Sunday, December 27, 2009

Monday, November 30, 2009


NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and the MA SEN special primary make the cut this morning on The Sorting Table!


Friday, September 25, 2009

Brainwashed Grade School Kids Sing Praise to Obama

It would be enough to make Joe Stalin and Joe Goebbels blush. A video recently posted on YouTube shows a class at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey, learning to sing the praises of Barack Obama. The kids laud his "great accomplishments" and his "great plans" to "make this country's economy number one again." The song also quotes from the children's spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children" -- except Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama." Oddly enough, children in public schools can't sing the actual song "Jesus Loves the Little Children" for fear of the ACLU. It must first be adulterated with the name of a cult leader. And liberals couldn't understand why so many parents didn't want their children subjected to the speech The One gave to schools earlier this month.

Courtesy of The Patriot Post

When is the ACLU filing a Lawsuit Against this Corrupt, Evil School?

Youtube Video posted by alteredbeat

This was filmed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ and uploaded on June 19, 2009.

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

Sunday, August 09, 2009

PJTV: Sonja Schmidt on Obama's "Friends"

Sonja Schmidt's "Left Exposed" takes a deeper look at President Obama's lifelong friends and discovers that, with friends like his, you not only don't need enemies, you might actually be one.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Policy Translated: Health Care Reform

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Gregory Conko explains the debate over health care

Friday, July 24, 2009

A Question of Eligibility - Video Trailer

WHAT if the president of the United States is not constitutionally eligible to serve? Is it possible that a straightforward criterion was overlooked during a long, grueling, expensive campaign? Why are so many questions about something so simple still going unanswered? "A Question Of Eligibility" goes where no other documentary has dared to go in seeking the answers to those questions, including one that millions of Americans are asking: "Why won't Barack Obama release publicly the long-form birth certificate he claims to have from the state of Hawaii?"

In this video, you will hear from four experts on the subject: Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of the New York Times No. 1 bestseller "The Obama Nation"; Orly Taitz, the Southern California lawyer who has led the legal fight to secure the evidence of Barack Obama's eligibility; Alan Keyes, a third-party presidential candidate in 2008 and the man who challenged Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat that served as a springboard to his presidential ambitions; and Janet Porter, radio talk-show host and political activist who has championed the constitutional issue.

A Presentation of WND Films

Executive Producer: Joseph Farah

Interviewees: Dr. Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, Alan Keyes and Janet Porter

The remaining credits for the production of this film are being withheld at the request of the filmmakers. They fear reprisals from their government.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Sarah Palin, Rock Star

Sarah Palin, political rock star. Not qualified to be county dog catcher, let alone serve a higher purpose on a national level. Sounds eerily like our current rock star President. He completely and totally obliterated all future quips about political qualifications. He was a community organizer, state senator, U.S. Senator for two years and now he’s doing a bang up job as president of the world and savior of the U.S. economy. Oh wait…

The thing that irritates me the most about the punditry is that they don’t get to choose Presidents, the people do. If the people are willing to ignore Obama’s lack of experience because they wanted a rock star president, there is no amount of political insider speak that will dissuade them from electing a political disaster in progressive, pardon me, political disaster in progress.

Sarah Palin appeals to me because she is fresh, folksy if you want to call it that. “There you go again.” I am not old enough to remember President Reagan delivering that folksy zinger and at the time I was as willing to be a Democrat as most children raised in union family America are. I remember all the jokes, I remember singing in chorus on the play ground, “My president has a first name it’s R-O-N-A-L-D. My president has a second name it’s R-E-A-G-A-N. And if you as me why I’ll say… Rotten Ronnie has a way of screwing up the U-S-A!” Think Oscar Meyer Bologna commercials. Where are the children who sang it with me? They don’t live here in logger country anymore, they moved to Idaho mostly.

As a matter of fact that elementary school is still there, barely, it’s student population has fallen by 50% and it is still a repository for leftist propaganda and environmental fallacy. President Reagan was elected in landslides. Against all the punditry. Folksy, cheesy, aw shucks, President who did more in eight years to transform America than any President since FDR. Only Reagan started the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history while FDR presided over the great depression.

Is Palin another Reagan? No, nor should we yearn for the past. Rather Palin embodies the optimism and “Shining City on a Hill” view of our nation as Reagan did and when compared to President Obama’s apologizing to the world for being American and our economy headed for possibly the worst down turn since the 1930’s, Sarah Palin could possibly be the next U.S. President because like President Obama she can run as the Un-Presidential candidate who will throw the D.C. bums out of office.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Climate Change Is a Hoax - Rep. Broun

Saturday, June 27, 2009
Climate Bill Passes In The House

The House jammed through the climate change bill with a roll call vote of 219 to 212 with 3 not voting.
44 Democratic representatives voted against it and 8 Republicans voted for it.
Wall Street Journal reports the prospects for it passing in the Senate are "murky."

H/T Wake up America

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Freedom Has Never Been Free - Video

VIDEO - Gripping 4 min. 26 sec. presentation about Iran uprising.

posted by : Left Coast Conservative
Read more at Family Security Matters

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

"Don't Tell Me It Can't Be Done"

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich delivered the keynote speech at the 2009 GOP Congressional Dinner.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Prosecuting People Twice To Benefit Illegal Aliens: The Federal Hate-Crimes Bill

The left-wing group MALDEF wants to use the federal hate crimes bill to reprosecute the Pennsylvania teenagers found innocent in state court of a "hate crime" against an illegal alien from Mexico.
Hans Bader   (a Washington lawyer)

Purpose of Hate-Crimes Bill Is To Promote Double Jeopardy and Shred Civil Liberties

On April 29, the House voted 249-to-175 to pass the federal hate crimes bill, which the bill’s supporters explicitly want to use to prosecute people already found innocent in state court all over again in federal court. Such reprosecutions are, sadly, allowed under a Constitutional loophole known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, which says that state and federal governments are different sovereigns, and that double jeopardy only applies when you are prosecuted twice by the same sovereign. (This loophole was established in the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 Bartkus decision, over a stinging dissent by Justice Black).

In the past, the possibility of reprosecutions was viewed as a vice, not a virtue, and civil-rights advocates and lawmakers alike have sometimes cited this risk in opposing bills broadening the reach of federal criminal laws. But civil-rights groups now view double jeopardy as a virtue when it comes to people accused of hate crimes. They consider hate crimes so terrible that not even innocence should be a defense.

The latest example of this comes from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (a coalition of hundreds of liberal civil-rights groups including the ACLU), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in a May 5 blog commentary entitled, “Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law Needed.” It approvingly quotes the General Counsel of MALDEF arguing that the federal hate-crimes bill is needed to get around an acquittal in state court of teenagers accused of a hate crime against an illegal alien from Mexico:

“Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which will . . . give federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in states where the current law is inadequate. ‘[T] his verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this Act,’ said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president and general counsel. ‘It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and bring justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that violence targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.’ The Justice Department is currently investigating whether to prosecute the two teenagers under federal civil rights statutes.”

By contrast, four Independent and Republican members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission opposed the federal hate-crimes bill in an April 29 letter, calling it a “menace to civil liberties,” since its “most important effect” will be to circumvent double-jeopardy guarantees.

MALDEF and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are not alone in seeking to reprosecute people found innocent in state court. Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer and law professors like Gail Heriot have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

The hate-crimes bill also violates constitutional federalism safeguards, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison (2000).

Supporters of the hate-crimes bill have all sorts of lame rationalizations for disregarding not-guilty verdicts. Hate-crimes activist Brian Levin, who testified before Congress, claims reprosecutions are needed because local jury pools are biased. NOW Legal Defense Fund told Congress that reprosecutions are appropriate if local prosecutors had “inadequate resources” or were of “questionable effectiveness.” (These rationalizations make no sense and have no principled limits: there is no evidence that state juries are more biased than the federal juries that would hear federal hate-crimes cases, or that they are typically biased; and even well-funded prosecutors have complained of having inadequate resources).

Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”

The bill’s sponsors seldom talk about that controversial aspect of the bill, however, when addressing the general public. Instead, they trumpet the fact that the hate-crimes bill would include gays, lesbians, and transgendered people among the classes of people it covers (the existing federal hate-crimes law only covers race, but not gender, sexual orientation, or disability, and it does not reach most hate-crimes, but rather only those that involve federally-protected activities).

The bill’s supporters, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, claim the law is needed because of the case of Angie Zapata. Zapata is a transgender woman whose lover killed her when he found out she was biologically a man. But this argument makes little sense, given that Zapata’s killer was swiftly convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a Colorado state court, which found the killer guilty of both murder and hate crimes. (The federal hate crimes bill does not provide for the death penalty, and its maximum penalty is the same one that Zapata’s killer got: life without parole).

But precisely for that reason, a federal hate-crimes law is duplicative and unnecessary. Moreover, even the few states that don’t have hate-crimes laws, like Wyoming, still punish hate criminals under their laws against murder and assault. The killers of Matthew Shepard were given life sentences, which is the maximum penalty available under the federal hate-crimes bill. (Ironically, the Wyoming prosecutor wanted them to get the death penalty, while liberal groups like Lambda Legal, which supports the federal hate-crimes bill, oppose the death penalty in all cases). There is no evidence that any state gives people who commit hate crimes lesser sentences on average than people who commit similarly violent crimes not motivated by bias.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the federal hate crimes bill, which is known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. But since it was used as a political wedge issue in the 2008 election by both the Democratic Party and President Obama, who support it, there is little doubt that it will pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.

The ACLU long opposed the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections that the bill is designed to exploit. But it switched its longstanding position in order to back the federal hate crimes bill, apparently believing that civil-liberties must be sacrificed in order to fight hate.

The ACLU’s support for the federal hate-crimes bill is hypocritical for another reason: the bill seeks to circumvent double-jeopardy protections recognized by a treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified (albeit with a long series of reservations, understandings, and declarations — including one dealing with double jeopardy) in 1992. The ACLU has also long argued that the United States should not only comply with that treaty but give it a very expansive interpretation, and not seek to hide behind any reservations made by the U.S. in ratifying the treaty.

Article 14 of the treaty specifically prohibits double jeopardy, without any exception for the loophole relied on by supporters of the federal hate crimes bill, mandating that “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted.”

But the ACLU conveniently ignores the treaty when it comes to the federal hate-crimes bill, even though the ACLU has sought to stretch the treaty’s language to achieve a host of liberal political goals, such as mandating “affirmative action” in the U.S. The ACLU also has argued for an expansive interpretation of the treaty to require benefits for illegal aliens.

For example, the ACLU criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Hoffman Plastics case, which refused to award illegal aliens backpay against employers who fired them. The ACLU’s bizarre interpretations of the treaty conflict not only with its language, but also with the longstanding practices of most ICCPR signatory countries.

Read more informative articles from Open

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

TEA Parties, Village Idiots, Demo-Gogues and More

Wall Street tea part

From Wed Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 16


"Newspapers ... serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke." --Thomas Jefferson


The media doth protest too much: "What's disturbing about some of these [tea party] protests and some of the people at these protests is this edge of anger at the government. There is ... a real hostility that is not just politics as usual among some of these people." --CNN's Jeffrey Toobin ++ "[T]his is a party for Obama bashers. I have to say that this is not entirely representative of everybody in America.... I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox." --CNN's Susan Roesgen ++ "Are these protesters really out of step with the majority of Americans? We just saw ... that 62 percent of the people here approve of the president's handling of the economy, and that Americans rate taxes, incredibly at, the very bottom of the most important economic issues right now." --CNN's Christiane Amanpour ++ "You have to remember that at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it. It was a good stunt. ... We pay relatively small taxes. ...[W]hat you ostensibly get for it is a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." --NPR's Nina Totenberg on the tea parties

This week's "Leftmedia Buster" Award: "A lot of news outlets mocked these protesters.... But, if a media outlet wants to expose its bias, they can mock tea parties, if they like. ... I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes, about tens of thousands of Americans who went out and wanted to get involved in their government. I mean, it was really middle school jokes being made. I didn't hear those jokes being made when people on the left protested over the past eight years." --MSNBC's Joe Scarborough

Repeating the BIG Lie: "On the violence issue, 6,500 people were killed in drug violence in 2008 alone. Ninety-five percent of the guns used were out of the United States. What is the U.S. going to do to stop the guns from getting there?" --ABC's Diane Sawyer to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, who replied that she wouldn't "quibble about numbers" since "that's not the point."

Newspulper Headlines:

Couldn't They Find One That Was Still Afloat?: "Coast Guard Opens Hearing on Sunk Fishing Boat" --Associated Press

Look Out Below!: "Workers Falling Through the Jobs Net" --Detroit News

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "Thieving Dwarves Cause Supernovae" --BBC Web site

Bottom Stories of the Day: "Small Cars Get Poor Marks in Collision Tests" --Associated Press

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)


Spewing hate: "It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. ...[T]he limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring." --actress Janeane Garofalo on last week's Tea Parties

Speak for yourself: "Why are they out there whining with this Tea Party thing? Just a bunch of wimpy, whiney, weasels who don't love their country..." --CNN contributing Clintonista Paul Begala

Too many knocks upside the head: "I don't know whether it is better to have freedom or to have no freedom. With too much freedom ... it can get very chaotic, could end up like in Hong Kong or like in Taiwan... I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled." --actor Jackie Chan, who made millions of dollars filming movies in a free country

The BIG Lie: "You in United States, you have a lot of traffic of drugs, you have a lot of distribution of drugs, you have a lot of corruption as well. ... But most of the weapons, almost 16,000 are assault weapons and 90 percent of those were sold in United States." --Mexico's president Felipe Calderon


"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." --President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869)

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." --President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)

"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.' That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." --accountant and Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews (1899-1983)


"The country has gotten into a painful fiscal predicament because both parties have let us believe we can have more and more goodies from Washington at no additional cost. The recent explosion of federal spending has succeeded in one way: It has exposed that assumption for the fiction it was. Like Bernie Madoff's investors, we now face the bleak truth that the comfortable future we expected is gone. Everything the federal government is doing will be forcibly extracted from our future earnings." --columnist Steve Chapman

"The GOP path to reclaiming power lies with candidates who can make a credible case that they will support and defend fiscal responsibility. That means acting on fiscal-conservative principles now, not paying lip service later." --columnist Michelle Malkin

"Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples." --economist Walter E. Williams

Read the rest here: TEA Parties, Village Idiots, Demo-Gogues and More

Read more great articles at

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

What Did It Say?



What did it say?

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls Rush Limbaugh and tells him, "Rush, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America, the whole country, and on each house I saw a banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Rush asks.

Mahmoud replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN."

Rush says, "You know, Mahmoud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran, and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Mahmoud asks.

Rush replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."

What pirates can expect


And now for cartoons





More Cartoon Humor at
Read more great articles at

Ready For Any of The Obama Regime Decrees!


We can Flush BHO's Failed Socialistic ideas down with Crapper's Invention.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Right-Wing Extremists, a Dying Republic + More

From Friday Digest - Vol. 09 No. 15


"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." --Thomas Paine


right-wingextremists1Right-Wing Extremists

By Mark Alexander

My fellow Patriot "right-wing extremists" (or as Barack Obama prefers to describe you, those "bitterly clinging to guns or religion"), it is no small irony that, in the same week the central government demands payment of any income tax they hadn't already withheld (read: "pilfered") from our paychecks for redistribution, we observe Patriots Day.

April 19th marks the 234th anniversary of the early morning ride of Paul Revere and William Dawes to Concord, Massachusetts, in order to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams that British troops were coming to arrest them and seize their weapons. Revere was captured but Dawes and Samuel Prescott, who had joined them along the way, escaped and continued toward Concord. Dawes later fell from his horse, but Prescott, who knew the area well enough to navigate at night, made it to Concord in time to warn the Sons of Liberty.

Protests had been taking place since 1765 over increased taxation and other indignities, resulting most notably in the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, when colonists boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and threw English tea overboard. The grievances against the imperial authorities were many, but they found their voice in one familiar phrase: "No taxation without representation."

In the early dawn of April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the militiamen at Lexington, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." And it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting the British on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.

A year later, American Patriots formalized their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, and some 3 percent of the colonists took up arms to battle the well equipped British regulars for almost eight years, until victory was won.

In 1787, our Patriot founders codified a Constitution of Government for their hard-won republic. For almost 150 years, our Constitution stood true to its original intent, just as our Founders, and more important, "the people," had willed it. But constitutional rule of law suffered repeated humiliation during the Great Depression, as FDR used the economic crisis as cover to implement "change," ostensibly at the behest of "hope."

The result was a "Living Constitution" for a Dying Republic.

In the 1930s, FDR launched myriad socialist programs and redefined the role of the central government. He proposed to pay for his folly through excess taxation, proclaiming, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." (Of course, that wasn't an "American principle," but a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.")

More recently, under cover of yet another economic crisis, Barack Obama and his Leftist cadres in Congress have authorized trillions of dollars of government spending programs. Many economists believe the generational tax burden for these programs will, by design, prove the demise of free enterprise in America. As Obama's chief water boy, Rahm Emanuel, announced, "Rule 1 of the Obama administration: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

Indeed, Obama and company accomplished this subterfuge in their first 60 days, and the magnitude of their ruse is staggering -- but the inevitable consequences have not gone completely unnoticed.

As it was in the years before the first American Revolution, this week a small but clearly perceptible grassroots movement manifested in the form of more than 750 "Tea Parties" across the nation attracting "hundreds of thousands" of American citizens, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Some other news organizations, with a little prompting from the Department of Homeland Security, preferred to call those citizens "radicals."

A DHS document, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," published by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis includes a footnote which defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" to include groups which question federal authority and support states' rights. It also notes that DHS "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to collect information on these radicals, with "a particular emphasis" on sources of "rightwing extremist radicalization."

As my colleague Michelle Malkin observed, "What and who exactly are President Obama's homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You."

DHS czar Janet Napolitano expressed her concerns about "trends of violent radicalization in the United States," but insists, "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."

The report also took a cheap jab at veterans and active duty military personnel, prompting American Legion national commander David Rehbein to respond: "Your report states that 'Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as 'Right Wing extremists'? I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are."

Perhaps DHS should add a threat warning level colored red, white and blue.

Napolitano could not explain why the DHS "radicalization" report was released just ahead of all the Tea Parties -- a mere coincidence, I'm sure.

Of course, "radical" is a term that was correctly associated with anarchists of the 1960s and '70s -- paradoxically, those who occupy key national leadership positions today. But anarchy is defined as "lawlessness," which raises an important question: Who better fits that description -- conservatives or liberals?

Let's review: Conservatives have always endeavored to conserve our constitutional republic while liberals have sought to "liberate" America from constitutional rule of law for decades, preferring instead to make all the rules themselves.

Answer: Obama, et al., are the "radicals."

As for the Tea Parties this week, I wouldn't describe the level of grassroots discontent as a "powder keg." At least not yet.

The Tea Party of 1773 was a tactical event, but the rallying cry of "No taxation without representation" provided a unified strategic front.

As more Patriots across the nation take a lesson from our Founders, and make the leap from tactical skirmishes to a unified strategic front, protests will become far more focused and effective.

If I might make a humble suggestion, insisting on the restoration of constitutional rule of law is a worthy unified strategic objective.

While most of my colleagues at the nation's premier think tank, The Heritage Foundation, have yet to be profiled by DHS as anarchists, their organization has done precisely what I believe every Patriot should do.

Though Heritage will remain on the front lines of the war of ideas, producing some of the best policy analysis available anywhere, they are renewing their strategic emphasis on "First Principles."

Their revised statement of purpose notes: "We face an education system that upholds mediocrity in the name of relativism; an ever-expanding and centralized government, unmoored from constitutional limits; judges openly making laws and shaping society based on pop-philosophy rather than serious jurisprudence; and growing confusion over America's legitimate role in the world, made all the more apparent by the fundamental threat posed by radical Islamists. At the root of all these problems is a pervasive doubt about the core principles that define America and ought to inform our politics and policy."

Consequently, Heritage is focusing its resources to "recall the nation to its first principles, reinvigorate American constitutionalism, and revive the sturdy virtues required for self-government."

The statement concludes, "In short, our vision, building on the great successes of the modern conservative movement, must now be to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its first principles for ourselves and our posterity."

So there it is: a template for the strategic commitment every Patriot and every grassroots movement ought to adopt.

With a strategic cause of "restoring constitutional primacy and integrity," we could then stage tea parties to ask, "What is the constitutional authority for all the government programs now being funded by Congress?" And given that there is no constitutional authority for the redistribution of our wages, we could then adopt a rallying cry of, perhaps, "No taxation without constitutional authority."

How this plays out in the political arena depends largely on whether we get sucked into "constituency politics" built around tactical issues. Far better to find and support national leaders who can both articulate and advocate for constitutional rule of law, the most pressing issue of our time.

Should the Republican Party ever wish to regain its majorities, it might start by reading Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time for Choosing," and then adopt and abide by his 1984 Republican Platform, which yielded a historic victory.

Read the rest of Right-Wing Extremists... at PA Pundits - International

Palin 'Media Malpractice' Documentarian Thrown Off USC Campus

John Ziegler arrest at Couric award ceremony for Palin interview

John went to USC to witness and ask questions about Katie Couric getting the Walter Cronkite journalism award for her interview of Sarah Palin. He intended to also give away copies of his film but was literally prevented from doing so. He did not go there hoping for or expecting any sort of confrontation, especially with law enforcement. He was simply shocked and horrified by what happened there, as should every freedom loving American. He did absolutely nothing wrong and was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event. The video speaks for itself, John will have plenty to say about this very disturbing episode.

This video was shot and edited by Orange County Films. John Ziegler was not involved the the production or editing of this video in any way.

Video posted by rghrdrgirl

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Another View of the JCJC

By Robert Schwartz, Esq., Executive Director
Juvenile Law Center

The April 2, 2009 edition of Democracy Rising PA News raises important points about the Luzerne County scandal, but it is off the mark in its characterization of the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission.

When we at Juvenile Law Center which has pursued the Luzerne County case for years suspected that large numbers of youth in the County were waiving their right to counsel, it was to JCJC that we turned for data. JCJC collects enormous amounts of data from counties, and annually publishes a report that is a mix of county-specific and aggregate statewide data. Juvenile Law Center asked for waiver-of-counsel data from Luzerne, and JCJC unflinchingly provided it, taking the bold step of providing an affidavit that supported Juvenile Law Center's April, 2008 application to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This was at a time when few others were willing to take risks in the case. (Others who were willing to step forward, as Democracy Rising PA notes, were the Department of Public Welfare and the Attorney General's Office, both of which filed amicus briefs in support of Juvenile Law Center's April, 2008 application.)

Democracy Rising PA implies that JCJC had the power to stop what was happening in Luzerne. Unfortunately, JCJC has a great deal of influence, but lacks the power that many people think it has. JCJC is in the executive branch. While the state Supreme Court nominates Commission members, it is the Governor who appoints them. Commission staff are executive branch employees.

This is the 50th anniversary of JCJC's creation as an advisory body that sets standards, collects and publishes data and administers a small grant-in-aid program. JCJC has a tiny staff, it is severely underfunded, but it has enormous influence because of its knowledge, integrity and skills. JCJC clearly should have more capacity and power to analyze and publish more data like those that helped Juvenile Law Center uncover the Luzerne County scandal. For that it will need more funding, rather than the cut that the Governor's Office has proposed.

When the D.C.-based Center for Children's Law and Policy published, in 2005, "Keystones for Reform," it singled out JCJC as one of the reasons that Pennsylvania has a national reputation for juvenile justice excellence. For years, JCJC has promoted good policies for Pennsylvania's youth. Following years of litigation in the early 1980's, JCJC became Juvenile Law Center's partner in reform of juvenile detention practices. It has fought to keep Pennsylvania as a state that doesn't lock up status offenders (truants or runaways). JCJC persuaded the General Assembly in 1995 to avoid draconian laws that would treat too many youth as adult criminals. Commission staff has diplomatically educated local judges to prevent and end futile and harmful "scared straight" programs.

Also in 2005, on the occasion of Juvenile Law Center's 30th anniversary celebration, we honored JCJC Executive Director Jim Anderson as the most effective Pennsylvania juvenile justice leader of the prior 30 years. In my remarks, I observed:

When we at Juvenile Law Center confront an intractable problem in one of the state's 67 counties, it is to Jim Anderson that we usually turn. It is because of Jim that we can avoid litigation, or skip going to the press. He solves problems. And he does that in a remarkably effective way, with unerring instincts, and unmatched decency.

There is no obligation for county judges to heed JCJC, and in this latest scandal, the Luzerne County judges were outside its orbit. There are ways to give JCJC more authority, but that would entail additional staff and technological capacity. JCJC, as I understand it, would welcome the resources to be able to collect, analyze and publish real-time data that would expose future Luzerne Counties. We who have long worked with the Commission would welcome Democracy Rising PA's help in getting JCJC more power, more capacity and more tools.

Misdirected Anger

Clearly we owe the JCJC and Executive Director James Anderson an apology, which we gladly extend.

But that still begs the question of responsibility for three branches of government failing to prevent what happened to more than 5,000 children.

Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed cutting the JCJC's budget by $125,000 next year after cutting $163,000 this year. These numbers are roughly equivalent to the salary and benefits being paid to former state Rep. Dan Surra and PR guru Ken Snyder, including the overhead of the agency with whom Snyder subcontracts.


  • Will Rendell champion the JCJC like he champions Surra and Snyder?
  • Why does the JCJC have too little when lawmakers have far too much? Will lawmakers give up a tiny portion of their $200 million surplus for the JCJC?
  • Will the Supreme Court publicly support the JCJC's budgetary needs?

Remember: Only you can keep democracy rising!
Donate here!

Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?

Exclusive by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway

(Editor's note: Barack Obama's lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with "sanctions," because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth. No legalizing on our part. No exaggeration. No political manipulation. Just the facts in black and white. We have the shocking letter dated April 3 . The president of the United States is threatening sanctions - and the word "sanctions" is used in the threat -- against attorney John Hemenway. Read on.)

After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President. (Hemenway had joined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton's ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.) The entire letter , written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following (and we note that there is no reference in this letter to an existing valid Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, as opposed to a Certificate of Live Birth, and there is no claim that a valid Birth certificate exists which can be shown to the American people, an act that immediately would shut down this query):

"I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court's March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.

Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."

Mr. Hemenway's response to the letter was a promise to "write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to "transparency" and "openness" and honesty in governmental operations-all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter."

Mr. Hemenway added, "The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won't work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me." In his opinion, "many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: "Nada dakazat' kulak!" (You must show them your fist!)"

Hemenway also pledged:

" appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called "reprimand") by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as "frivolous" but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11. (This would have given me-and others engaged in this important battle -standing in the Court of Appeals.) I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals. The military, as Colonel Hollister's interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal' and ‘illegal' orders originating from a ‘legitimate' or ‘illegitimate' commander-in-chief. Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn't seek any. The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering'."

For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill's admonition: "If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up-never - never - never." The most important part of that quote is the "matter of principle." It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill. Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle.

If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Last, Hemenway points out: "Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called "Anschluss") and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria. He says his father left Austria in 1940. Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started. In any event, if Bauer's background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?" Contributing Editor Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is a retired federal employee, having served fifteen years in the U.S. Congress and five years as a White House appointee at DoD and NASA.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Tax Time, Obama's Spendthrift Regime and More

From Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 15


"[I]n this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." --Benjamin Franklin


"When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government." --President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)

"Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt." --President Herbert Hoover (1874-1964)

"To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection: it is plunder." --British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." --American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935)


"People are tired of wasteful government programs and welfare chiselers, and they're angry about the constant spiral of taxes and government regulations, arrogant bureaucrats, and public officials who think all of mankind's problems can be solved by throwing the taxpayers' dollars at them." ++ "Government can't tax things like businesses or corporations, it can only tax people. When it says it's going to 'make business pay,' it is really saying it is going to make business help it collect taxes." ++

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." ++ "Our tax policy is engineered by people who view tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure." ++ "Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them." ++ "My friends, history is clear: Lower tax rates mean greater freedom, and whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off." --Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)


"I say let's have Election Day on tax day. Let's get what we're paying for. Sign the check -- for the full amount -- and write in your preferred candidates on the back of the same check. Abracadabra ... smaller government, here we come." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

"Rampant redistribution of wealth by government is now the norm. So is this: It inflames government's natural rapaciousness and subverts the rule of law." --columnist George Will

"Inflation also means that all the talk about how higher taxes will be confined to 'the rich' is nonsense. Inflation is a hidden tax that takes away the value of money held by everyone at every income level." --economist Thomas Sowell

"[W]e need to return to a taxation system similar to the one established by our Founding Fathers. They did not penalize productivity through taxes the way we do today. They had no Internal Revenue Service. They believed in minimal taxation." --columnist Chuck Norris

"Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed 'tea parties' -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize." --author Glenn Harlan Reynolds

"[I]s there any limit to this administration's intentions to interfere and perhaps control large swaths of our economy? ... That's the real message of the homegrown Tea Party revolt against bailout nation and the higher taxes, deficits, and debt being used to finance it. Folks are trying to tell Washington on Tax Day, April 15, that enough is enough. They can't take it anymore." --economist Larry Kudlow

"The cry at these tea parties should be 'not a penny more' until governments get their houses in order, just as we must do. Most people have been forced to reduce spending during the recession, but not the federal government, and likely not the government in your home state." --columnist Cal Thomas

"President Obama's own budget numbers show that Social Security this year will take in $654 billion in payroll taxes and dole out $662 billion in benefits and expenses -- a negative cash flow of $8 billion. Uh oh." --columnist Stephen Moore


"Today is tax day, and across America, taxpayers are holding tea parties to protest out-of-control government spending. Their concern is no tempest in a teapot. The tax burden on American families is growing increasingly heavy. According to the Tax Foundation, tax-freedom day came on April 13 this year. That day marks the point of the year when taxpayers have earned enough money to pay off their federal, state and local taxes. It takes Americans about 3 1/2 months of labor to cover their tax obligation. That time will increase as government continues to grow. President Obama's current budget proposal admits to thetaxmancometh_09-15bplans to raise taxes by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) estimates that hundreds of thousands will turn out to protest this tax servitude. ... Today's tea parties are carrying on a noble American tradition of protesting unfair taxation. Mike Allen, co-author of 'A Patriot's History of the United States,' explained to us: 'America was born out of hatred of a strong centralized government. The Boston Tea Party (and a half dozen other concurrent tea parties from New York City to Charleston) protested government subsidies to create monopoly status for a corporation, the East India Company. From that point onward, tax protests have peppered American history.' The first tea party to protest taxes occurred on Dec. 16, 1773, when patriots called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded ships in Boston Harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard. Other colonials followed the lead of Sam Adams and his fellow Bostonians by tossing tea into the sea. Today's tea-party movement is building steam because taxpayers are steamed. As ATR's anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist explained ... 'These are real people with real lives taking the time and effort to do this in reaction not to a tax increase yesterday, but in reaction to too much spending that will lead to tax increases and inflation years from now.' These modern Mohawks are angry because they fear the future is being poured down the drain. This kind of activism is our cup of tea." --The Washington Times


Read the rest here: Tax Time, Obama's Spendthrift Regime and More

Shaun The Sheep - Save The Tree - S02E20

more about "Shaun The Sheep - Save The Tree - S02E20", posted with vodpod

How Obama Finally Got Cheering Soldiers

Andrew Bolt

How did Barack Obama get troops to welcome him in Iraq with a warmth soldiers have denied him before?

One sergeant gives credit to Obama's very choosy advance party.

This is only a claim by an anonymous source, but it may also explain the marked racial profile of the soldiers lined up behind Obama as a happy-TV backdrop.

Stopping by Baghdad - A Carefully Pre-Planned Visit!

Meanwhile, despite his largely rhapsodic coverage:


Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Letter To My Bank



Letter to my bank

Dear Sirs,
One of my checks was returned marked "insufficient funds".
In view of current developments in the banking industry,
does that refer to me or to you?

Put up your dukes


Credit where credit is due


And now for a cartoon


Please click on above images for a larger view in a new window.


More Cartoon Humor at
Read more great articles at