Barack Hussein Obama is our savior

Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.
That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism.

The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored. Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips - they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy.

Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and "disabilities." Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts. We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest. In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms.

ACORN - a taxpayer-supported organization - is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union - whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense - is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from "Independent" to "Republican." I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years - the Constitution.

Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

GARY HUBBELL - ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY

pel

Thanks, Flaming Progressives!

There are a lot of opinions out there right now. And some are sadly pessimistic about the future of our country. I get mad when I read them.

This is America. We are Americans. We can do anything.
That's not a wish or a hope or a dream. Them's the facts, ma'am.

Have you READ our history? We have already proven it hundreds of times. In every corner of the nation, and all over the world.

Yep, we can do ANYTHING we set our mind to—including restore our Constitutional Republic!

Don't let the cry-babies get you down. Don't let the "we can't" wusses get you down. Don't let the professorial elites - of either side - discourage you by explaining how difficult it is to dismantle the Imperial State.

Hells Bells! Nobody said this would be EASY....we're just saying WE'LL DO IT ANYWAY!

Have FAITH. Liberty is God's work.

Gary Hubbell, good man, agrees.

Muddy Vision - or Purposeful Lies?

Just so you know. This is what Øbama thinks of you.

Nice work Mr. Resident. You just can't HELP alienating real Americans, can you?

wtp

"Harry, what do you mean Turnips don't have blood?" - BØ

From American Spectator...

And now they're mad at the companies they're putting out of business...

...FOR GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!

They're going to have HEARINGS!

What's the word for it? Oh yeah....CLUELESS!

I guess they really are that STUPID!

And here I thought it was just wickedness.

wtp

[sorry about the yelling]

Obama in Rude Denial

By The Prowler on 3.29.10 @ 6:09AM

IT'S ALL A GOP PLOT
The White House political and legislative operations were said to be livid with the announcement by several large U.S. companies that they were taking multi-million or as much as a billion dollar charges because of the new health-care law, the issue was front-and-center with key lawmakers. By last Friday, AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., and AK Steel Holding Corp. had all announced that they were taking the one-time charges on their first-quarter balance sheets. More companies were expected to make similar announcements this week.

"These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general," says a White House legislative affairs staffer. "Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative websites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It's BS."

On Friday White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett were calling the CEOs and Washington office heads of the companies that took the financial hits and attacked them for doing so. One Washington office head said that the White House calls were accusatory and "downright rude."

The companies are taking the charges because in 2013 they will lose a tax deduction on tax-free government subsidies they have had when they give retirees a Medicare Part D prescription-drug reimbursement. Many of these companies have more than 100,000 retirees each. AT&T may have more than three-quarters of a million retirees to cover.

"Most of these people [in the Administration] have never had a real job in their lives. They don't understand a thing about business, and that includes the President," says a senior lobbyist for one of the companies that announced the charge. "My CEO sat with the President over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the President what this bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the President didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn't know what was in the bill."

It isn't just the President who didn't understand his own proposal. Late Friday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Rep. Bart Stupak, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations panel, announced that they would hold hearings in late April to investigate "claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company's ability to provide health insurance to their employees."

Neither Waxman or Stupak -- who betrayed the pro-life community by negotiating for more than a week with the White House to ensure his vote on the health care bill -- had anything more than a cursory understanding of how the many sections of the bill would impact business or even individual citizens before they voted on the bill, says House Energy Democrat staff. "We had memos on these issues, but none of our people, we think, looked at them," says a staffer. "When they saw the stories last week about the charges some of the companies were taking, they were genuinely surprised and assumed that the companies were just doing this to embarrass them. They really believed this bill would immediately lower costs. They just didn't understand what they were voting on."

Principles vs Details - How Not to Lose the Argument

We Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists often fall into a trap because we are only human, and find it difficult to resist engaging the Progressives/Marxist/Statists when they say something stupid, false, cruel, ugly, mistaken, threatening or evil.

That's the trap, you see.

If you offer money to a woman for sex and she doesn't slap your face, but starts arguing about the details of the transaction, she's pretty much ceded the underlying concept that she's a whore.

If you offer a citizen Socialized Medicine, and she doesn't slap your face, but starts arguing about the details of the bill, she's pretty much ceded the underlying concept of the possibility if not the legitimacy of Government-Run Health Care.

The citizen's reaction should be as sharp and instantaneous as the virtuous woman's: Outrage at the mere suggestion of such a concept, and its utter rejection on Principle.

The only correct response is to avoid debate on the details, and denounce the concept itself—on PRINCIPLE—and never let the baiting of the Left suck you into a false argument.

It is our principles of Individual Liberty, Limited Government and the Free Market that the very idea of Socialized Medicine offends. And that must be our argument. And we should make it clear to all that we will not dignify with debate or discussion, the details of a concept we find un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, reprehensible, repugnant and entirely unacceptable - on Principle!
There should be no discussion of any supposed "good" points in the monstrosity called ObamaCare. The entire thing must be rejected —on Principle!— from the beginning. Any suggestion of compromise will only impugn our characters as willing participants in the despicable Progressive house of ill repute.

wtp

PRESS RELEASE re: Media Hype of "Right Wing Violence"

MyLiberty 
9.12 Project • San Mateo County • Tea Party Patriots


March 27, 2010

[FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE]

MyLiberty, the San Mateo County 9.12 Project Group & Tea Party Patriots, would like to address the issue of media hysteria in spreading fear of "Right Wing" violence against Democrats who voted for or supported ObamaCare.

Considering the unconscionable, actual, documented, serious, bloody and brutal violence perpetrated against Patriots attending Town Hall meetings recently and the minimal, even dismissive way it was covered in the Press, we find it sadly ironic (but predictable) that wild, unsubstantiated rumors, demonstrably false reports and debunked accusations of violence by "Right Wing Radicals goaded on by Republicans" should be covered endlessly and breathlessly by the Mainstream Media.

It goes without saying that MyLiberty and all other Patriot organizations consider violence in the name of ideology and politics unsavory and unacceptable—no matter WHO is involved. It is illegal, immoral and un-American.

But it is clear by the howling and overblown reports sans facts that this current "reporting" is less about "news" than propaganda—with the object of making the public believe that the patriotic dissent of those who are against the passage of ObamaCare, is somehow unreasonable and dangerous.

But it is rather the biased, ecstatic, uncorroborated reportage that is objectionable and unseemly. And we believe that a Party or a Press that would use such tactics against a political opponent to be most emphatically DANGEROUS to our American political and social system - to every citizen's Constitutional right of free speech, free expression, and political dissent.

As the Left lectured us for the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency: DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!

Even when it's loud, angry, boisterous and passionate.

[END]

FYI

National Speed Trap Exchange!

A listing of all the speed traps in YOUR TOWN!

I found a bunch in both the town I live in and the one I work in.

Check it out.

wtp
(from the mailbag) hat tip/Jon

Disclaimer: Of course, MyLiberty does not approve of speeding!

Are we Orcs or Men?

Here's to You Mr. Jefferson...

Reaching Back to Jefferson

This is Thomas E. Woods, Jr. — Fan of Thomas Jefferson!

I recommend his books. I already have three...and just bought two more. Seriously smart dude...and definitely on the side of the angels (that would be us, the Enemies of the Imperial State!)

wtp

[This video should progress from part 1 to part 7. If it doesn't, you'll have to do it manually. Here's the Campaign for Liberty YouTube Channel link.]

The True Cost of Illegal Immigrants

From a California school teacher - - -

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal
immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a

large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1

school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and

income levels

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell

Gardens, Huntington Park , etc., where these students are

protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program.

When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll --

but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would

make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with

trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least
moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones.

The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage

pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without

the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having

family watch their kids.

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing

funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for

anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying

new computers for the computer learning center, half of which,

one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative

students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free

education in America.

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute

teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students,

here in the country less then 3 months, who raised so much hell

with the female teachers, calling them "Putas"(whores) and

throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, free day care etc., etc, etc.

Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country

but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants

contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and

housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some

time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the

TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs,

more crime, lower standards of education in our schools,

overcrowding, and new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

Americans, we need to wake up. It does, however, have everything

to do with culture: It involves an American third-world culture that

does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and

dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an

American culture that has become so weak and worried about

“political correctness" that we don't have the will to do anything

about it.

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to

everyone you know.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don't want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a

myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor.

“Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.

He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six

dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he

files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up

to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent. He qualifies

for food stamps. He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay)

health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school. He requires
bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at

(our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or

homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed

material. He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to

$30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left

after paying their bills and his.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING

TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY.

AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY,

WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM.

pel

Is this what we want?

Bumpy Night

Democrats fire on Ft. Sumter

When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."

Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back-and-forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.
What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.

In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.

So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.

Here in Indiana, for example, the state has reported that the enactment of ObamaCare will open up the government-subsidized Medicaid system to approximately 500,000 Hoosiers. That means half a million more citizens will be receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. But who will pay for it? Well, in order to carry off their outrageous lie to the American people that ObamaCare is going to save us money (the hubris behind such a laughable suggestion is impossible to fully grasp), the Democrats have mandated that the states pick up the tab for this Medicaid stampede.

Someone should tell the teachers' unions who foam at the mouth anytime someone mentions funding cuts to the public school system that they ain't seen nothin' yet. When a state like Indiana has to pick up a tab that equals billions of dollars to fund the excessive doctor and hospital visits that will soon be "free" to 500,000 more citizens, does anyone expect not to see drastic cuts in other areas, as well as massive tax increases? Yet teachers unions' continue to support the very Democrats who are forcing this funding Armageddon.

So the states will undoubtedly sue – indeed somewhere between five to ten are already actively pursuing such a strategy. They will ask the federal courts to strike down multiple provisions of ObamaCare, including the blatantly unconstitutional federal mandate that all citizens purchase healthcare. (See related article: Lawsuit awaits Obama's signature on bill)

Even the most left-leaning constitutional law experts have had a hard time coming up with a defense of the individual mandate. About the best they've got is the silly suggestion that such a mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause. But at the end of the day, they are forced to recognize that if that be the case, the Commerce Clause must be interpreted to give Congress the ability to force anyone to buy anything (next time GM is in trouble, they could just pass a law requiring you to buy a GM vehicle within a year) – a clearly untenable position to anyone who is sane.

A second battle will manifest at the ballot box as Congressional Democrats face the uncomfortable reality that their president and party leadership have made them walk the plank into a sea of furious, motivated citizens. In order to secure enough votes for passage, President Obama promised wary lawmakers that their constituents would forget about this issue come Election Day. That, of course, is preposterous. The vote Sunday only guaranteed an explosion of growth for the Tea Party movement. And it also demonstrated this crystal clear reality: there is a difference between the two political parties...a BIG difference.

Say what you will about past Republican Party indiscretions (and there have been many), but not a single Republican voted for this atrocity (see 219-212 Roll Call vote). In fact, Republicans led a courageous effort to thwart the authoritarian Democrats while offering common-sense alternatives that actually would help lower healthcare costs.

So that's what's coming next. From there, it's too early to tell. Millions of citizens are preparing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent their tax money from being used to pay for abortions (as ObamaCare did, does, and will always allow), several states are reviving the nullification theory, and Republicans are promising a fight to repeal the legislation.

But this much is clear: Sunday's vote was only the beginning. Things are about to get very interesting.

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 3/22/2010

pel

A Message From the Heritage Foundation About Repealing the Health Care Bill

Repealing The Health Care Bill

Fellow Americans,

Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington's intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.

I write to reassure our supporters, the conservative movement, and the American people at large that The Heritage Foundation will do all within its power to keep this issue alive in the public square and make the intellectual case for the repeal of this act. We will bring all our resources to bear on behalf of those who believe America is and will always remain the Land of the Free.

This, rest assured, can be done. The American people are never permanently thwarted. President Obama's health care legislation can and will be repealed.

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

If there is one good thing about the past year—one in which we have witnessed unprecedented horse-trading, press stunts, midnight votes and political manipulation in both houses of the U.S. Congress—it is that the American people have come away educated as never before about the differences between these two visions for America. Americans are strongly opposed to this bill not because they have been hoodwinked but because they understand this bill both in its particulars and at an instinctive, gut level.

They understand this health care bill forces individuals and employers to buy insurance policies designed by government bureaucrats. This intrusion is intended to follow us from cradle to grave.

Instead of empowering families and individuals to make their own choices, Obamacare empowers the bureaucracy to make those decisions for them. It is this unelected bureaucracy, unanswerable to the electorate, that will determine the content of health benefits packages, including medical treatment and procedures, and how much will be paid for those services. Yesterday’s legislation brings us one step closer to fully government-run medicine, with expanded government power over the financing and delivery of medical services that is sure to ration care in the name of cost control.

You will hear the left say this new entitlement will be popular with the American people. Do not believe them for a second. Yes, 32 million people will gain the theoretical right to health insurance. But over half of that coverage comes from placing at least 16 million more Americans into Medicaid, an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care.

Americans will not stand for it. The American love for liberty prevailed in our founding, and will prevail once again.

In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed by Parliament that were so oppressive that they could only be described as the "Intolerable Acts."

Obamacare is today's Intolerable Act. And just as the colonists banded together to enact change after those acts were passed, so should America respond to Obamacare. This law must be repealed.

Much of the fight against this bill will be led by the individual states, a process we encourage. All told, 33 states have already taken steps to challenge various aspects of Obamacare, including its unprecedented mandate that every American purchase health insurance or face a steep penalty for noncompliance. Four additional States will have this question on the ballot in November.

On Capitol Hill, the initial battle over Obamacare will occur when Congress considers whether to fund the tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats necessary to implement the new law. In the tradition of the Hyde amendment, which prevented federal funding for abortions through annual limitations appended to appropriations bills, conservatives should look to the appropriations process as our first line of defense. Straightforward funding limitations would prevent any Administration official or any bureaucrat from implementing the law.

Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill’s deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.

But such reforms can only be considered once this tragedy of arrogance has been fully and completely repealed.

Fortunately, there are no permanent victories or defeats in Washington. For millions of Americans and for Heritage, Round One of this fight is over. Today, the Heritage Foundation is answering the bell for Round Two. Join our fight; become a part of our mission. Help us educate our lawmakers, as well as those who aspire to become tomorrow’s lawmakers. Together we can make the persuasive case for repeal of this Intolerable Act and thereby return us to our American destiny.

Onward!

Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., President, The Heritage Foundation

pel

From the Mailbag

I copied this directly from the email. I did not verify it. I like the message, even if it's not technically "true".

Particularly the last two paragraphs!

wtp

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S.Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .. it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

The Truth Always Comes Out...

From Al Sharpton....

"First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

So much for all the endless arguments from "Liberals" that the 'Bamster isn't a Socialist.

This is going to be embarrassing...

wtp

Unknown Text??

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...

...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Anybody in Congress heard this before?

wtp

Gird Loins, Warriors...

Ben Stein:

As Churchill said:

"In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance." 

And this is a war for Constitutional government. A war of words, to be sure, but a war we must win.

wtp

She Speaks for Me

Dana Loesch at Big Government:

"Last night the Democrat party died as it drove a spear through the torso of the Constitution and passed legislation that the majority of Americans overwhelmingly opposed. Nancy Pelosi sauntered into the capitol surrounded by fellow socialists, carrying the gavel used in 1965 to pass the now-bankrupt Medicare.

All summer long Americans filled town halls, emailed, called, and faxed their lawmakers, and they were forsaken. They were called Nazis, racists, homophobes; they were threatened, beaten, and called stupid because they disagreed with the minority who feels that the government should run our lives. Our lawmakers unofficially stopped representing us last spring.

Last night, our legislators officially broke the contract with America that is the Constitution. Last night, they ceased to represent us. Last night, a new party was born; the malignant tumor that is the progressive caucus consumed the Democrat party from within and gave birth to the mainstream Socialist Party."

Read the whole thing here. Prepare to be inspired!

wtp

In a Word...

The only campaign slogan necessary for 2010...

Just Watch. No Commentary Needed...

Video of GroupaPalooza held in Mill Valley on March 7th

GroupaPalooza held in Mill Valley on March 7th

Here is a great video of the Event. Check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/BayAreaPatriots

pel

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Unsustainable Spending

By David Warren

A spectre is haunting Europe, and America -- the spectre of Keynesianism finally gone nuts.

What began, not very innocently, as a suggestion that governments should run deficits in bad times, and surpluses in good times, gradually "evolved." In the next phase, governments tried to balance at least the operating account during the best of times. In phase three, governments ran deficits by habit during the good times, but much bigger "stimulus" deficits during the bad times. We are now entering phase four.

Canadians tend to feel smug about this, for we look south at a fiscal catastrophe that had nothing to do with us. For the last generation, we have been trying to claw our way back to budgetary conditions before Pierre Trudeau broke the bank. This had once seemed a small price to pay for his "just society" (or "just watch me"). Surely it was worth mortgaging our children's future, and that of their children, and children's children, for the transient privilege of being governed by such a man. (I can still hear the erotic screams of the women, from the 1968 general election, as Trudeau passed by.)

By about 1984, we had had enough. Michael Wilson balanced the operating account, then Paul Martin balanced the overall budget, and today Jim Flaherty tries to keep the federal debt "shrinking" in proportion to national income. (Of course, the debt itself grows and grows.)

We feel smug because we are watching President Barack Obama do for the United States what Prime Minister Trudeau did for us -- although in their case, on top of what Obama's predecessors did. The U.S. national debt now exceeds $12.3 trillion in a $14.2 trillion economy, and the U.S. government is now piling it on with unprecedented new deficits. The U.S. Treasury's borrowing requirement is, as it were, coming up against the Great Wall of China.

Little things, such as the heart of the U.S. space program, are being gutted to make way for metastasizing social security entitlements and debt service payments that will soon swamp the entire federal budget -- thus requiring the elimination of more little things such as the army, navy and air force. At some point the entitlements simply can't be paid, without hyperinflation.

I am not exaggerating. The American debt is now at levels that ring bells at the International Monetary Fund. And as the world's biggest debtor rapidly accelerates its borrowing, the fiscal carrying capacity of the rest of the planet comes into question.

There are two large reasons why we cannot afford to be smug, up here. The first is that after adding the "entitlement" heritage of our provincial governments to the federal debt load, our position is not much better. The second is that even if it were much better, the tsunami coming from south of the border will anyway sweep all our dikes away.

The Obama administration's financial projections are extremely optimistic, yet even if they all come true, the U.S. debt will continue to grow unsustainably. The kind of alarm falsely placed in "global warming" would more usefully be directed towards the remarkable cooling effect this will have, as all our fiscal and demographic trends converge. For this is a predictable future; an issue where the numbers correspond to real things, not to mere speculation.

We can already see where the U.S. is headed, because Iceland and Greece are showing the way. Both have now passed a point of no return, and both are being followed down that plughole by Britain and several other European countries that will probably precede the U.S. into outright bankruptcy. The State of California also gives some clues.

While an optimist would say that we are witnessing the final demise of the welfare state, and good riddance, a pessimist would observe that everything must go down with it. Moreover, as we have seen from the history of Germany and other countries, fiscal catastrophe accentuates every latent threat to public order.

For our governments have created vast bureaucracies, employing immense numbers whose livelihoods depend entirely (whether they realize it or not) upon the capacity of profit-earning people to pay constantly increasing taxes.

It should have been grasped, decades ago, that the constant transfer of resources from the productive to the unproductive must eventually tip the ship. And when it does, real people go over the side, who get angry when they are thrown in the water. There are consequences to that anger.

The idea that we can spend our way out of a debt crisis -- or what I called above, "Keynesianism gone nuts" -- has already been rejected by the Tea Party movement in the U.S., and has always been rejected by voters of conservative tendency. They know what's wrong with the present order, and have an important teaching function to the rest of the electorate, which doesn't get it yet.

But more urgently, we are in need of a positive conception of how to rebuild economy and society, when Nanny State collapses under her own weight. For yelling "run!" is only a short-term solution.

OMG....the Truth!

In a nutshell, this guy, a commenter at Big Journalism, has it exactly right!

The problem with your premise—that everyone in America doesn't have health care—is that it's wrong. They do!

If you pay for your health care it is convenient. If you don't pay for your health care it is inconvenient. 

And that my friends is the plain and simple truth. What you might call "pithy".

So...in order to prevent some people from being inconvenienced, we are transforming America into a Socialist Imperial State.

Seems like a fair trade.

wtp

Today's D.C. Protest

Just for our own satisfaction...because you won't hear it in the Fringe Media...here's the estimate of the number of Tea Party Protesters who showed up in D.C. today...

Be sure to go to the second page of the story for the picture and the scientific "crowd estimate"...

We might lose the battle of Health Care...but, my angels, we shall win the WAR for the Republic!

Read our glorious history....Washington did not win a single battle until he crossed the Delaware and surprised the Redcoats...

And it was months into WWII before we won our first battle.

And in both we were utterly triumphant.

Stay strong...stay angry...

wtp

Our Chance... Let's Make it Happen!

Andrew Breitbart endorses Chuck DeVore.



You can meet Chuck next Tuesday, at the MyLiberty Special Event with Chuck DeVore.

He will be speaking and answering questions at the American Legion Hall, Post #82 in San Mateo. Click here for address and directions. We hope to see you there!

wtp

Are you Insulted Yet??

What Democrats think of the American People.

This will come as no surprise...

"In other words: the American public doesn't care about how our representatives govern us--which is to say, about how we govern ourselves. Whether Congress follows its rules, whether there is democratic accountability, whether there is constitutional probity--none of this matters according to Hoyer. Rather, the self-centered and self-concerned American people only care about the (alleged) results of the legislation."

I'm thinking ol' Steny's going to find out just how wrong he is. Soon.

But hey, maybe it's just me.

wtp
(Publius)

HOLY FELONY, 'BAMSTER!

The web of corruption may be closing in on the Øbama White House.
Check it out from American Spectator: Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies.

Who'd a thunk the turncoat would finally do something useful?

wtp

The 'Bamster at the Bat

This is simply great.

,

MyLiberty Tea Party - April 15, 2010!

COME OUT ON TAX DAY! And stand up for…

Limited Government, Individual Liberty, Fiscal Responsibility, Free Market!

Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010

Time: 2 - 6pm

Location: 31st Avenue & El Camino Real, San Mateo
 (in front of Sears @ Hillsdale Mall)

Bring your flags, signs and Patriot enthusiasm!

MyLiberty

Sort of the News...

I got quoted in the Chronicle about the Bay Area Patriots "Groupa-Palooza" at which MyLiberty SanMateo had a table, and schmoozed with patriots from all over the Bay Area.

May I say....the reporter was...well I'll let you come to your own conclusion...

The hardest work he did all day seemed to be his untiring efforts to insert the "racist" meme into his interviews.

The T-shirt he references was "The Obama Joker" on the front, and "The Bush Joker" on the back. Equal opportunity insults!

It was LIPSTICK, Chron-Dude. Not Watermelon juice....which was a total leap into the crazy tree by a frustrated reporter who couldn't find any fire-breathing, knuckle-dragging, inbred mouth-breathers to parade before his Leftist/Progressive readership in San Francisco.

And he was woefully ignorant of the movement and local celebrities. He asked me what I thought of Savage's speech. The problem is, it wasn't Michael Savage...it was Brian Sussman. The reporter also failed to mention Sussman's meteorological credentials when he mentioned Sussman promoting his book, ClimateGate. He merely refers to him as a KSFO talk show host.

In fairness, he did mention, and even quote a black guy who rejected the whole "racist" meme. And for the in-the-Progressive-bag-Chronicle...that's downright "fair and balanced".

MyLiberty

CHUCK DEVORE EMERGES UNSCATHED AND VICTORIOUS

REDSTATE - by Leon H. Wolf - March 9, 2010

After having listened to the entirety first primary debate in the California Senate contest, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn: Assemblyman Chuck Devore was the only candidate to emerge from this debate unscathed, and the only candidate to sound like a serious and credible threat to Barbara Boxer in November. Round one of this contest went convincingly to Devore over Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell.

Right out of the box in this debate, the candidates were given an opportunity for a 60-second opening statement. Tom Campbell was afforded the opportunity to go first. His voice shook audibly with anger (as it would continue to do throughout the debate. Literally the second sentence out of his mouth he was angrily responding to accusations of anti-semitism and blaming Fiorina surrogates for spreading rumors about him. In fact, the entirety of his opening statement was a screed demanding that Fiorina stand by her staffers or apologize for them. I could perhaps understand why Campbell felt the need to do this, but it struck a bizarre and off-putting first note.

In fact, this was a constant theme throughout the debate. Campbell said very little of any positive affirmative nature throughout the entire debate, but instead was constantly angry and on the defensive against actual or perceived slights committed against him by the other Republicans in the race. He clearly telegraphed a dislike and disrespect for Fiorina in particular, and sounded nothing like the front runner in this race. On the merits, his defenses of his record with respect to Israel were uneven in parts. His response to the charge that he voted “against funding for Israel” in 1998 and 1999 (to wit, that he voted for $3B in funding, but not the additional amount sought by Clinton because it took money from Africa), was plausible; his defense of his vote to make Jerusalem a split capital was a draw with respect to how he handled Fiorina’s specific attack (but wrong on the merits), and his defense of his numerous associations with Jihadists were halfhearted-to-nonexistent.

Fiorina, for her part, was more measured in her opening statement, but if possible, even pricklier than Campbell during the rest of the debate. It was clear for the duration of the debate that the mere mention of Chuck Devore’s name got under her skin. In one exchange, when Devore pointed out information from a FOIA release, and Fiorina disputed its accuracy, Devore responded, “I’m just telling you what the Pentagon told us,” to which Fiorina sharply replied, “Did you hear what I said?” several times.

It was a petty exchange, and one that echoed a theme that remained constant throughout the debate, which was surprisingly acrimonious from the word “Go.” Tom Campbell was clearly upset and stung by the accusations made against him by Carly Fiorina. Carly Fiorina was clearly upset and stung made by the accusations made against her by Chuck Devore. The debate reverberated with their defensive actions and postures, which were audible even through the radio. Only one candidate in the debate remained cool, calm, collective, and substantive on the issues, his own qualifications, and his message: Chuck Devore. He emerged from the debate without a substantive glove laid upon him, and was clearly the calmest and most collected voice in the room.

This allowed him to close with a convincing argument for his own candidacy: all the candidates poll equally well against Barbara Boxer at this point in the campaign. After hearing the other two candidates bloody each other up on a host of embarrassing issues for the last hour, why wouldn’t the Republicans nominate someone with an unimpeachable record, like Chuck Devore? Why give Boxer a candidate against whom she would open the discussion with substantive personal toeholds against the GOP nominee? It is a question that admits of no easy answer for Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina, or Republican primary voters.

We may yet see if Campbell or Fiorina can recapture forward movement in the days ahead, but in the first round of head-to-head debates, Chuck Devore emerged the clear winner.

pel

Patrick Henry Speaks to Americans Today

Patrick Henry’s Speech at St. John’s Church,

March 23, 1775
Edited by: Leonard Stone

March 4, 2010

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of patriotism, as well as the abilities of the very honorable gentlemen who have just addressed the house. Different men often see the same subject in different lights; therefore I hope it will not be thought disrespectful, to those gentlemen if, entertaining, as I do, opinions very opposite to theirs. I should speak my sentiments freely, and without reservation. This is not time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of an awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. In proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I withhold my opinions at such a time, through a fear of giving offense? I would consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and disloyal to the majesty of Heaven who I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the determining part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of a number of those who, having eyes, see not, having ears, hear not those things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging the future but by the past. And, judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition compares with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, what does this martial array mean, if not to force us to submission? Can gentleman assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Briton any enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry has been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; it has all been in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find, that have not already been exhausted?

Let us not, I beseech you, deceive ourselves longer. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne and implored its intervention to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrations have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate, those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not dishonorably to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest be obtained; we must fight! I repeat sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left to us.

They tell us that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. When shall we be stronger? Will it be next year, or the next? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and a British guard is stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the elusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?

We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three million people armed in the holy cause of liberty, in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force our enemy can send against us.

Besides we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise friends to fight our battles with us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone: it is to the vigilant, the active, and the brave. Besides we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged! The clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

pel

Chicago Reception

When President Obama recently visited Chicago he was delayed by a huge traffic jam and a large group of people communicating their opinions to him. Here are some pictures. Those of you who have been to Chicago will recognize the downtown area. Funny, I did not see any reporting of it on NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC. They must have been busy elsewhere. Hurray for these folks in the Windy City!

 

pel