Thursday, April 29, 2010

Media's Race Baiters Lead Charge Against Arizona

By Dan Gainor

Both the media and the left know how they want to play this – don’t go for the jugular, go for the wallet.

The old media love a great race – so much that they’d rather double their pleasure by injecting racial politics into the 2010 congressional elections. They weren’t content with claiming conservatives were anti-black racists who wanted to restart the Civil War. Now the left and the media that support it are claiming that conservatives are anti-Hispanic racists who have re-launched the Mexican War as well.

That latest bogus claim follows the passage of a law in Arizona that essentially authorizes state law enforcement agencies to enforce federal statutes on immigration. Liberals are going ballistic over the law. That’s unsurprising, given 2010 is an election year and Democrats are doing poorly at the box office.

The media and others on the left have become so entangled on the issue that it’s almost impossible to sort out exactly who is leading the charge to halt the law, beat up on Arizona and welcome the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants into our nation's arms and pocketbook.

Once the law was signed by Arizona's governor those even-handed, professionally neutral journalists acted like they had joined La Raza. CBS "Early Show" co-host Harry Smith claimed to know the heart of every Hispanic in Arizona, asking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): “And for the millions of Hispanic Americans who live in Arizona, what do you say to them, who feel like this bill is purely discriminatory?”

ABC “Good Morning America” co-host Bill Weir harassed Arizona Sherriff Joe Arpaio, “Will you grab people on street corners?”

One-time New York Times Supreme Court reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Linda Greenhouse called Arizona a “police state” and said she would avoid it till the law changed. She compared the law to “the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa.”

Official left-wing voices were just as shrill. Jesse Jackson, the man who once called New York City “Hymietown,” called the law equal to “terrorism for the innocent … you look suspicious because you are Mexican.”

Far-left CNN Headline News host Joy Behar invoked images of World War II Germany. “Do you think it's kind of -- doesn't it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” she asked.

Both the media and the left know how they want to play this – don’t go for the jugular, go for the wallet. They plan to promote a boycott of Arizona to make the state cave on the law they've approved for daring to say that people who are here illegally shouldn’t be.

The left’s Nation magazine embraced a boycott with echoes of the Martin Luther King Day boycott of the early 1990s. Sports correspondent Dave Zirin led off his call with innocent-sounding lines from a Public Enemy song from that era called “By the Time I Get to Arizona.”

Zirin called the new law “echoes of apartheid” and added: “This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist.” He forgot to mention the Public Enemy song had a video with a whole story line of political assassination of whites who opposed the King holiday. In the video one politician is poisoned and another is blown up while members of the band appear repeatedly carrying rifles and wearing paramilitary garb.

Imagine if the band had been white and the targets had been Hispanic. Now that would have been noteworthy.

CBS’s John Blackstone, estimated that previous boycott cost the state “170 conventions and $300 million.” That is what liberals plan for Arizona this time, too.

On ABC, Barbara Pinto said “the call for an economic boycott here has caught fire on the Internet.” Both ABC and NBC announced the scary news that all 400 planned guests for the American Immigration Lawyers Association had canceled.

Of course, Democrats are pushing the idea to get supporters to the polls. Luis Gutierrez, (D-Ill.), called for people to cancel summer vacations in Arizona. San Francisco Democrats voted to boycott the state.

Even Mexico got into the act as that nation issued a travel warning urging Mexicans to “act carefully” in Arizona. Presumably they will print it in Spanish and leave it at every desert water station so illegals are sure to see it during their daily invasion.

As the boycott builds, and journalists will make sure it does, you can bet we’ll hear repeated reminders of how Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegals. Yes, using all the information available at the time, Reagan did so. It was a horrific mistake. Instead of solving a problem, it guaranteed an endless cycle of amnesty and illegal border crossing.

What the media and left don’t want to discuss is the fact that a failure of government – that same government that now controls our health care – is what led Arizona to this desperate measure. The craven cowards of both parties -- grasping for every vote -- have refused to secure our border. There must be no amnesty until Americans are satisfied our border is under control.

America remains a nation that loves immigrants. But we hate law-breakers and the politicians and journalists who cater to them. The last amnesty bid failed because Democrats and Republicans joined together to defeat it. If Team Obama wants to use the Arizona law to insert race into the 2010 elections, we can only hope that American voters will ensure it’s a race they lose.

Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Border Insecurity

Say what you will, but the Governor of Arizona has more of a set of balls than Obama does, and the Governor is a broad.

It’s about time ALL the border states follow Arizona’s lead and enact the same kind of legislation. If the Federal government refuses to protect our sovereign borders, then the states have no choice but to do it themselves. In fact, I believe a state should always have the right to make its own laws. If they want to make being an illegal alien a crime, especially if these illegals are terrorizing and murdering our citizens, they should be allowed to do so.

All this crappola about civil rights being violated is nothing but a red herring. Any police officer in this country has not only the right to ask a person to show proof of who they are, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is in violation of the law, it is in fact his sworn duty to do so. Try going to the airport and boarding a plane without showing proof of identity. (By the way, would YOU like to board a plane where they haven't asked anyone for ID?) Better yet, try gaining access to this country through normal border checkpoints and see what happens if you can’t prove who you are. Are people, both citizens or non-citizens, having their civil rights violated when they are asked for ID at the airport or border crossings checkpoints? I don’t think so. If I’m in the vicinity of a bank robbery and I match a general description of the bank robber, it’s not a violation of my civil rights to be stopped by a police officer and asked for ID. Conversely, if a police officer sees ten people standing around a location where it is known that illegal aliens congregate to be picked up for day laborer jobs, it is not a violation of anyone’s civil rights if he is stopped and asked for ID.

This political correctness crap, and the liberals in this country who refuse to act responsibly when it comes to illegal immigration, in fear of pissing off some minority group or people who are either in this country illegally or who have entered legally but who are hell bent on staying and doing us harm, has resulted in this country being left open to terrorist threats and was almost certainly responsible for the deaths on 9-11.

It’s time to wake up and smell the crappola they’ve been dishing out. The liberals only kow-tow to these groups who have a problem with securing our borders, and who oppose stopping the flow of illegal aliens into this country, because the liberal Democrats have these groups in their back pocket as a voting block.

The United States should have the same right and privilege to protect her sovereign borders that EVERY other country has and maintains. Never forget that as soon as someone enters this country illegally, the same as if someone enters my home illegally, THEY ARE AUTOMATCIALLY A CRIMINAL.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Obama's War on Wall Street

By Michael Goodwin

Greed comes in many guises. A president who was bankrolled by New York banks is turning on them.

When he brings his war against Wall Street here Thursday, Barack Obama isn't coming to praise Gotham. He's coming to bury us.

We're not dead yet, but no thanks to him and his policies. His assaults on New York ought to be counted in the NYPD crime stats. They're doing more damage than a year's worth of stickups, and still the hits keep coming.

Under his initial plan, cops and the feds already would be locking down the Foley Square courthouse area to give the precious Khalid Sheik Mohammed his constitutional rights. Nary a New Yorker wants the 9/11 trial here, but Attorney General Eric Holder insists the city "is not off the table."

Think about that. Would you buy an apartment or open a business anywhere near the courthouse if you thought the area would be turned into an armed camp, possibly for years?

Or this. How dare Obama and Holder continue to even consider bringing the horror show here after Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said it would make New York more of a target for Islamic radicals?

Oops. The White House doesn't say "Islamic" radicals anymore. Or "jihad." Or "war on terror." See, 19 humans carried out the man-caused disaster on 9/11.

Speaking of man-caused disasters, the health-care monstrosity certainly qualifies. New Yorkers will pay an additional $6.5 billion a year in federal tax hikes once the law is fully implemented, Mayor Bloomberg's office says, depriving the city of money that could be spent on housing, entertainment and hiring other New Yorkers.

Instead, the cash will go to Washington to subsidize the federal bureaucracy and other cities and states.

It's worth repeating that Obama couldn't have pulled off the heist without inside help. Only one of the 13 members of the House who allegedly represent the city voted against the health measure.

All 13 are Democrats, as are the state's two senators, but only Mike McMahon of Staten Island voted no. For his courage, he got berated by the White House and threats from labor groups that, politically, he's a dead man.

Now it's Wall Street's turn in the cross hairs. With Dems moving their sweeping package of financial restrictions to the Senate floor, it takes a fool to believe the timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission's charge of fraud against Goldman Sachs was a coincidence.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added to the suspicions with his initial reaction. "I'm pleased that the Obama administration is using all of the tools in its arsenal to bring accountability to Wall Street," he said of the charges.

On Monday, when Obama announced he was coming to Cooper Union, Reid again railed against Wall Street, getting so carried away, he went after "excess greed." I guess that's worse than ordinary greed.

But greed comes in many guises. A president who rakes in millions of dollars in contributions from New York banks, then goes after them like they are witches in Salem, has no respect for decency or capitalism.

Then again, those Masters of the Universe deserve what they get. Executives from Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and UBS didn't just back the president who now aims to turn them into political piñatas for the midterm elections. Their contributions bought the rope he's using for their hanging. Maybe they're not so smart after all.

Michael Goodwin is a columnist for the New York Post.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Coming Soon to a Country Near You

Here's what will eventually happen to our country, as we plod down the road of European Style Socialism, as Obama seems bent on mimicking. Couldn't happen here you say? A few years ago, not many people here thought you would have a "right" to free healthcare, or that the government would be running the banks, the car companies and student loans either.

Brussels Declares Vacation Time a Human Right

Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidized by the taxpayer.

An overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year's hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidized by the taxpayer.

Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.

The idea for the subsidized tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.

The scheme, which could cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is intended to promote a sense of pride in European culture, bridge the north-south divide in the continent and prop up resorts in their off-season.

Tajani, who unveiled his plan last week at a ministerial conference in Madrid, believes the days when holidays were a luxury have gone. "Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life," he said.

Tajani, who used to be transport commissioner, said he had been able to "affirm the rights of passengers" in his previous office and the next step was to ensure people’s "right to be tourists."

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Guess Who Didn't Pay Taxes On Tax Day

By Elizabeth Factor and Mallory Factor

Progressive Democrats are using “tax reform” to create a group of Americans who pay no federal income tax at all.

Did you file your federal income taxes on or before April 15? Almost 50% of American households won’t be paying any federal income tax this year, and the reasons why have profound implications for our democracy as well as our economy now.

A series of tax reforms, generous exemptions and tax credits, including last year’s economic stimulus bill, have dropped millions of Americans from the federal tax rolls. Huge numbers of Americans are simply no longer affected by the federal income tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that 47 percent of all U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2009. And, the bottom 40 percent of income earners actually receive a cash payment from the government at tax time. This cash payment is styled as a “refund” but it is actually a net cash transfer from the government--not a refund of taxes actually withheld on income. And for many Americans, this cash transfer from Uncle Sam actually exceeds all federal, state and local taxes that they pay in any form during the year including sales taxes and social security taxes.

Of course, we are accustomed to the idea that high income earners pay more in taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their incomes. But taxing only the top half of a society is not normal progressive taxation. Instead, the recent changes to our tax system are an example of politicians using the tax code for their own political ends. In this case, the so-called progressive Democratic politicians are using “tax reform” to grow their political base by creating a group of Americans that pay no federal income tax.

The people who don’t pay federal income taxes are, as the phrase goes, “rational economic actors” just as much as anyone. Like all people, non-taxpayers respond to economic incentives. Their demand for entitlements and government programs is naturally insatiable because they don’t care at all about the cost. Non-taxpayers don’t have any “skin in the game” and are completely indifferent to the government raising income taxes. So they will always support increasing government programs as a long as they get even a small benefit from them because it does not cost them a cent. It’s also perfectly rational for non-taxpayers to support politicians who favor more spending. Non-taxpayers get something for nothing, at least until the country becomes insolvent.

The so-called progressive Democratic politicians are rational actors too. By taking more and more Americans off the federal tax rolls, they are creating a permanent base of supporters for themselves. These politicians may claim to support increased government spending because of their concern for the less-fortunate but--hey, it also happens to be in their own political self-interest. And these politicians will continue to spend on these programs until our nation goes bust because they want to keep their jobs and grow expensive programs for their political base.

And what about the people paying all the federal taxes? Well, taxpayers respond to incentives too. When faced with increasing tax rates, taxpayers will reduce their income, which is why it is impossible to raise a lot of revenue by increasing taxes above a certain point. As taxes on income rise, taxpayers spend less time on work and more on leisure. They avoid sales of investments and assets which could trigger income until they can pair them with offsetting losses from other transactions. They spend billions of dollars on tax advice and structuring to reduce their tax burden, which makes economic sense for them but which is a waste of resources for our society. In the aggregate, a tax system that is hostile to investment and growth has a distortive effect which harms U.S. productivity and reduces the standard of living of our whole nation.

Under the Obama administration, many Americans accustomed to paying their share of federal taxes are being taken off the tax rolls. Recent tax law changes mean that for the first time, in 2009, a family of four making $50,000 can pay no federal income tax at all. This family may not change its behavior and outlook immediately from its taxpaying days. But the family’s economic incentives are now to keep America taxing and spending. And a family at this income level has surely suffered in this recession, but should they really pay no federal income tax at all?

Ronald Reagan once said that a taxpayer is “someone who works for the Federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.” Every American should have to work for the federal government at least a little bit. We need to move back to a broad-based tax system so that more Americans understand that there is no such thing as free money—government spending actually has a huge cost for our nation.

The so-called "progressive" politicians have turned John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” on its head. And telling so many Americans that they don’t need to make sacrifices for our government, as we are now saying, is dangerous new territory for our nation and for the health of our democracy and economy.

Elizabeth Factor is an international tax lawyer and former investment banker. Mallory Factor is a well-known merchant banker and the co-chairman and co-founder of the Monday Meeting, an influential meeting of economic conservatives, journalists and corporate leaders in New York City.

Friday, April 16, 2010

The Hidden Tax That's More Than $1 Trillion

By Wayne Crews &  Ryan Young

Last year, Americans paid $989 billion in income taxes. Add to that sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes, and the total tax burden comes to nearly 27 percent of national income. The Tax Foundation calculated that you work from the beginning of the year until April 9 just to pay off your taxes. Tax Freedom Day is moving alarmingly close to Tax Day. Yet taxes aren’t the whole picture when it comes to measuring the size of government.

The federal government spends far more than it taxes. Last year alone, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. This year’s deficit is expected to grow to around $1.8 trillion. Add in the burden of federal deficit spending, and we’re working until May 17 to pay for the growth of government (and that’s not even counting state and local deficit spending).

Yet even that’s not all. The hidden tax of federal regulation cost businesses and consumers an additional $1.187 trillion last year—none of which shows up in the federal budget. Regulation eats up an additional 8.3 percent of GDP. We have to work an additional 34 days to pay for the federal regulatory burden.

It’s tempting to brush off regulatory costs, since most of them are borne by businesses. But remember, businesses pass on their costs to consumers. We all pay for the cost of the regulatory state.

Added together, total taxes, federal deficit spending, and federal regulations push Cost of Government Day out to at least June 20. We don’t need to argue that government has grown too big—the data tells us as much beyond any doubt.

What to do about the hidden tax of regulation? Three things come to mind. One is disclosure. Our organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, issues the annual Ten Thousand Commandments report (online at, which tallies up federal regulatory costs every year.

Each year's federal budget, or the annual "Economic Report of the President," should include in-depth chapters exploring the regulatory state, along the lines of Ten Thousand Commandments. The more the public and policymakers know about regulatory costs, the more likely they are to do something about them. But disclosure alone is not enough.

Obsolete rules need to be removed from the books. Congress should task the Office of Management and Budget with identifying rules to eliminate each year. Congress should also implement its own bipartisan packages of cuts to be voted on, up or down, without amendment.

Sunset provisions are a relatively simple way to do away with obsolete regulations. Like a carton of milk, every new regulation should have an expiration date, beyond which it gets discarded unless renewed by Congress. With today’s rapid technological change, five years is a reasonable term for sunsetting.

Most important of all, Congress needs to reassume its lawmaking responsibilities. It passed 125 bills last year—but federal agencies passed 3,503 final rules. This "regulation without representation" should end.

The Constitution says, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Cabinet departments and regulatory agencies are not part of Congress; they should answer to it via at least expedited approval of the most onerous rules.

Over-delegating its responsibilities to agencies lets Congress shift blame away from itself for excessive or unpopular regulations. The people's elected representatives should perform their rightful duty and approve all new laws, not 125 out of 3,503.

Tax Freedom Day and Cost of Government Day are moving later in the calendar with each passing year. It is well past time for a change of direction.

Wayne Crews is Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and the author of the 2010 edition of Ten Thousand Commandments. Ryan Young is CEI’s Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Obama Shows Signs of Mental Illness

A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.

A recent case in point was Obama's bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama's wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, "I don't know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle."

This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience. Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.

On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A's fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name. Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.

In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his health care package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.

A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once health care was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see."

Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.

Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Simplicity at it's best

You know, for all the pomposity there is out there, simplicity always works the best.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

A Message From Jon Voight

A must see video for all patriotic Americans:

Talking Crap

Thursday, April 8, 2010

JANINE TURNER: Time for a 180, America

We the People need to turn around and look back at our Constitution and the Federalist Papers for guidance on how to move our nation forward in this time of crisis. We must join together in a unifying mission to become aware of what is in these great documents. Let's get cracking and do 90 readings in 90 days.

I was driving my mother’s car the other day and I commented on how small her rearview mirrors were. My rearview mirrors are big because, as a Texan, I drive a large SUV that I use to work my ranch. As I was looking out of her rearview mirrors, I wondered, as a Constitutionalist (my new self-definition), about whether Americans have something in common with rearview mirrors. Is the traditional American view -- the basis of our country, our thesis, our founding principles, our United States Constitution -- receding in our rearview mirrors? Are we, as a country, driving away from these founding principles?

In order to be a more perfect union in today’s environment we need to be more aware. Without awareness there can be no subsequent resulting action as citizens. Trying to evaluate legislation and governmental action without a knowledge of the Constitution is a lot like sitting in the passenger seat as the driver moves ahead in the dark - without headlights. An enlightened people were the hope and the engine of our new Republic in the 18th century. It is no different today.

But wait, maybe a better metaphor is better represented as the driver of a car moving forward toward the results of a horrendous earthquake – an earthquake that has left a deep, uneven division on the land. Thrust upon the divide are the clumps of dry parched land left to bake in the sun – the American Republic, the America loved and cherished by many patriots of yesterday and today.

As we look to the future with angst and thirst for righteousness we realize we must look back in our rearview mirrors. The nourishment our land needs is already available to cultivate the soil, to fertilize the country of America and her people. In the rearview we see the vitamins and minerals we need. -- They are in the United States Constitution and its companion piece, The Federalist, or The Federalist Papers.

In these documents are all the answers America needs but to solve the riddle of how we move forward we must read them! We must join together in a unifying mission to become aware of what is in these great documents and to understand them. We should no longer let Washington, D.C., our representatives, the bureaucracy, or Obama administration officials do our thinking for us. Ignorance enables them to get away with all of the things we do not understand.

If we are to protest or approve of the actions of the three branches of our government we must do so with a foundation of knowledge. We must educate ourselves and we must educate our children. It is like preparing for the great debate. As a nation we are either moving away from our Constitution, watching it shrink in the rearview mirror, or we are turning around and driving toward it.

If we do not take action and "Constitute" America then we will watch as it continue to slowly, inch by inch, diminish in view just like it did during the 20th Century. Like a thief in the night our Constitutional ideals are being usurped from us, politically and culturally.

But if we do a 180 and turn around, shining the headlights of our car on the Constitution, then we may set off a momentum that will shift our country back to its founding principles. What will come in to view? None other than the kind of government envisioned by our forefathers -- a small government with checks and balances and an accountability to its people.

“If we see it, we will come.” As a nation we must turn around and turn on the headlights.

The darkness will call out to us, “But wait, the Constitution isn’t relevant today!” How should we answer that call from the darkness? Is the Constitution relevant today? Well, how about this passage from Federalist paper #62 dealing with the rules of the Senate, as written by James Madison:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known or less fixed.

Or how about these words in Federalist Paper #1 written by Alexander Hamilton:

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government, will be stigmatized as the offspring

of a temper fond of power, and hostile to the principles of liberty.

Timely, too, are the warnings in Federalist Paper #10, also written by Alexander Hamilton:

Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption,

or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people.

Relevant today? Yes!

Like a candle lighted in the window, our Founding Fathers' words in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are showing us the way. They call out from their arduously designed documents and copious papers to guide us toward the safe keeping of our republic. They echo forth the call of wisdom, reveal the ways to confine tyranny and the despotism that precedes the loss of liberty.

We the People in order to PRESERVE our union must unite in not only standing up but standing firm in our principles and our resolve to be educated patriots. Let us not let the genius of our forefathers -- who mutually pledged to each other, “our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor” or our Revolutionary soldiers who crossed the Delaware walking barefoot on the ice leaving a bloodstained path -- turn over in their graves.

Let us do 90 readings in 90 days. After all, 90 + 90 = 180! Let us turn around, do a 180, and seek the history that holds the key to our future. Let us read the United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers in 90 days, 5 days for the Constitution and 85 days for the 85 Federalist Papers. Read it with your children at the dinner table or before bed. It will only be about three pages a night. Let us have a national discussion one day at a time, one paper at a time, for 90 days at Let’s start on April 20th. Let’s do 90 in 90 and do a 180 – back to the history that holds the key to our future.

Janine Turner is an actress and the founder and co-chairman of “Constituting America.” For more visit:

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Glenn Beck: Barack Obama's Foundation

This should be a MUST watch video for ALL Americans who value their freedoms. Please spend the time to watch this video. The text of the audio is informative, but doesn't demonstrate all that is contained in the video. In the video, Glenn Beck answers Obama's claim that no one can back up that he is a socialist, but more importantly, it demostrates exactly how Obama plans to "transform America" as he promised shortly before being elected.

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: Barack Obama's Foundation

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

The Nuclear Option - NOT!

Just what the terrorists needed; another sign that Obama and his administration are a bunch of panty-wastes whom they will never have to fear. Might as well just put a target over a map of the USA because there is little reason to fear retaliation from this country, if attacked, while this President is in charge.

Obama should be, at the least, impeached, and at the most tried for treason for refusing to defend this country with all the resources we have at hand. His recent admission that he pledges in a new policy NOT to develop new nuclear weapons and to limit the use of the ones in storage, even for self defense, leaves this country woefully unprotected and seriously prone to attack.

Following what appears to be “liberal logic,” he and his administration said the goal of their new nuclear strategy is to move toward a policy where the "sole purpose" of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to a nuclear attack. However, he also said in an interview with The New York Times, that he is committing NOT to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are following international treaty agreements, even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

So, what he is saying is that if someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and kills hundreds of thousands of our citizens, he might use nuclear weapons in retaliation, but that if the same people use biological or chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens, he won’t retaliate with a nuclear response. Well, since most terrorists would find it far easier, and cheaper, to use biological or chemical weapons, guess, what?

The last time we used nuclear weapons, it was to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldier’s lives in WWII, which would have resulted from an invasion of Japan, not counting - in all probability - the same amount of Japanese lives. That was the right decision then, and it would be the right decision now to deter a biological or chemical attack that could easily result in mass casualties of U.S. citizens, and the break down and destruction of the rest of our society, as a result.

But, Obama in his naïve and horribly inexperienced and inept thinking believes by demonstrating our willingness to NOT defend ourselves, that this somehow will show the world how magnanimous we can be, and that everyone will just fall in love with us and want to emulate us for our altruism.

Yeah, and if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some swampland in Florida I need to talk to you about.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Welcome to the Nanny State

I hate it when I’m right. I called this one over five years ago, when the same groups who were attacking “second hand smoke” started their campaign to ban smoking in cities and states all over the country. At first, they attacked smokers, but that didn’t work because they were only hurting themselves. So, they got together with the EPA and used bogus data to “prove” that second hand smoke kills.

Of course, no one cared because second hand smoke was at the least an annoyance, so sure, why not let these people have their way, right? Even though they outlawed a legal practice, it didn’t matter because THEY said it wasn’t right. My argument then was that if you allow private groups to join with the government to ban legal practices, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, especially when their arguments are based on false or erroneous information, just because some group of people believe it’s “best” for everyone, then you jeopardize the rest of your rights; it becomes the preverbal “slippery slope,” you always hear about.

People of course scoffed at this and pooh-poohed me saying I was just paranoid. I used to ask these people, “What do you think these nanny-state-do-gooders are going to do when they’ve accomplished their mission regarding second hand smoke?” Did these people think they were just going to fade away quietly, their mission completed? Hardly.

Now, the same zealots who lobbied to criminalize smoking have a new “Cause Célèbre” to champion. It seems they are after poor Ronald McDonald. No joke. They want to fire and get rid of Ronald McDonald as a spokesperson for McDonald’s. Why, you may ask? Well, it seems they equate poor Ronnie with “Joe Camel,” who they got axed as a campaign add for cigarettes because they said Joe catered to children, enticing the poor little tykes into smoking. Ronald, they say, also entices children to partake of the "fast-food" at McDonald’s, which of course is the leading cause of childhood obesity, says they.

Do you see yet where this is going? Now that we have a nationalized, socialistic health care system in this country, it’s easy to attack any behavior that these nuts say will cause people to get sick, there-by burdening the system with people in need of care. Hold on to your cheeseburgers and fries my friends because it might not be long before you have to buy them on the black market and go skulking in alleyways to consume them. At the least, you almost assuredly will have fast-food taxed, much like cigarettes are now, to discourage you from consuming this devil’s fare.

When are we going to awake from this liberal, progressive stupor our nation seems to be mired in? What ever happened to personal responsibility in this country? Do we really need the nanny-state crowd and agencies like the EPA to mandate what they believe is for our own good, because we’re too stupid not to do things to help ourselves?

I hope everyone had a Happy Easter. Oh, by the way, Easter candy can cause your teeth to fallout and lead to diabetes. I probably should have warned the Easter Bunny; he’s almost certainly next on the hit list to be marked for extermination.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

These Are The People Who Represent Us in Congress???

At first I thought this had to be an April Fools joke. No such luck. This guy actually asked/said all this while speaking to an Admiral in the U.S. Navy. They say we should feel sorry for him cause he has some kind of illness that affects his mind -- yeah, I think it's called "dumb-shit-itis".

Even if he does have a bonafide illness, WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING IN CONGRESS???


Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic