaboration with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in fashioning international accords that would prohibit “incitement” against Islam.

This is a short step from – and enroute to – the OIC’s larger goal of banning and criminalizing any expression that offends Muslims or their faith.  As such, it poses a mortal peril to the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

What is going on in country after country, in international forums like the UN Human Rights Council and even in some American courts is a calculated effort, backed by terrifying violence or its threat, to make us “feel subdued,” as the Quran puts it.  The idea is to use Western sensibilities and civil liberties, notably, respect for the free practice of religion, to deny the rest of us our fundamental freedoms.  These include the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and, yes, freedom of religion.

The trouble is that when we accommodate such demands, it is seen by Islamist enemies of liberty as evidence of our inevitable submission.  According to the doctrine of shariah, they must, under such circumstances, make a redoubled effort to achieve their ultimate triumph, including through the use of violence.

So, far from alleviating the threat posed by shariah’s adherents when we accommodate, apologize and appease, we are actually exacerbating it, at home as well as abroad.

In short, we find ourselves in what is, properly understood, the civil rights struggle of our time.  Muslims are of course free to practice their faith in America like anyone else – provided they do so in a tolerant, peaceable and law-abiding way.  What they are not entitled to do, in the name of religious practice, is subvert our Constitution, deny us our rights or engage in sedition without facing concerted opposition – if not prosecution.

Today, just as in the civil rights struggles of the past, there are those who are prepared to go along with what they know is wrong, in order to get along.  But now, as then, we must take a stand to defend our constitution.   A good place to start is to write your Congressmen and Senators NOW, and be sure you vote a straight Republican ticket in November.

The American people have readily and dynamically fought every effort from outside this country to conquer us.  But never in our history has the effort been directed by our own President.  Never before has the covert element been benign on the surface while dynamically propelling this nation toward its own suicide by anesthetizing the awareness of the citizenry.  Never before have so many people’s sense of caring for the might and majesty of this nation been allowed to deteriorate to this point. Never before has the threat come from within.  We stand at a point in history where rhetoric and verbal sleight of hand are accepted as policy.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.



By Humberto Fontova  Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sean Penn was Hugo Chavez’ guest of honor (again) last week, serving as keynote speaker at graduation ceremonies for Venezuela’s Salvador Allende Medical School. “Allow me to impart a little anecdote,” beamed the two-time Oscar winner to the enchanted crowd. “I had the privilege (italics mine) to introduce my children to comandante Fidel Castro and as he posed for a photo between them I told him: “President, (italics mine) I’ll now be denounced in the U.S. for educating my children as socialist revolutionaries.

So Castro responded: “That’s among the best things that could happen to them.”

Besides his fame as wife beater with baseball bats, Sean Penn also claims fame as an advocate against the death penalty. His Oscar–winning role in Dead Man Walking where he played a convicted rapist and murderer who perished by lethal-injection in Louisiana seems to have made a deep impression upon Penn.
Unlike Louisiana’s penal system, however, the role model for Penn’s kids used firing squads, forced labor and prison beatings to murder his thousands of defenseless victims. And their “convictions,” were curtly explained by his chief hangman Che Guevara: “Judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail. We execute from revolutionary conviction.”

Castro himself confirmed:  “Legal proof is impossible to obtain against war criminals. So we sentence them based on moral conviction.”

Among these “war criminals were farm-kids younger than Penn’s children. Carlos Machado was 15 years old in 1963 when a volley from Castro’s firing squad shattered his body. His twin brother and father crumpled beside Carlos from the same volley and tumbled into the same mass grave. All had resisted Castro and Che’s theft of their humble family farm, all refused blindfolds and all died sneering at their Communist murderers, as did thousands of their valiant countrymen.

This “moral conviction” saw the role model for Sean Penn’s children jail more political prisoners as a percentage of population than Stalin and murder more people (out of a population of 6.5 million) in his first three years in power than Hitler murdered (out of a population of 65 million) in his first six.
Enlightened opinion, including most “liberal,” “human-rights” and “peace” groups worldwide, either yawned or actually applauded the bloodbath. Harvard Law School merits special attention regarding the latter.

By April 1959, almost a thousand Cubans had been “judged” (see above) and murdered by Castro and Che’s firing squads. Cuba’s prisons were packed to suffocation with ten times the number of political prisoners as during “the Tyrant” Batista’s reign. Among Castro and Che Guevara’s prisoners were hundreds of women, a Stalinist horror utterly unknown in our hemisphere till introduced by the “leader” swooned over by Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell and Diane Sawyer.

Furthermore, the death penalty was being applied retroactively (none had existed under the unspeakable Batista regime.) Habeas Corpus had been abolished. Cuban defense lawyers attempting to defend the accused were being jailed themselves.

That’s when Fidel Castro received a fawning invitation from Harvard Law School asking the honor of his addressing them. Seems that both the student body and faculty were smitten with the Cuban Revolution’s shining judicial record. Castro accepted on the spot, making Harvard the last gig on his 1959 U.S. tour.

“Castro Visit Triumphant!” headlined Harvard’s Law School Forum for April 30, 1959. “The audience got what it wanted: the chance of seeing the Cuban hero (italics mine) in person!”
“VIVA FIDEL!” roared these fervent foes of capital punishment and double jeopardy upon first glimpsing their hero. Though the adoring crowd was too enormous to fit in any campus arena they remained chipper, “even if we didn’t see Castro at as close a range as might have been desired!” a fervent foe of capital punishment was quoted in the Harvard Forum.

Interestingly, Fidel Castro had actually applied to Harvard Law School in 1948. This was brought to light by Harvard’s Arts and Sciences Dean, Mc George Bundy, (later to serve as JFK’s National Security Advisor.) “Caught up in the exuberance of the event,” continues the Harvard Law Forum, “Harvard Dean, Mc George Bundy, declared that Harvard was ready to make amends for its mistake in 1948.‘I’ve decided to admit him!’ declared Dean Bundy.”

“VIVA FIDEL!” The Dean’s quip again brought the house down and shook the very roof. “VIVA FIDEL!” roared and cheered the cream of America’s law students (and their faculty.)

Alas, given the law of averages, an independent thinker was bound to pop up—even among ten thousand Harvard students and faculty. One such wiseacre brought up the questionable legal procedures preceding those hundreds of executions in Cuba.

“If the defendant has a right to appeal,” answered Castro, “then so do the people! And don’t forget, Cuba’s is the only people’s revolution in Latin America!”

“VIVA FIDEL!—VIVA FIDEL!”  Well, this assembly of America’s most nimble verbal gladiators went absolutely apes**t over the Castro’s brilliant riposte. They erupted again, roaring and whooping at the mass-murderer’s incontestable rejoinder. This creme de la creme of America’s most cunning ratiocinators found the Stalinist’s logic not only perfectly airtight but positively dazzling in its ingenuity and completely sound in its principle of justice. A delirious pandemonium swept the hall as America’s most ingenious and best-tutored law students (along with their tutors) went absolutely berserk with veneration and joy at this point-blank elucidation of Castroite justice.

Similar receptions had come at the National Press Club, Overseas Press Club, United Nations, and on Meet the Press.

Not ONE heckler from among America’s brightest and cheekiest college kids. Not ONE rebuttal from America’s biggest assemblies of its top journalists. Not ONE snigger or frown from the top cut of America’s adversarial press. Not ONE raised eyebrow or snicker from the nations’ most hard-boiled investigative reporters.

So let’s be fair: why pick on Sean Penn?

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

BadMouth Obama & go to jail . click here to read

This is from the New York Times which is one of the most liberal newspapers on the planet.  What the heck is going on?

Obama is using the Espionage Act to silence and prosecute federal workers.

Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth

The New York Times     By
Last Wednesday in the White House briefing room, the administration’s press secretary, Jay Carney, opened on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died “in order to bring truth” while reporting in Syria. 

Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, pointed out that the administration had lauded brave reporting in distant lands more than once and then asked, “How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistle-blowers to court?” 

He then suggested that the administration seemed to believe that “the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here.” 

Fair point. The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance “whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,” has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers. 

The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office. 

Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security.

In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people’s right to know is viewed as superseding the government’s right to hide its business. 

In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency’s interrogation program, which included waterboarding

For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times. 

Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention. 

“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”
Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate “to honor and praise the bravery” of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tapper’s broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. 

In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration’s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison. 

His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.) 

He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer. 

Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him. 

“The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability,” she said. “All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.” 

Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was “sort of shocked” by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. “We would have gotten hammered for it,” he said. 

As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be. 

These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies. 

During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, it’s not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies. 

And it’s worth pointing out that the administration’s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the “secret” operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission.

There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently.

A MUST SEE VIDEO . click here to watch


This is about 10 minutes, but has repeats of a few clips. If your state’s voter registration is as loose as Minnesota's, push your State Polls to fix it!!

Now you know how easy it is for organizations like ACORN to load the ballot boxes in their favor. Obama worked for ACORN before his "present position" of deceit.

This is why voter I.D. is sorely needed otherwise the Democrats will STEAL another Presidential election!  This is a very good example of why Obama is so confident he will win re-election.

You do not have to watch it all, but the first few minutes will show how wacked out Minnesota is in their voter registration. Now you can see how corrupt this is.

Click on the web link below and turn your speakers UP to hear every word spoken.

Now you know how Comedian Al Franken got elected US Senator from Minnesota!!!
 Through Corruption, that's how! Chicago politics is rampant across the USA!

How can we open the doors so wide for corruption? We do we keep creating ways to flush America down the drain. I thought this stuff only happened in Communist Dictator countries…..or did I just double speak? 
This is the reason the Democrats are all opposed to requiring an ID to vote.
America’s Freedom depends on honest elections.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

SHAIRA LAW IS HERE . click here to read

I have been warning people for a couple years that shaira law was slowly taking over our courts and our freedoms.  This story is just an example of what is coming. 

Your freedom of speech gives you the right to offend a Christian, a Jew, or an Atheist, but not a Muslim.  If you do not write to your Congressman and Senators about keeping Shaira law out of our legal system, then you deserve what is coming.  His is not the first case in this country where the outcome was based on Shaira law and it wont be the last.

Offended Muslim chokes atheist
A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.

District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”

The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”

Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.

Now the Scranton Atheism Examiner reports that Perce could be arrested for posting audio of the judge scolding him for mocking Muhammad. According to report, the Muslim judge has threatened to hold him in contempt of court for releasing the recording. Perce has claimed he was given permission to post the audio.

The Examiner reports that Perce said he posted the audio because the judge treated him unfairly and showed preferential treatment for the Muslim defendant.

According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.

The men caught the attention of a nearby police officer.
Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”

He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.

The following is a dark and distorted video posted of the alleged attack:

However, Judge Martin dismissed the charges and purportedly belittled the atheist victim.
The audio of the judge lecturing Curtis for insulting Muhammad is available here:  (starts at 28:30 if you want to fast forward)

The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive.

(Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”

Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.

You might also want to read my post from October of last year.


Thursday, February 23, 2012

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO . click here to watch

There are still a lot of Americans that refuse to accept the truth.
Please watch this video ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
It should remove all doubts.
Our president is a Muslim pure and simple.   
He has admitted it on more than one occasion.

This guy has just about ruined us financially and weakened our armed forces. His new budget will finish us off financially.
It should be obvious that he is doing so intentionally. 
How can you not wonder why.
He is a Muslim, and I am convinced he is devoted to imploding us from within.

Click on the link below and watch this video, then send this link to EVERYONE you know.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Keystone Pipeline Status

Keystone Pipeline Clogged by Massive Turd!

Bill Hartley

Photo of a Muslim kissing a Pig

OBAMA'S DIVIDEND ASSAULT . click here to read

A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.

President Obama's 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today's 15% rate.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

In previous budgets, Mr. Obama proposed an increase to 23.8% on both dividends and capital gains. That's roughly a 60% increase in the tax on investments, but at least it would maintain parity between taxes on capital gains and dividends, a principle established as part of George W. Bush's 2003 tax cut.
With the same rate on both forms of income, the tax code doesn't bias corporate decisions on whether to retain and reinvest profits (and allow the earnings to be capitalized into the stock price), or distribute the money as dividends at the time they are earned.

Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.

The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.

When the rate fell to 15% on January 1, 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut. By 2006 dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, more than three times the pre-tax cut level. The nearby chart shows the trend.
Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization.

Shortly after the rate cut, Microsoft, which had never paid a dividend, distributed $32 billion of its retained earnings in a special dividend of $3 per share. According to a Cato Institute study, 22 S&P 500 companies that didn't pay dividends before the tax cut began paying them in 2003 and 2004.
As former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill explained at the time: "The recent change in the tax law levels the playing field between dividends and share repurchases as a means to return capital to shareholders. This substantial increase in our dividend will be part of our effort to reallocate capital to dividends and reduce share repurchases."

And that's what happened. An American Economic Association study by University of California at Berkeley economists Raj Chetty and Emmanuel Saez examined dividend payouts by firms and concluded that "the tax reform played a significant role in the [2003 and 2004] increase in dividend payouts." They also found that the incentive for firms to pay dividends rather than sit on cash helped "reshuffle" capital from lower growth firms to "ventures with greater expected value," thus increasing capital-market efficiency.

If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives. The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.

Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.

The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders.  Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds.  Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer? 

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012


The mass-murder of 9-11 is a celebrated event by millions of people. 

Now a few of our military guys, after months of sleeping on the cold ground, eating MREs, not having a good hot shower, and being away from their love ones, get caught peeing on a couple of dead Al Quada types, and they are condemned by the world. 

The huge outpouring of condemnation doesn't compare to someone who would wear a shirt like this that glorifies the murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans. 
The United States needs to stop apologizing and kissing up to our enemies!

OBAMACARE .. click here to read

Socialized Medicine By Government Committee

Bureaucrats Tell Doctors and Insurance Companies How To
Practice Medicine and Which Cancer Screenings to Cover

ObamaCare's government run socialized medicine is out of control. Doctors must now practice medicine according to government guidelines or else they will be sued! All American families wanted before ObamaCare was affordable health care and insurance companies that would work side by side with doctors on medical procedures.

Now Obama and the Congress - YES, the same irresponsible Congress that raised the debt to a record $15 trillion, mandates that the "United States Preventative Services Task Force" rate your medical services. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"--such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer--could get terminated from coverage entirely and doctors must comply. However as long as doctors treat patients according Obama's orders they will have immunity from malpractice lawsuits.

Think about it. The government could order doctors to give patients subpar treatments or refuse treatment all together. After all, no doctor wants to get sued.

And do we really believe that a government created 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board (the death panels) will also decided the levels that Medicare recipients can be reimbursed for their health care costs when you really need it.

Liberals have been lobbying for the creation of death panels for years. Townhall reports, "Former Senator Tom Daschele, who wrote the blueprint for health reform, advocated a 'comparative effectiveness' agency that would decide which medical procedures were worthwhile and which ones were not. As a model, Daschle pointed to the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness (NICE) in Britain...About 25,000 British patients die prematurely every year because they do not have access to cancer drugs..."

Now the British version of ObamaCare the National Health Systems (NHS) was declared DEAD as the NHS announced plans to contract with private hospitals and providers because socialized care in England is not working.

Extreme Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore glorified the United Kingdom's National Health Service in his 2007 documentary "Sicko," making a cult film argument that socialized medicine works. He was wrong.

Americans do not have to imagine like British Rocker John Lennon whether ObamaCare will work. We... can plainly see that a bureaucratic body deciding if you live or die leaves you with a board that will deny you treatment and there is nowhere else to turn.

Healthcare access will be in short as doctors will be in scare supply. A Physicians Foundation Survey revealed that 40% of doctors plan to drop out of the medical field entirely! 60% said that government run healthcare will "compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients." That means Americans on Medicare or Medicaid will find it virtually impossible to receive adequate healthcare.

There is no time to waste. It's imperative that we repeal ObamaCare NOW!
The liberals are doing everything they can to stop efforts to repeal ObamaCare. The House has voted 245-189 to repeal the unconstitutional law. But Harry Reid is blocking the legislation from going to the Senate. He said a Senate vote would be a waste of time because Americans want ObamaCare!

Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan helped craft and defend socialist healthcare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. The ObamaCare case is heading to the Supreme Court and so far Kagan refused to recuse herself even though her vote will clearly be biased.


An old West Virginia Hillbilly saying:
“You cannot get the water to clear up,
until you get the pigs out of the creek.”

A GREAT AMERICAN . click here to watch


Everyone should watch this video.


Click on the link below to watch


Monday, February 20, 2012

HOW HAS HE DONE? . clike here to read

Obama’s “hope and change” results. 

Unemployment Rate: This administration does not count the unemployed who are no longer looking for a job.  So, without counting them, the unemployment rate is currently identical to February 2009 at 8.3%, after being well above that level for 36 months.  The month before signing the Stimulus Obama promised it would never go above 8%.  The CBO predicts unemployment to remain closer to 9% through 2012.  Who knows what it would be if we actually counted everyone that is unemployed.

Long-term Unemployment: The number of workers who have been unable to find a job in 27 months or more is up 83% - now totaling 5.5 million people.

Civilian Labor Force: It has shrunk 126,000.  According to IBD, in past recoveries the labor force has expanded by more than 3 million people over comparable time periods.

Labor Force Participation Rate: A measure of the number of age eligible Americans working or looking for a job – the LPR is down 3% to 63.7% - also highly unusual this far into a recovery, and a rate not seen since the early 1980s when fewer women were in the workforce.  About four million people have given up on finding a job.  A low LPR artificially makes the unemployment rate look better that it really is.

Household Income: Median annual household income is about 7% lower than in February 2009 according to the Sentier Research Household Income Index.

National Debt: Up $4.5 trillion – a staggering 41% - to $15.4 trillion.

Deficits: FY 2009’s deficit was $1.4 trillion.  Obama’s new budget projects FY 2012 will be $1.33 trillion.  FY 2010 added $1.293 trillion; FY 2011 another $1.299 trillion.  He had promised to cut “the deficit he inherited” for 2009 in half by the end of his first term.

Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP has climbed just 6% between Q1 2009 (the bottom of the recession) and Q4 2011 making this the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

My conclusion on "hope and change"; our only hope is for a change in NOVEMBER.

WE REALLY SCREWED UP . click here to read


Now he’s giving part of Alaska to the Russians.

The longer he is in office, the more pissed off I become.


If it’s not yet obvious to you that he is trying to bankrupt this country, then you are not paying attention.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

READ AND HEED . click here to read

We have this one, last election to begin the turnaround.  Obama must be voted out.  Please support the GOP Nominee no matter who he is.  We all must. I don’t care if you have to wear a clothespin on your nose in the voting booth.  If we do not, destruction will come upon us all like a thief in the night.

Ford, Dole, Bush I, and McCain all lost because Conservatives either stayed at home, or voted for Ross Perot, while those lovable, gullible “Moderates” voted for Marxist Democrats disguised as “Hope and Change.” 

WATCH THIS VIDEO . click here to watch

Illegal Obama "Propped Up" By Congress!

If you never watch another video, watch this one, this proves the
Democrats(And some Republicans) know Obama is not an American and is serving illegally and unconstitutionally and the efforts they made are recorded in the Congressional Record, attempting to change the Constitution so he could serve legally. EVERYONE that cares about and loves this Constitutional Republic absolutely MUST watch and forward this video!!!!!! This one must go viral

Friday, February 17, 2012

OBAMA'S CZARS . click here to read


Do you wonder why the US
is in the shape it is...???
These Czars were not vetted or approved by Congress.  They were simply appointed by Obama and put on the payroll.
 If you read about their background and their beliefs, you cannot help but be concerned about the effect they are having on this country.

There are very few of us who know just what all of Obama's Czars do, as they quietly go about their "work" in the nation's capital. This listing of their names and job descriptions should be educational to all Americans, no matter what your political leaning. See who they are and realize what they want to do:


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

I HOPE REPUBLICNS STOP THIS . click here to read

WASHINGTON: The White House announced plans to help “Arab Spring” countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining US military aid to Egypt. 

In his annual budget message to Congress, US President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins Oct. 1.
His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address US budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.

Obama proposed $51.6 billion in funding for the US State Department and foreign aid overall, when $8.2 billion in assistance to war zones is included. The “core budget” for the category would increase by 1.6 percent, officials said.

Most of the economic aid for the Arab Spring countries — $770 million — would go to establish a new “Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund,” the president said in his budget plan.
Analysts said it was difficult to tell how much of the proposal was actually new money.

“As presented it’s very difficult to determine if the Arab spring fund is new wine in new bottles or old wine in new bottles,” said John Norris, a former US foreign aid worker now at the Center for American Progress.

The Middle East and North Africa Incentive fund “will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition — and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively,” the White House budget document said.

The proposal said this approach “expands our bilateral economic support in countries such as Tunisia and Yemen, where transitions are already underway.”

It would also build on other programs for the area, including up to $2 billion in regional Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing, up to $1 billion in debt swaps for Egypt, and approximately $500 million in existing funds re-allocated to respond to the region last year, the budget document said.

It did not say how the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund would be divided between countries, or give any other details of the plan.

Egypt has long been among the top recipients of US aid, getting about $1.6 billion annually, mostly in military assistance. In fiscal 2012, $250 million of aid approved for Egypt was economic; $1.3 billion was military and there was a $60 million “enterprise fund” approved by Congress.

No US assistance is moving to Egypt at the moment, US lawmakers and their aides said last week. Some legislators favor cutting off aid to Egypt entirely if it does not drop accusations against American democracy activists and lift a travel ban on them.

 Obama continued the practice of putting proposed foreign assistance for war zones in a separate account. This account, known as the “Overseas Contingency Operations,” includes $8.2 billion for the State Department and foreign aid.

It includes $3.3 billion for Afghanistan, $1 billion for Pakistan, and $4 billion for Iraq, where US troops have left the country but the State Department has picked up some of their functions such as police training.

WHO SAID IT? . click here to read

“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.”
Scroll down to see.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006