Monday, May 31, 2010

Memorial Day

As we watch our current President refuse to honor the military heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country, I am honored to read the words of the former President, Ronald Reagen.

It sickens me when the military is dishonored, especially by our Commander in Chief. Coming from a family with many veterans, I cannot begin to understand the disdain the liberals have for the men and women who willingly sacrifice for their country, including for the libs who hate them so much. "There is no greater love than that a man would lay down his life for another" words spoken by our true Savior, while our so-called messiah plays golf and goes on vacation. I am appalled and ashamed.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Free speech

In a fund raising event from 2003, Hillary Clinton screamed shrilly into the microphone, "We are Americans. We have the right to participate and debate any administration." I thank you Hillary for insuring that everyone knows that we have a right to free speech. Maybe you should sit down and chat with Elena Kagen about her ideas on free speech. She believes that the administration has the right to "redistribute speech". Okay so what does that mean? In a nutshell, if the speech can be viewed by someone in power as "inciting violence", the government has the right to move in and stop the hate speech. Okay, so guess who gets to judge what is hate speech? Yeah, Hillary, Bill, Barry and Kagen. And who has the target on their backs? Right, Rush, Hannity, Malkin, and the tea partiers.

I believe in free speech, in fact I have defended your right to say what you wish. Even if I don't personally agree with it, I believe you have a right to say it. Just as Hillary proclaimed in 2003. I heard somewhere that you can tell a mature person, because they will allow free speech that they don't agree with. However, the liberals are all hell bent on controlling the speech that they don't agree with. They hate the tea partiers, and want nothing more than to restrict their right to speak up and voice their opinions, thus exercising their first amendment rights. The libs want to keep the mouths of their opponents shut, they think they have the moral high ground. Why else would they try to control so much of our lives.

But there is a small problem with this philosophy. Remember there has to be some body that decides what speech is allowed, and what is to be restricted or even denied. When this body gets the upper hand, they are very reluctant to give up control, and the fist becomes tighter and tighter. When a population is willing to give up some of its liberty for anything else, than that nation is in decline. We allowed the terrorists to get under our skin and create a fear that made us all ask for our government to protect us. So we gave up some of our freedom in order to feel safe. What else are we willing to give up. Our money in taxes, and yes, they will go up; at what point do we just allow the government to take what it wants and just let them decide what we need to survive? We asked them to control the business climate, "Please big brother, no more layoffs." We asked them to make sure we have a living wage, hello minimum wage laws. And now we are asking them to take care of our health care, what are you willing to give up for that? Nothing is free! At first estimates, everyone person living in the United States (legally) owes $821,655.00

I for one am not willing to allow Big Brother to take anymore of my liberties. I willingly will fight for my right to "participate and debate any administration", thanks to Hillary's blessings. Patrick Henry once proclaimed, "Give me liberty, or give me death", how quickly we have forgotten our history.

Yay Obama! Our Hero!

Now that the oil is stopped we have our president to thank! In his latest speech, he was on top of the leak the whole time, the oil company never did anything without being directed by Obama. And there are 20,000 people on top of this, of course these are BP people, not government. And if you listen to the leaders in Louisiana, the feds have done everything to block the clean up on the coast. All Louisiana wants to do is build some sand bars to stop the progression of the oil and help it evaporate, and the feds will NOT give them the permits to allow them to protect their coastline.

Hello environmentalist! Barry is ignoring the environment, and giving you the finger! Why do you continue to support him? Hello Wall Street, you gave big bucks to get the Bamster elected and are the enemy. Why do you not cry foul? Hello media, you forgot your ethics, you lost all credibility by fawning all over Obama and declaring him Messiah. What do you have to say for yourselves? The list keeps growing, Arizona, Hollywood, NASA, the middle class, and the incumbent Democrats. Who is next?

Friday, May 21, 2010

Channels for dissent

We need to hear more talk like this. The lunatic left has gotten a pass for too long. If the media is too yellow to show the truth, we will have to rely on the internet to get the word out. Of course if el presidente has his way, he will be able to shut down dissent on the internet as well. We are in a very precarious position. We have a media that is licking the boots of our anointed messiah, and fawning all over themselves for electing him (they are still patting themselves on the back for that), and now the administration is trying everything they can to shut down all other types of outlets for dissent. He wants all the power and doesn't want to hear any condemnation. After all, who are we to doubt his good nature, his omniscience?
Arizona is only a state, a small player in the federal realm. Has he any idea how this government was formed, as a conglomerate of individual and sovereign states. The fed is not supposed to be allowed to run roughshod over any state. We need to put the power back into the hands of the people. This is not Communist China, even if that is the direction BO is trying to take us. Do we need to have our own Tienanmen Square style protest?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Can you read?

Arizona's law is unconstitutional. At least that is the consensus among the top lawmakers in our country. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, the Sec. of Homeland Security, and Barack Obama, el Presidente. All the top law enforcers in our country, and not one of them has had the time to actually read the law. It is 10 pages long, and is basically a copy of the federal law. So how is it unconstitutional? Simply because you don't like it, because it is unpopular, because it makes a group of people unhappy, or is it because they want to destroy this country from within? Like the teacher who claimed that AZ, TX. NM and CA were all a part of Mexico, and that they, the illegals, were here to take it back. Can we find someone to run this country who will actually do their job, the job they were put in power to do, instead of playing golf, and making speeches?

So far what has Obama and his administration done? Passed a healthcare bill that will cost over a trillion dollars, passed another stimulus bill, passed another bailout bill, and nominated for the Supreme court a justice who believes in banning books, redistributing speech, breaking the law by kicking a military recruiter off campus, gay marriage, and killing the unborn. And this is what is already on her public record. Obama has lead this nation to the edge of a cliff and is slowly trying to shove it over the edge. Oh and he calls anyone who opposes anything he asks for, Nazis and fascists.

As a side note, I would love to see how the money for the stimulus and the bailouts was spent. After all it is my money they are spending, should they get a pass when they ask for more money from us simply because they are the government? Can anyone say payolla? Can we the people get an audit of the Fed?

Wednesday, May 12, 2010


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has told Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops that she wants them to speak from the pulpit for immigration reform and tell Catholics who oppose it that reform “is a manifestation of our living the gospels.” Pelosi addressed the Catholic Community Conference on May 6, “I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is -- the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels,’” said Pelosi. “Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘preach the gospel --sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically.”

Oh I get it now, if the government can benefit from the church preaching a point of view it is okay? What about the church's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status? I have gone to churches that have had their tax exempt status threatened because a ministry decided to speak against the current administration. The government uses this as a gag order for the conservatives, but now we see that Pelosi is actually encouraging a ministry to speak out in favor of a liberal agenda item.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

a new nominee

So Obama has an opportunity to finally put a justice on the Supreme court, we always knew it would be a radical leftist, but even Barry has outdone himself this time. His current nominee has a flagrant disregard for the Constitution. She doesn't hold sacred the document that our country was based on, she is one of those liberals that thinks the Constitution can be interpreted as any judge sees fit. There is really nothing such as Constitutional Law.

In the case the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in March of 2009, Justice Roberts interprets what Kagen was trying to convey, "The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

When the court heard oral arguments in the case again on Sept. 9, 2009, Kagan personally made the case for the administration. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Kagan if the administration stood by its position that the government could ban books.

Kagan told Ginsburg that the administration had changed its position. It now believed that although the law itself allowed the government to ban corporations from publishing books, it believed that if the government actually tried to do so a litigant would have a good case challenging that prohibition in court.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), a corporation could be banned from publishing any book that advocated for some candidate or position on an issue with general funds, they would need to set up a PAC and use designated funds. Of course the court never decided completely what constitutes a "book", in fact "Chief Justice Roberts wanting to pin Kagan down on how far she believed the government could go in banning speech by corporations. He specifically asked her if the government could ban a pamphlet published by a corporation. She indicated the government could do that."

So she believes that censorship is okay, but that there might be a case against it. That is until the Supreme Court, which she wants to sit on, decides that the case is baseless, at which time censoring unpopular speech will become the law of the land. Yeah, this is a fair and impartial advocate. This is scary, never mind her stance on other important issues, I won't even mention her position on marriage and abortion. She needs to be "borked" big time, only thing is, does the media have the balls to tell the truth. Probably not.

quotes taken from

Friday, May 7, 2010

What is wrong here?

The media once again shows its true colors. They whine and fret about how bad it is for the illegal aliens, but not a word about how this is affecting the actual citizens of Arizona who have been terrorized by the filth spewing over the border. A border guard and rancher are killed, and not a mention, but a poor women has to move because she "just wants to work" is highlighted. How totally one sided, how biased, the media has forgotten who they are, and why they exist in the first place. Their job is to report the news, not spin the news to a certain ideology.

I can't stop shaking my head.