Right U.S.

The Prophetic words of President Reagan

2008-10-02T19:03:00.000-07:00

Dodging Bullets

2008-10-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

Now that Washington has rejected the $700 billion bailout its safe to say the American people have dodged a bullet... for now. With wall street, legislators on both sides of the isle, and even the President eager to "act" , another bailout plan is a near certainty. The only real question is how much damage they will do.

News flash folks, the federal government does'nt have $700 billion so where does the money come from? Well... the federal reserve could print it but that would cause inflation and prices to rise. We could borrow it but that would further damage our financial standing in the rest of the world and increase our dependancy on foreign economies that are now becoming unstable because they are largely backed by the floundering U.S. dollar. Not to mention the fact that both of these solutions would add billions to the already staggering national debt.

So whats the answer? LET WALL STREET FAIL! Obviously there would be consequences to all of us if this were to happen but at some point we have to let the market correct, suck it up and move on. How much debt are we willing to pass on to the next generation to avoid a recession today? Recessions generally last 1 to 3 years and would do far less damage to our economy this government proposed bailout.

Most businessmen and economists say recession is imminent with or without a bailout so why saddle taxpayers with more debt for the sake of preventing the unpreventable? Here's an idea America should live within its means! How about spending less than we earn instead of more? How about letting a failed banks fail and the CEO's of those banks go down with them! If this leads to recession, so be it. It has been said that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, this bailout would have been just that.

July 4th Cancelled?WTF

2008-07-04T07:51:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of crap I've come to expect from the moonbat movement. They say they support the troops but not the war. They want others to have less so they can have more. They want free speech as long as they are the only ones talking. Then, when slapped in the face with their own contradictions they resort to their not so secret weapon: Bashing America. The following is an excerpt from a column written by a leftie libtard in of all places, Philadelphia, the very city where our great declaration was signed.

By Chris Satullo
Inquirer Columnist
Put the fireworks in storage.
Cancel the parade.
Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.
This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.
For we have sinned.
We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.
So put out no flags.
Sing no patriotic hymns.
We deserve no Fourth this year.
Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.

To view the entire column click here
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html

Obama's Reaganesque Attempt

2008-07-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

In Senator Obamas patriotism speech one could hardly help but notice its Reaganesque tone, at least at first. Heres what Obama said: "You know, on a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists -- farmers, and merchants, and blacksmiths, and printers, men and boys, they left their home and their families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an empire."

Rewind to Ronald Reagans tyranny of the "evil empire" and the simple quote "evil is powerless if the good are unafraid"

Obama: And the odds against them were long, and the risks were enormous, And yet they took that chance.
They did so... on behalf of a larger idea: the idea of liberty, the idea of God- given, inalienable rights.
And when the first shot of that fateful day, a shot heard 'round the world, was fired, the American Revolution and America's experiment with democracy began. Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots.

Rewind to 1964 and Ronald Reagans "A Time for Choosing" speech: He said "should the patriots at Concord bridge have put down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead that fought to stop the advance of the Nazi's did not die in vane. Where then is the road to peace? Its a simple answer after all, you and i must say, there is a price we will not pay there is a point beyond which they must not advance."

Unfotunately for Obama the similarities end here. In the very next sentance he offers some statistics on the Iraq war: "At the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it's fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism, theirs and ours--We do so in part because we're in the midst of war. More than 1.5 million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 60,000 have been wounded. Over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce."

While all this is true, if he was trying to arouse our sense of patriotism he stumbled badly, unless his real intent was to contrast victories of our past with his perceived failure of Iraq. Taken in this context he may have accomplished exactly what he intended. It seems a bit disingenuous to equate patriotism with a war he does not support.

click here for the full transcript http://www.nytimes.com/

The War Inside NBC

2008-06-30T10:25:00.000-07:00

The guest list for the funeral mass for “Meet the Press” anchor Tim Russert was an “A list” of politicians and media mentionables. Real reporters mixed with the television personalities and the network executives who control their lives. It was a black day for journalism in NBC: Russert’s death released one of the last brakes slowing NBC’s descent into political activism and journalistic irrelevance.

NBC was once the proud home of real journalists. People such as Chet Huntley and David Brinkley brought its standards to -- and above -- the level prevalent in most news organizations. But now, it’s an asylum for people such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

Matthews has made himself a caricature of the liberal news anchor. In one memorable moment of the primary season he said he felt, “…this thrill going up my leg…” while listening to an Obama speech.

Were that not bad enough, NBC’s leadership -- NBC-Universal CEO Jeffrey Zucker and NBC News President Steve Capus -- are pushing the network off into liberal la-la land. Russert, who tried hard to be fair to liberals and conservatives alike, was in a shrinking minority. Except for Russert, the moderates have been marginalized in favor of hyperventilating liberals such as MSNBC dolt-laureate Keith Olbermann.

The war within NBC is between the network suits and the real journalists who remain. They see what’s happening: the suits are using NBC to make MSNBC credible and to get their political jollies.

NBC’s news reporting has long been riddled with liberal bias. But over the past two years it’s divorced itself from the news business and gone into political activism. Its programming is so biased it could be confused with a broadcast arm of the New York Times.

Exhibit A is the May 19 letter written by Presidential Counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC News president Steve Capus. The letter was precipitated by the previous night’s Nightly News broadcast of an interview with President Bush. The interview was a setup, and the tape edited deceptively to make the President’s answers to questions from reporter Richard Engel appear to be something the clearly weren’t.

A perfect sin in journalism, the editing made it appear that the President accepted Engel’s premise that Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset equated negotiations with Iran to appeasement and was a calculated political attack on Barack Obama. In print journalism, this wouldn’t have made it past a rookie city desk editor. On NBC, it made the prime-time broadcast.

Gillespie’s letter went on to document a series of anti-war, anti-Bush positions NBC had taken in its reporting. What he didn’t document was the hyperbole MSNBC’s hosts engage in regularly.

Exhibit B is Olbermann’s relationship with the NBC’s leadership. Buoyed by some of the highest ratings among MSNBC’s shows, Olbermann regularly delivers himself of near-profane rants. In one last May, he advised the President to “shut the hell up.” Two years ago, he denounced then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a “quack” pushing “fascism.” In a June 23 article in the New Yorker, Peter Boyer reports that the Rumsfeld rant earned Olbermann an attaboy from Capus.

Boyer wrote that Capus told him, “I think we’re onto something. That’s what we keep hearing from the audience, more and more, is that they appreciate that we have people who are actually speaking truth to power, or being transparent in their own personal viewpoints.”

Transparency in their personal liberal viewpoints, that is. That attitude -- and its leakage into NBC’s primary network news operation -- is the cause of the conflict within the network.

NBC’s corporate parent -- General Electric -- is feeling the heat generated by the Olbermann rants. Capus’ favorite screecher created a feud with Fox and its most popular host, Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann had falsely accused Fox Chairman Roger Ailes of providing campaign advice to Rudy Giuliani, and was regularly attacking O’Reilly in very personal terms.

As Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz reported on May 19, the feud triggered high-level conversations between Ailes and Zucker as well as between News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch and Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE. The latter were apparently about O’Reilly’s criticism of GE for trading with Iran.

O’Reilly’s high-temperature criticism of GE and Immelt -- calling him a “despicable human being” responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq -- may even have contributed to GE’s stock slide. From a high of $42.15 on October 2, 2007, GE’s shares have lost 36% of shareholder value, closing last Friday at $26.83.

That fall is comparable to the New York Times’ loss in shareholder value under Pinch Sulzberger. Liberal bias and media political activism don’t benefit shareholders.

Russert’s death left NBC’s best news show without a host in the critical time of the presidential race. Zucker and Capus have brought back liberal elder statesman Tom Brokaw to host the show until the election.

Zuker reportedly believes the future of NBC is not the broadcast news of old, but MSNBC and its online presence. According to a report published in “Broadcasting and Cable” in February, Zucker told a Harvard Business School conference, “The definition of NBC News is really changing, and it’s becoming more MSNBC and MSNBC.com.” Zucker added, “I think [MSNBC has] found its identity. Politics is their calling card.”

As Boyer reports, politics -- going far beyond liberal bias and into political activism -- is behind the turmoil in the network. He wrote that Brokaw is uneasy about the conflict within the network: “Listen, it’s a strain,” says Tom Brokaw, the longtime anchor of ‘Nightly News,’ who remains an active and revered figure at NBC. ‘And it’s under constant examination. There’s dialogue going on behind the scenes all the time. It’s not perfectly sorted out.’”

Nor will it be before November. The professional journalists in NBC are more frustrated by it every day. They know they’re losing the battle. With Russert gone, there’s no one left to stand up for them in the fight against the suits.

NBC has chosen sides, and its reporting will continue to boost Obama, attack the President and paint Sen. John McCain’s candidacy as the promise of another Bush term. Republicans -- especially senate candidates -- will be targeted as often as McCain.

When the New York Times published its thinly-sourced smear of McCain in February, implying a non-platonic relationship with an attractive lady lobbyist, McCain’s top advisor Charlie Black told the Politico, “We’re going to war with them now.” So far, that war is entirely one-sided.

Sen. McCain needs to respond reflexively. If his campaign is to survive the media assault it will have to have its own truth squad, prepared to issue statements and make campaign commercials much faster than usual to go after the activist media.

It takes CBS, NBC or ABC -- and, of course, MSNBC -- only hours to prepare an attack ad to be passed off as news that night. If McCain’s crew cannot respond just as quickly, the war Charlie Black declared will be lost, and millions of votes with it.

Republican candidates need to do the same. There will be many close Senate races this year, and few Republicans will follow the model of John Thune’s campaign, taking on a big newspaper that was allied with his opponents. Americans know the media is riddled with bias, and they don’t respect candidates who don’t fight back.

And there’s one way for the journalists who remain at NBC: get yourselves together. Form a small committee and demand a meeting with Immelt. Make him listen and promise to restore NBC’s journalistic standards to what they should be. If he refuses, start circulating your resumes. There will be no future for you with the Olbermann Network.

Author Mr.Jed Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.

A Star is Reborn

2008-06-30T10:12:00.001-07:00

Ronald Reagan delivering a campaign speech in 1964 on behalf of Republican Barry Goldwater. Many say this speech marked the beginning of the "Reagan Revolution" which would eventually change America and the world. Three years later in 1967 Reagan won his bid for Gov. of California beginning his rise to the Presidency. From left leaning hollywood actor to conservative icon, the rebirth of Ronald Reagan is an epic chapter in America's history.

Gas Price Reduction Plan Revealed

2008-06-29T12:35:00.000-07:00

In an attempt at a bipartisan solution to high gas prices, Senate Republicans Thursday unveiled The Gas Price Reduction Act (GPRA) of 2008, which would simultaneously open the way for production of more domestic oil and reduce energy consumption overall.
As gas prices creep toward $5/gallon in most states, Democrats have nixed tapping into America’s domestic oil reserves via offshore drilling and other accessible methods.
The GPRA considers environmental concerns by excluding the option to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- also opposed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain -- and instead proposes what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called a “narrowly targeted proposal…to reach out to our Democrat friends.”
The four-step plan to “find more, use less” includes the promotion of offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, utilizing plug-in electric vehicles and improving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with increased funding, staff and regulation.

“This is not a partisan check-box exercise…[but] an actual accomplishment,” said McConnell, who later noted the plan actually proposes reducing oil demand by 4 million barrels a day.
The GPRA, co-sponsored by 42 Republican Senators who loudly pushed for support at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, allows leeway for a solutions compromise by Democrats. Republican Conference Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander said he hopes for a “good, old-fashioned Senate debate” where Democrats present their own good ideas and join Republicans in finding more domestic oil instead of solely using less.
The Democrats’ tendency to ignore Republican support of renewable resources and reducing carbon footprints hedges with the GPRA, which purports significantly decreasing consumption as equally important as domestic oil production in the battle to lower gas prices in the long run.
One component of the Act, according to a press summary, advocates for better batteries, increased R&D for advanced batteries, Direct Loans for advanced battery manufacturing facilities and a Sense of Senate that the Federal Government should increase its purchases of plug-in electric cars and trucks.
With certifiably hundreds of billions of barrels of oil sitting tight on American coastlines and within the oil shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the Act would gratify the national interest to reduce dependence on foreign oil. By tapping into oil shale resources -- currently banned due to a federal moratorium -- America could produce more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Ut) highlighted a pilot project with oil shale in his state – allowed only because the shale is located on state land and is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
“[The oil] is there for the taking -- we need to take it,” Bennett said.
Alexander said speculation could also be driving up oil prices and hopes the Act will make it easier for Democrats to say “yes, we can” to real action for long term stability in the energy crisis.
Deep sea exploration in the form of offshore drilling – another main component of the Act -- could yield up to 14 billion barrels on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The GPRA proposes federalizing regulation on offshore drilling, allowing states to decide if they want to pursue it. Such drilling must be at least 50 miles from the coast and states would receive a 37.5% revenue sharing profit as well.
Louisiana residents have seen first hand the benefits grounded in environmentally friendly methods that come from the drilling option. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said it’s been done in the gulf “for decades” but the current moratorium on drilling means “85% of our offshore resources are off the table.”
Vitter emphasized the “powerful incentive and reward” from the revenue shares and said there was “no silver bullet” to fix gas prices but this is a step in the right direction.
As the senators took turns speaking for GPRA, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) made one of the most powerful cases. After 36 years in government, he said he has “never felt so frightened about America’s economic future” and warned of America’s destruction if dependence of foreign oil continued.
Domenici urged the Senate to stall their August recess until the Act hits the floor for a vote and said that “passing the GPRA will send a strong message to the world’s oil markets and the unfriendly nations that we buy oil from that America has had enough.”
A diminished dependence on other oil-rich nations will also help increase the integrity of our markets, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who also noted the “impact of spectators on commodity.”
Chambliss stressed the importance of increased staff for CFTC so that they have the ability to moderate and regulate effectively.
The Senators agree with McCain’s idea for a new generation of nuclear power plants, as well as converting coal to liquids for the military.
This is the first Act of its kind to materialize from Capitol Hill since gas prices skyrocketed the past year. It is yet to be seen if Democrats will compromise their position on drilling and sign on.

Author Ms.Ericka Andersen is a news producer and reporter for HUMAN EVENTS. She previously interned for The Washington Examiner newspaper. She has appeared on MSNBC and Fox News. She has also been a guest on the Lars Larson radio show and the Jim Bohannon radio show. E-mail her at eandersen@eaglepub.com.

Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision

2008-06-28T13:23:00.001-07:00

Monday, June 23, 2008
Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision
Author;Fred Thompson
To read more click here http://www.fredthompson.townhall.com

As I pointed out last week, and as legal scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the “Boumediene Five” have done our nation and our Constitution no great service. But beyond the rhetoric, we really need to understand the real world impact of this ruling on the war we are waging against our enemies.

In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.

The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.

The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.

The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.

The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.

The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence.

The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.

As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.

The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?

Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.

Look, this issue isn’t going to go away, so consider these things the next time you hear someone defend the Supreme Court’s majority opinion as an attempt at “basic fairness” and to help prevent an innocent sheepherder from being improperly detained:

First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?

The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.

Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.

Second Amendment Upheld

2008-06-28T09:01:00.000-07:00

Instead of rambling on about the Supreme Courts decision on the DC gun ban, or sharing my personal opinion I thought a few historical quotes would do a fine job of answering any questions about the intent of the second amendment:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone
under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie
wagon and citizens firearms are indelibly related."

- George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress
to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens .... from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams

"Only an armed people can be truly free.
Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."

- Aristotle

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

This should clear it up for anyone who doubts the right of individuals to own firearms.

Ronald Reagans finest hour

2008-06-26T08:30:00.000-07:00

President Ronald Reagan, in his famous June 1982 speech to the British Parliament, described the outlines of "a plan and a hope for the long term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

continue reading below

Five years later, Reagan delivered an address at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, near the infamous Wall. A new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had recently been making noises about a fundamental change in the communist system. "The Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom," Reagan observed. "We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness." Still, the West was right to ask whether this marked the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state or merely token gestures, intended to raise false hopes and to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it. But, Reagan noted, "there is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"!
Communism (at least the Soviet variety) has indeed been since left on the ash-heap of history. In 1989 the wall was torn down. Decades of oppression ended, and the world was a better place due in large part to the vision of Ronald Reagan.

The Obamessiah

2008-06-21T08:01:00.000-07:00

The economy, high oil prices, and the mortgage mess understandably have people concerned. Whats not so understandable is what seems to be a new found faith in government. Led by chants of hope, change, and yes we can this misplaced faith might be gaining strength. With major news media outlets clearly in the tank for Obama, the good sense of the American people is all that stands in the way of the Obamessiah.

If you read that last line and immediately felt your eyes narrow and began gritting your teeth read on Im talking to you.

Without even getting into the specifics of Obamas plans, consider the following;

social security is on the verge of bankruptcy

medicare is $53 trillion in debt. yeah thats trillion with a T and twelve zeros

over 4000 pork projects in the last transportation bill

These are just a few examples of what our government has done for us. Thanks guys! Heres more;

UPS/FedEx deliver 23 million packages world wide everyday and their customers can track those packages from any computer in the world. Our government cant track a social security number that has been used illegally 42 times. FEMA could not explain why a truckload of bottled water destined for New Orleans after Katrina, ended up in Maine. The government almost never completes any project, be it a road, a bridge, a dam, or housing project either on time or on budget.

Now why would anyone trust our government with something as important as healthcare? Why do people all of a sudden believe the government can fix global warming? Who in their right mind would put these responsibilities in the hands of a man whos biggest accomplishment is being in the senate for 18 months? To many people have let their desire for change blind them to the reality of Obama. Lets "hope" if elected his "change" wont end with... oops I guess we cant.

Cowboys in the Whitehouse?

2008-06-16T16:42:00.000-07:00

From time to time we hear on the news some foreign leader whining that he didnt get his way and that Americans have a "cowboy" mentality. Really? Does George Bush remind anyone of Clint Eastwood? Does Dick Cheney have the presence of John Wayne? I think not. Furthermore if we had characters like those played by Clint and John meeting with foreign leaders who would come out on top?

What would ol Kim Jongs reaction be if instead of the usual niceties our president just walked up to the negotiating table and said "if ya tell me its a fine day ill shoot ya"? Talk about setting the tone! Imagine if the next time the North Koreans tested a few missiles the president flew over to Kim Jongs pad and said "well pilgrim ya started a lotta trouble this mornin coulda got a lotta people killed" and then slugged him right in the piehole.

Oreily, Hannity and the boys would abandon fair and balanced and start jumping for joy proudly proclaiming "finally we have a foreign policy that works" and even hardcore Lefties like Olbermann would giggle a little, if only off camera.

Now obviously i dont support this kind of behavior but admit it its fun to think about.

Now the next time ahmadinejad starts spouting off about wiping Isreal off the map the president should just say; do what you need to do Mahmoud but remember "dyin aint much of a livin boy." If brother Mahmoud wants to keep enriching uranium, building centerfuges, and interfereing in Iraq I say we should negotiate. Send in the airforce to blast a clear landing site in Tehran and land the president with marine 1. The presidents first statement in the negotiation should be; ok Mahmoud I told the VP if Im not back in 10 minutes "get three coffins ready" and continue, while he wonders who the other two coffins are for.

If mayhem and death are what these people want lets show em that we understand their language. Screw it! lets just challenge Chavez to a showdown at high noon. Id bet money that Hugo would pipe down real fast if he thought the American president was going to show up drinkin shots of whiskey and weilding a pair of six shooters.

Poutin could use some of the cowboy treatment to. Invite him to a poker game, sit him with his back to the door, deal him aces and eights and see if he figures it out before the bullets start flying! simple right? The cowboy may not operate like a former KGB agent but thats why he is effective no one expects him.

I think what foreign leaders forget is that real cowboys have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to bullshit and they dont really care who disagrees with them. Politicians have to at least pretend to give a crap and take other peoples "feelings" into account. Indeed cowboys should be seen as our last line of defense when suits and fancy words dont cut it

Big Oil in the Hotseat...again

2008-05-23T17:36:00.000-07:00

Posted by brucetbo on Friday, May 23, 2008 8:05:33 PM
The Senate has seen fit to summon oil executives to what turned out be another scolding on the evils of oil for profit and the governmental grilling continued the following day with congressional representatives.

To the surprise of no one all the steam letting, again accomplished nothing. Were not one day closer to alternative fuels or lower oil prices. though drilling domestic oil seems a reasonable short term solution to most of us, the superior intellect in washington thinks not. For reasons i dont understand Washington says no to drilling at home and instead wants to steal profits from an industry that does more to keep this country moving than any other.

Accusations of collusion, fraud, and price fixing were hurled about as reporters filmed every second of the info gathering frenzy. The inquisitors then moved on to badgering their guests about their personal incomes knowing full well this information is a matter of public record. At least now they can say they "did something." While its no surprise that our elected officials would spend valuable time accomplishing nothing it does reveal the futility of blaming big oil for something they dont control.

Fortunately, big oil came prepared. "We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation."Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell.In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling, should be opened."The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. The drilling ban sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is limiting supplies.

"John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.

Well, there it is! The same thing that has been said time and time again. When will politicians realize that drilling our own oil will have to be part of any realistic energy plan? How long do we need to suffer until something is done?

Obamas War on Sovereignty

2008-05-16T16:48:00.000-07:00

Its nothing short of amazing to witness the enthusiasm certain Senators display in crafting legislation that is not only contrary to our interests abroad and our prosperity at home but would severely damage American sovereignty. Such is the nature of Senator Barack Obamas "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433).

That this bill is even being discussed is pure insanity, and if passed democrats dont need to take all the blame. Republicans allowed the bill to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without hearings or a roll call vote so no member can be held accountable. Hmmmm... sound familiar? it should because the same bill was passed the same way last year. So covertly, the bill does have bi-partisan support.

Now lets think for a moment; Global Poverty Act, the Great Society, the New Deal, are ya with me here? Any self respecting conservative can offer fact based arguments on the failures and long term consequences of the social experiments of FDR and LBJ, and this new "war on poverty" is even more insidious. Senator Obamas bill would require American taxpayers to cough up a staggering $845 billion in foreign aid much of which will be inexplicably "lost", stolen or mismanaged or even in the hands of our enemies. All in the name of? you guessed it... eliminating poverty.

Heres where it gets interesting; the bill would require our president to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the acheivement of the Millenium Development Goal of reducing by one half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 dollar per day." HUH!? While eliminating poverty is a worthwhile goal the notion that our tax dollars could accomplish this by 2015 is one for the cuckoos nest.

The next obvious question is; even if we could, who's to say that we should? Before dropping billions of our dollars from the povertycopter may i suggest fixing social security, or maybe ummmm... medicare or ummmm... paying down the deficit so our citizens dont end up living in poverty. Its high time the U.N., the liberals, and the RINOs realize that the American taxpayers are not branches of some ever expanding money tree, they are real people with real problems of their own. If poor nations need more cash maybe - dare i say - they should try more capitalism! Look around... its no coincidence that the worlds most wealthy nations have capitalist economies. The sad truth is that most poor nations are poor because their leaders keep them that way.

If we stopped reading now, we could dismiss s. 2433 as a "well intended" attempt. It doesnt end here though. Oh no it gets much, much worse. This is where the true Leftist nature of the bill is revealed, and where conservatives should have drawn the line.

The "Millenium Development Goal" mentioned earlier refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millenium Assembly and summit in 2000 which called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution of wealth and land," cancellation of "the debt of developing countries," and "a fair distribution of the earths resources." After reading these statements can any reasonable person deny that the U.N. is a socialist organization? We can be certain that when the U.N. talks of "redistributing" anything, what they mean is taking from us and giving to the rest of the world.There was a time in this country when such suggestions would have inspired heated, spit flying condemnation from conservatives and domacrats alike, hell bent on stopping such encroachment on our way of life. Today many of our politicians simply tow the U.N. line.

A report from Columbia University states the U.S. should spend $30 billion in addition to the $16 billion we already spend on anti poverty aid. Anticipating a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the U.S. to fork over such a sum, the report goes on to suggest the imposition of a global tax. Such as a tax on fossil fuels. Make no mistake the U.N. would like nothing better than to have the power to directly tax American citizens and the adoption of the Millemium Goals in 2000 has only increased U.N. demands to impose international taxes. Are the following taxes in our best interests?

1. currency transfer tax: a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.

2. fees for the commercial use of the oceans.

3. fees for airplane use of the skies.

4. fees on foreign exchange transactions.

5. a tax on the carbon content of fuels.

A quick question. Are the people that support this out of their minds? The average high school dropout could see the folly in such plans yet Washington politicians refuse to expose the obvious threats to American prosperity of the Millenium goals and many even support the lunacy.

Now; the real danger. As if throwing billions at corrupt dictators who act against us isnt bad enough, all the taxes, fees, and government freebies are just means to an end. The true goal here is to put the U.S. under U.N global governance. Now before you dismiss this as conspiratorial craziness read on;the Millenium Goals call for a "standing peace force"(code for U.N. standing army), a "U.N. arms register" of small arms and light weapons (bye bye 2nd amendment), "peace education" from preschool to college (indoctrination of youth)(see also Hitler Stalin Mao etc) and "political control of the global economy." Also implementation of all U.N. treaties not already ratified by the U.S. all of which create monitoring commitees that compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Heard enough? wait theres more! The final face stomping comes in the form of "strengthining the U.N. for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent security council membership. This would reduce U.S. influence to 1 of 192 nations giving us the same vote as cuba. All of this while our tax dollars pay about 23% of U.N. expenditures.

Scared yet? Maybe even a little pissed off? Its time the U.S. sends the U.N. packing. Let the rest of the world wallow in the U.N. mire. America can and should take care of herself first.

facts and figures from World Net Daily

Second amendment rights in question

2007-11-21T08:57:00.000-08:00

Major ruling against D.C. handgun ban
In 2-1 vote, appeals court says Second Amendment is not limited to ‘militia’
NBC News and news services
updated 7:32 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.
In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.

My thoughts: With handgun violence being a reality it is reasonable and responsible for lawmakers to take action in order to stem violence. Sadly however, it is also predictable that "living constitution" advocates choose to ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners who only seek to protect themselves and their families. I would much rather read a headline stating "homeowner kills armed intruder" than one that states "homeowner slain by armed intruder" wouldnt you? The question of individual gun ownership rights has been answered time and time again throughout history. i offer the following quotes as evidence:

Noah Webster
1787 - An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Reference: Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Ford (29)

Thomas Jefferson
1824 - letter to John Cartwright

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

John Stuart Mill
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."

Noah Websters comments in 1787 are just as relevant today. Consider this: in countries where individuals have limited or no gun ownership rights, genocidal wars have been waged on an almost constant basis throughout the modern era. Furthermore he felt that a governments power over the population needed to be balanced by the population with firerarms providing at least part of that balance.

Thomas Jefferson considered our right to arms as inherent as our right to vote and left it to the individual to excercise those rights. Its interesting to note he considered being armed not only a right of the people but a duty.

John stuart Mills felt that in a nation rooted so firmly in the belief of personal freedom and liberty the only right more important was that of individuals protecting their right to it.

Taking the words of our forefathers into account it seems our right to bear arms has been infringed upon for decades, and its my opinion that the infringement continues today. Laws that discourage legal gun ownership only rob law abiding citizens of their undeniable right to self protection and make criminals more powerful. If lawmakers continue to distort the meaning of our constitution to suit the needs of the day how long will it be until there is nothing left of its original intent? It seems some of those in power today are content to pass laws that take guns from those who should have them because its easier than taking them from those who shouldnt.

I welcome your comments

Quotes found at www.patriotpost.us

Full MSNBC News story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/