Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«2 »
  • Locked thread
Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

This appeared in the local right-wing newspaper:


The feds cook the books with Greece

Most Americans are aware of some, but not all, of the striking similarities between Greece and the United States. To wit: Both countries have a national debt that can’t be paid off without resorting to theft and serfdom, both countries have a dominant culture in which mooching and loafing have supplanted self-reliance and working, both countries have parasitical public-sector unions that are sucking the lifeblood out of the private sector, and both countries have a large number of leftist losers who blame market competition and corporate greed for their dim prospects, when, in fact, the fault lies with themselves – with their strangulation of market competition through the regulatory state and their addiction to credit and the fruits of other people’s labor.

Both countries also share the Keynesian notion that economic growth comes from taking money out of the private sector for mammoth public works projects. In addition to spending money it didn’t have on hosting the Olympics, Greece spent even more money it didn’t have on building light rail lines, thus enabling unemployed neo-Marxist intellectuals to ride a subsidized train to their favorite cafe, where they could sit all day ranting about capitalism while drinking Retsina wine, which tastes like turpentine and apparently has the same deleterious effect as paint thinner on industriousness and mental capacity. Similarly, the USA is planning to spend money it doesn’t have on high-speed rail, which will be built by unions, operated by unions, subsidized by taxpayers, and ridden by green Americans who say they care about global warming but don’t care enough about it to pay the full cost of their train ride without being subsidized by non-riders.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, Greece and the USA have something else in common: both nations cook their national accounting books. Greece cooked its books to dupe Europeans into allowing it to join the European Union. The USA cooks its books to dupe the American public into believing that their government isn’t as bankrupt as it really is.

If you don’t believe that the USA cooks the books, then read The 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is the official accounts of the national government. It’s not until page 221 of the 250-page report that the truth comes out. There, an audit summary begins, written by the auditor for the Government Accountability Office. The auditor warns readers that the government’s accounting systems have so many material weaknesses and such a lack of internal controls that their reliability cannot be established. Then the auditor makes this astonishing statement:

These material weaknesses continued to (1) hamper the federal government’s ability to reliably report a significant portion of its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information; (2) affect the federal government’s ability to reliably measure the full cost as well as the financial and nonfinancial performance of certain programs and activities; (3) impair the federal government’s ability to adequately safeguard significant assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) hinder the federal government from having reliable financial information to operate in an efficient and effective manner.

(Note: It’s not just Democrat administrations that cook the books. In February, 2009, I published a commentary on The 2008 Financial Report of the United States, showing that the Bush Administration had cooked the books.)

The 2010 report includes a cover letter from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the flimflam artist who is responsible for keeping the country’s books. The letter and the report should be used as evidence to prosecute Geithner for accounting fraud and sentence him to a federal penitentiary to share a cell with Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme was infinitesimal compared to the Ponzi schemes of the national government, especially Social Security, Medicare, and public-sector pensions. Alternatively, Geithner could share a cell with one of the convicted Enron executives, whose accounting fraud harmed thousands of people, versus the 310 million people harmed by the government’s fraud.

To be fair, neither Geithner nor anyone else in the current government is responsible for the nation following Greece into the cemetery of Western civilization. The nation was set on that course the first time that the government took money from some people for the benefit of other people, instead of taking a limited amount of money from all people for the protection of the lives, liberty and property of all people. From that point on, it was inevitable that government would become a corrupt Leviathan, citizens would pillage and plunder their neighbors, courts would concoct convoluted legal theories to justify the theft, and leftist professors and K-12 unionized teachers would expound Marxian gibberish to make stealing sound like social justice as they took their cut of the loot.

The Greek philosopher Plato believed that the masses were too shortsighted, too uneducated, and too moved by passions for democracy to work. His solution of putting philosopher kings over the people was an awful idea, but, as Greece and the USA have shown, he was right about the masses.

“Mencken’s Ghost” is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who can be reached at


Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

A few days old but still good:


Surprise: 58 percent support Obama’s deficit reduction “plan” and 60 percent are dependent on government

Years ago, when I was going through my delusional stage and thought that people would care as much about serious matters as they do about murder trials, I published my research showing that approximately 60 percent of voters are dependent on the government in some way. The 60 percent live in households where the primary household income comes from welfare, entitlements, subsidies, a government job, or a private-sector job that depends on the regulatory state. I predicted that so much dependency would bring the nation to fiscal and cultural ruin if not addressed.

It doesn’t surprise me, therefore, that a recent poll showed that 58 percent of Americans support President Obama’s non-plan plan for reducing the deficit. Even my average intellect can grasp that the 58 percent might be related to the 60 percent.

To be fair to Obama, none of the plans, including the Republican plans and the plan of the Gang of Six, addresses the root cause of deficits--namely, fiat money that is not anchored in precious metals or in the Constitution, which unequivocally states that national money should be so anchored. All anchors to precious metals and fiscal restraint were severed by Richard Nixon when he closed the gold window in 1971, based on the advice of Milton Friedman, of all people. Ninety-seven percent of today’s worldwide debt of nation-states has been created since that closing.

The Federal Reserve is of course the enabling institution in the USA. A love-child that was produced by the illicit mating between the government and private banks, the Fed allows politicians to spend money that the government doesn’t have and to enrich bankers in the sordid process. Before he became Federal Reserve Chairman and sold his principles to the devil, Alan Greenspan warned that this illegitimate offspring would eventually devour all of the nation’s seed corn. The current chairman, Ben Bernanke, also knows this but has made his own Faustian bargain, trading principles for fame and power. The same with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who used to head the New York Fed and was too busy romping in bed with bankers to pay his taxes.

These guys are all geniuses, as measured by IQ and academic accomplishments. They demonstrate that genius and scruples are two different things.

The plan hatched by the Gang of Six has some good features, but it will do nothing about the problem of fiat money and the lovemaking between private banks and government. It also has a horrible feature: It proposes the elimination of the tax deferral on investment income earned on savings. From an economics perspective, this is nutty, for it will remove an incentive to save money and thus deprive the nation of needed investment capital. From a moral perspective, it is nuttier yet, for it will tax income twice: once when earned and once when saved.

Speaking of morals, I’ve been studying the writings of the great moral philosophers all of my adult life, searching for the moral justification for the country’s social and tax policies. There is no moral justification. It simply isn’t moral for half of adults to pay no income taxes and to mooch off the other half, especially when at least two-thirds of the moochers are able-bodied and able-minded.

Take a guy who picked his nose through school instead of studying, who never had any interest in making something of himself, who has never saved a nickel, and whose only interests are beer, bimbos, sports, tattoos, backward caps, a scruffy beard, and gambling. There is no moral justification for him to vote to take money from a guy who grew up in the same circumstance but had a long-term outlook, lived below his means, invested in his future, and learned how to use a razor.

Yet Republicans are incapable of making a moral case against the welfare/entitlement state and somehow lose the moral argument to the collectivists and neo-Marxists in Congress, the White House, the media, and academia. This is like losing a game of chess to a rodent. (No offense to Rod Blagojevich, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Charlie Rangel.)

Enough ranting for today. In closing, here is a prediction: 58 percent of readers won’t like this commentary.

“Mencken’s Ghost” is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who can be reached at

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Response to an article about school vouchers:


As Americans we should be free to use our money to educate our kids at whatever school we want. Families shouldn't be forced to fund a public system that they don't use.

Furthermore, there really is no such thing as "poverty" in American anymore. It makes for great political theatre, but most of the "poor" that they are referring to are the professional poor, ie the people who live a particular way to maximize their take from the government

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

For some new content, here's a crazy and loving stupid editorial from Charles Krauthammer.

A Letter To The Arizona Republic posted:

Let Krauthammer Fix Fiscal Mess
Charles Krauthammer suggests a three stage approach for the yet-to-be-named congressional super-committee to tackle the debt crisis ("Debt super-committee can succeed in 3 stages," Monday)

I would like to add one stipulation: Put Krauthammer in charge!

John Cassidy Jr., Scottsdale

He's got a fan already!

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


Let My People Work
Everyone agrees that one of most urgent needs in this economic crisis is to produce more jobs. President Obama’s method, along with all the liberals in government, is to use stimulus. The problems with that idea are that it does not work and that we have no money left to use as a stimulus.

But the federal government can do something; it can stop throwing road blocks like minimum wage laws and workplace restrictions in the path of job creation. And, even more immediately, the states do not need to wait for the federal government to act because all 50 states have their own road blocks to employment that could be lifted.

The most damaging of these state road blocks is occupational licensing. The mere idea that anyone should be required to ask government’s permission to practice a profession should be offensive to anyone who cares about liberty and productivity. In Arizona there are scores of such laws and most of these government prohibitions also involve a regulatory board or commission to enforce the rules.

Does anyone seriously believe that we should have to ask government’s permission to be a barber or a cosmetologist or, for that matter, to practice any profession? The applicable regulatory bodies claim to be protecting the public but they actually exist to keep the competition out and keep the prices up. These licensing laws also require a lot of up-front education and continuing education so, naturally, there is another whole group of people in the education arena who support these economically harmful laws.

Thoreau said “Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way." Let’s get this economy moving by ending government restraints on people who want to work.

Some employee terminations help the economy

There is a myth going around that, even if government employees are inefficient or unneeded, we should not terminate them in this economic crisis because it would dampen the economy. The opposite is actually the truth. Because most government employees do not produce wealth (they tax and regulate the ones who do produce wealth), it would be better to for them to seek employment in the private sector, in jobs that produce wealth and that, therefore, add to the economy. And, there is actually a double benefit because we would then not have to tax productive private sector employees as much to pay the salaries of those former government employees. Let the axe fall.

Roy Miller | Phoenix

The local far-right paper gets the best letters.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Rand alPaul posted:

Are these from Arizona Republic or the East Valley Tribune? I'm remembering fondly my time calling into the EV Trib's comment line and trolling these bastards with leftist comments.

They're from the Sonoran News.


Reflection on Obama's transparency
There are three million members in the U.S. Armed Forces: all obligated to provide valid documentation of birth did so, except one who, to this day, refuses to comply – The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces ... Barack Obama! Think of it – the only one hiding his birth certificate is the Commander in Chief! Major Cook risked his career and freedom for Country and Constitution. Is Obama so terrified of disclosure that he would allow the Major and any other military personnel to suffer court-martial and possible imprisonment?

What is he revealing to the Military and the Nation by his conduct?

Irony, here is irony. Two men vow to uphold The Constitution. One, the Commander-in-Chief (CINC) violates his vow by concealing or falsifying evidence as to his eligibility yet secures a coveted job. The other, an Army Major, upholds his vow by challenging the "suspect" status of the CINC and for this loses his job. Who dares say that Truth was served? This travesty continues. A judge threw out Major Cook's lawsuit against Obama as "frivolous." "Frivolous?" Is Article 2 of The Constitution "frivolous?" Has The Constitution itself become "frivolous?" Maybe even The Supreme Court? Missing from that courtroom was Major Cook's most significant witness, his Commander-in Chief but he did send his lawyers. Unfortunately, they forgot to bring his "vault" birth certificate, indeed, any birth certificate with them. As the song goes "What are friends for?" I guess it depends on whose friends they are. Obama's supporters mock anyone questioning his eligibility but not one has shown the intestinal fortitude to recommend that he release his Hawaiian "vault" certificate to the American people. What do they fear? I believe we know.

For many months The Supreme Court has received many detailed legal documents which, in essence all said: "Have Obama produce his"vault" certificate. A simple request for a possible solution, yet, as of today, our Country, divided, still waits. More and more people are demanding that he prove himself or remove himself. If, in fact, he has fraudulently obtained the Presidency the American people want it returned!

We are nearing the day when a Government file clerk may ask "Where is President Obama's personnel file" and be told "It's the only empty file in the cabinet and is marked "CLASSIFIED." Stand firm, America, for truth and honesty. Few fall gracefully.

R. Quinn
Queens, New York

Which is still a fortress of birtherism.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Jon Kyl posted:

It's time to abandon Keynesian Economics
President Obama came to Capitol Hill a few weeks ago to unveil his new stimulus package, a $447 billion “jobs plan.” The President’s idea is to pay for new government spending and temporary tax cuts by permanently raising taxes by $467 billion over 10 years.

The largest new tax in the Obama plan would cap income-tax deductions for small businesses and some individuals. As it happens, a Democratic-controlled Senate already rejected this proposal, in 2009, when the Democratic caucus had 60 members­a filibuster-proof majority. So there’s very little chance that it can pass today, when there are far fewer Democratic votes in Congress. Indeed, several key Democrats have already expressed skepticism about the new stimulus bill. President Obama surely knows this, raising the question of whether this may be more of a reelection plan than a serious jobs plan.

Whatever his motivation, let’s analyze the legislation on its merits. It is built on the premise of Keynesian economics, which was also the basis for the 2009 stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, and the 2008 stimulus checks sent out under President Bush. Keynesians believe that, when economic growth is weak or nonexistent, the chief problem is low demand for goods and services. In such circumstances, they recommend that the government spend money to stimulate consumption, arguing that businesses will respond by increasing production and creating jobs.

But this raises the question: Where does the government money come from? After all, Congress can’t merely print new dollars. Its funds have to be taken out of the private economy, either through borrowing or higher taxes. A paper from the Heritage Foundation compares Keynesian economics to the act of redistributing water in a swimming pool: “Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.”

Moreover, raising taxes on small businesses to “pay for” the spending will reduce incentives to hire and invest. When you tax something more, you get less of it. A better idea is to incentivize production, or the “supply side” of the economy. The fundamental principle behind supply-side economics is that people work harder and take more risks when there are more opportunities for economic gain and less government intrusion.

Translating this principle into good public policy means reducing government consumption by cutting spending of borrowed money, thereby leaving resources in the private sector. It also means not raising taxes on anyone, and certainly not on the job-creating small businesses we count on to hire more workers.

Adopting supply-side policies would encourage robust job creation and investment. Doubling down on Keynesian stimulus spending is unlikely to have the same effect. Consider the historical record. In the Wall Street Journal, economist Stephen Moore compares President Reagan’s economy with President Obama’s: President Reagan inherited a sagging economy in 1981. By 1983, after his administration had implemented or supported a bevy of supply-side polices (including tax cuts, spending controls, deregulation, and sound money), economic growth had soared to 5 percent “and was racing to 7, even 8 percent growth.” Contrast that with President Obama’s record: As we approach his third year in office, economic growth is barely 1 percent, and some economists believe we’re heading for a double-dip recession.

The evidence couldn’t be clearer. It’s time policymakers consign Keynesianism to the history books and focus on supply-side policies that give job-creators the long-term certainty they need.

Sen. Jon Kyl | Senate Republican Whip

Keynesianism: it works in practice, but the real question is does it work in theory?

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

You heard it here first, OWS is both communist and Nazi at the same time!


Gateway Pundit reveals a fact that some people will find astonishing: The American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party have endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement, albeit for different reasons.

The Nazis equate capitalism, which the demonstrators are opposed to, to their hallucinations of a Jewish conspiracy. This may be reflected in some of the anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations.

The communists see the current demonstrations as a beginning of an American Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of a Soviet-style government in the United States. Occupy Wall Street also appeals to their sense of class warfare.

While an alliance between the Nazis, the communists and wannabe student radicals may seem bizarre on the surface, no one who has read "Liberal Fascism" by National Review writer Jonah Goldberg would be very much surprised. Goldberg found similar strains of ideological thought between Nazis, fascists, communists and modern American liberals. Goldberg concludes that one does not have to be in favor of death camps or world wars to be a fascist. All one has to believe in is the primacy of the state over individual rights.

The agenda of Occupy Wall Street such as can be determined, meshes pretty well with what Goldberg considers to be "liberal fascism." Unlike the tea party, the movement is geared toward demanding that the government give people things, such as free education, free health care and guaranteed employment because they have a right to them. That Americans have a right to free stuff, given from the government, was articulated in Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," championed by Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.

The propensity of Occupy Wall Street for violence also meshes pretty well with Nazi and communist practices. Unlike the tea party, the current demonstrators are not shy about brawling with the police.

Finally the fingering of scapegoats is a common threat between the Nazis, the communists and the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. The Nazis hate Jews, especially Jewish bankers and financiers, the communists hate all wealthy people, including bankers, of all religious persuasions. Occupy Wall Street hates bankers and financiers, occasionally the Jewish ones. All of these rich people are seen as cash cows for all the free stuff the demonstrators are demanding. The Nazis and the Communists would kill the rich folks after taking their wealthy. Opinions vary among Occupy Wall Street.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

This is a bad letter to the editor:


WHO (World Health Organization): Number of people with TB falls for first time
The real answer, as any U.S. healthcare professional knows, the fewer illegals, the fewer cases of TB.

When I was in HR, in the nighttime shift in an Eastern Shore poultry plant in Maryland, SEVENTEEN percent of Mexican temporary workers scored positive on their TB skin tests. This, mind you, was with workers vetted by both Mexican and U.S. governments.

Imagine what the percentage is with invaders, whom the lamestream media euphemistically call "undocumented workers!"

J-P. A. Maldonado | Phoenix

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

If there was an Oscars for bad editorials, this would be in the running for multiple awards.


Republicans should tell Biden to cut welfare to cut crime

By now you’ve no doubt heard Vice President Biden’s ridiculous claim that murders and rapes will increase if Republicans don’t pass his boss’ jobs bill. At the same time, you haven’t heard Republicans say that crime will increase if Democrats don’t cut welfare.

You haven’t heard the Republicans say this because they don’t have the courage or sense to fight fire with fire, or, more accurately, to fight nonsense with facts.

A half-century ago, Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan established a causal link between welfare and out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families. Since then, social scientists and criminologists have established a causal link between unmarried mothers and crime and other social pathologies. To wit:

Mothers who have never married, including those who are living with a boyfriend or with the father of their children, are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than women who have married. Violent crimes include surprise sex, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery, and simple assault.

Children of divorced or never-married women are six to 30 times more likely to suffer serious child abuse. The lower figure is for children living with their biological mother and a step-father; the higher figure is for children living with their biological mother and a boyfriend of their mother who is not their father. (Since the United States doesn’t track child abuse statistics this way, the statistics are from Great Britain.)

The awful statistics above get even more awful when a child dies from abuse. Such tragic deaths are 73 times more likely when a mother cohabitates with a boyfriend who is not the father of her children.

Children from fatherless families are far more likely than children from two-parent families to live in poverty, have behavioral problems in school, drop out of school, commit crimes, and end up incarcerated. As police officers know, neighborhoods with a high proportion of such families are not safe neighborhoods.

As Moynihan warned, the incidence of fatherless families would skyrocket, especially among blacks, if welfare provided an incentive for women to marry the state instead of the father of their children. Sure enough, the rate of fatherless black families has more than doubled since then, an increase that has been nearly matched by whites and non-white Latin Americans.

The number of single mothers is now so high that schools, media, and advertisers cater to them and treat them as a special class deserving of attention and even praise. The mothers have responded by wearing their marital status on their chest, like a red badge of courage. “I’m a single mom,” they proudly say when interviewed by the media.

A recent story on the economy in my hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic, is typical. It identified a woman as “a single mother of two children,” but if the woman had been married, the newspaper wouldn’t have identified her as “a married mother of two children.”

Of course, ever since Vice President Dan Quayle made his infamous but insightful “Murphy Brown” remark and was ridiculed as a buffoon by the leftist intelligentsia and media, politicians have been afraid to say the truth about the social pathologies caused by fatherless families – although this problem has to be one of the top-five problems facing the nation as it tries to pull out of its socioeconomic tailspin.

It’s a bizarre situation in which the leftist intelligentsia and media ridicule one vice president for saying the truth but don’t ridicule another vice president for saying an untruth.

Mencken’s Ghost is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who can be reached at

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Your letter to the editor is too sane, Oswald. Try this one on for size:


Triangulation In Political Warfare
First of all, a disclaimer: I am an independent voter, to the right of Attila the Hun, George S. Patton, Curtis LeMay and John Wayne. I vote for the best person, regardless of political affiliation, but, most of all, I tend to vote against candidates (the last candidate to receive my vote for the presidency was Ronald Reagan. Since then, I have written in “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” rather than voting for the evil of two lessers).

We are now faced with the phenomenon of triangulation in politics. ObaMarxists, funded and encouraged by communist multibillionaire George Soros, are committed to the discrediting of any conservative candidate who could oppose Glorious Leader. The present target is Herman Cain, who poses the greatest danger to Glorious Leader’s re-election. Why? Those who voted for Obama in 2008 to show they were not racists may have another black choice, this time on the pro-American, conservative, pro-business side. Most intact black families tend to be religious, patriotic and conservative. Obama may have already lost their support.
This is where triangulation comes in. By eliminating Cain via unfunded allegations of sexual impropriety, the next logical opponent to the Democrats would be Mitt Romney, by default. Then, the evangelical Christians who back Texan Rick Perry could be swayed into staying at home or voting for a third party candidate, just to avoid electing a Mormon, who, in their eyes, is a “cultist.” This would split the opposition, to the benefit of Puppet-Master George Soros and his bought and paid-for figurehead president.

We have one chance to snatch our moribund republic from the grave. We can succeed by electing the NoBama, whoever he may be. At this point, the only viable candidate seems to be Cain, who has had a real job and has had people working for him in very successful business enterprises. We are at the “fourth down on the opponent’s 20-yard line, score tied, four seconds left” stage of the game. Victory depends on the last-second field goal… except that there is no next season for us if we lose. Obama, who lately has been ruling by fiat, with one executive order after another without any congressional participation, is already transforming the USA into the USSA. Past is prologue. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Perón, Allende, Castro, Chávez, etc. are the past. Let us learn from it!

J-P. A. Maldonado
(Hitler and Perón régime survivor)

P.S. If we fail, see you at the FEMA political re-education facility!

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Mr Interweb posted:

What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle.

Well the main problem is that he never really bothers to explain why WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle, which is supposedly the entire point of the article.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


UN Agenda 21
Solar companies like Solyndra are going bankrupt after billion dollar bailouts by the federal government, and are now under investigation.

"Sustainability" has been exposed as a disguised word for the UN program Agenda 21 that seeks to undermine US authority and implement radical environmentalism that will crush our freedom and liberties. The UN is making agreements at the local level with city councils, county supervisors, and other local boards.

Our local communities must put a stop to this.

Yet the Maricopa County Supervisors are not listening and have gone ahead and made agreements with the UN subverting our authority to these agreements, and are actively implementing solar energy even though these companies are under investigation.

Is this troubled Tempe-based solar company, one of two largest solar companies in the US, the company the Supervisors have contracted with?

A m e r i c a n P o s t - G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Hmmm, yes the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is a hand of the New World Order, it's all clear now

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


Obama is a traitor!
Barack Hussein Obama, our president, is a traitor. Finally, his hatred for our nation and his plan to destroy it are crystal clear. He must be forced from office – legally – before our entire country goes down the drain for the final count!

Much has gone on in the last three years to show Obama's true colors, sympathetic not to Judeo-Christians values and culture, but Islam and its surrogate-controlled states.

First there was his canceling the White House National Day of Prayer and instead feasting the Muslim holiday of Ramadan – using the latter as an occasion to to endorse the building of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City. Then he refused to allow Jewish and Christian clergy to speak and give prayer at the 10th anniversary of September 11! He did this with the help of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who I believe is a self-hating Jew who also endorsed the mosque at Ground Zero and its terrorist-linked Imam Feisal Rauf.

Then, and second, there was Obama's disrespect and disdain for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu, when BHO abruptly left a meeting in the White House to have dinner with Michelle Obama, his socialist and far-leftist wife. If this were not bad enough, Obama has done everything he can to harm Israel, the home of Jesus and Moses and our only ally in the Middle East. Notwithstanding the spirituality of the Holy Land is the simple fact that Israel safeguards the West's oil supply. If this oil falls into the wrong hands, our economy – however bad it is – will tank and go right through the floor along with the rest of the free world.

Third, Obama and his socialist if not communist comrades in the administration, coupled with anti- Christian and anti-Semitic atheists, undermined pro-American governments in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. Now the Middle East, save for Israel, is controlled almost exclusively by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which not only want to destroy the Jewish state, kill all Jews and Christians eventually, but also take over the world with their inhuman brand of Shariah law. The Middle East now looks like a small version of the Roman empire, only the Romans are not in charge; radical Islam is.

Fourth, Obama is literally in bed with the neo-Nazi radical Islamic mullahs in Iran, who are close to developing nuclear weapons not only to destroy Israel, but us as well. He and his corrupt secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have sold our beloved nation out to these mullahs and have not taken any meaningful action to either remove them or stop their nuclear march to our annihilation. To the contrary, Obama and Clinton have rocked back and allowed Iran to soon get nuclear weapons. And, as you probably know, Iran is the head of the snake when it comes to terrorism. It financially supports nearly every terrorist group and even put a bounty on the heads of our brave servicemen fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. For each American GI killed, Iran pays over $1,000 dollars for their heads. And, all the while Obama and Clinton sit back and say and do nothing to stop this "genocide."

If this were not enough, the latest outrage and atrocity, severely compromising our national security, is the final straw, and it shows to the nation exactly who Obama is. In the last days, our most secret warplane was electronically lured into Iranian airspace when it was flying over Afghanistan to locate and kill terrorists bent on destroying us. This was our most secret and prized military possession, a stealth drone, which had proven very effective in fighting terrorists. Iran, with the likely help of communist China and Russia, who want to compromise our national security as well, caused the plane to land in Iran. When this happened, what did Obama do? Nothing! He could and should have sent our warplanes into Iran to destroy the drone, before Iranians, Chinese and Russians could get their hands on it. Now, these enemies of freedom have our highest technology to use against us, and soon they will have stealth drones just like ours to use against us and Israel!

Barack Hussein Obama was complicit in this treasonous act. By allowing the radical Islamic mullahs in Iran, China and Russia to have our highest technology when he simply could have ordered the destruction of the drone once it went down, Obama cemented my strong belief that he is a traitor.

Obama must go now! We cannot wait until an election in 2012, as more damage will irreparably harm our nation. He must be legally forced to leave office now, plain and simple.
In this regard, Freedom Watch recently scored a big victory in court in our case against the radical mullahs in Iran. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered that evidence be presented into the atrocities committed by the Iranian terrorist regime. These atrocities are being committed each day with Obama's apparent blessing! This trial, to be held in the next few months, will, like the Nuremberg Nazi trials after World War II, expose the horrors of the Islamic Iranian regime, which is obviously supported by Obama. I believe that Iran has paid off Obama with campaign contributions to win the next election, just as China paid off the Clintons with illegally laundered campaign contributions so they could win the 1996 election. Coupled with his Muslim roots, Obama gladly threw his lot in with the radical Iranian mullahs bent on our destruction, as well as Israel's. That's why I call Obama the "mullah in chief." This could well turn out to be the terrorist trial of the decade.

Just as I was instrumental in exposing the bribery of the Clintons by China during their administration, concerned citizens need to be hard at work uncovering the bribery of Obama by the Iranians. I for one am investigating this likelihood. Bill Clinton and his criminal wife, Hillary, were the "Manchurian Candidates," but Obama and Hillary are now the "Islamic Iranian Candidates," an analogy in the movie that depicted how Chinese communists infiltrated the highest reaches of our government. The primary explanation for Obama and Clinton rolling over for the Iranian Islamist mullahs is that they were paid off, that is, bribed. This occurred during the Clinton years with communist China, so it is not farfetched that it is happening now. Obama and Clinton need the campaign cash to win the next elections, just as Bill and Hill needed it in 1996 to defeat Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole.
Just as I was instrumental in exposing the bribery with China, now we need to do this with Iran, before we all go down the drain to these radical Islamist terrorists.

We cannot depend on the compromised, hapless and flawed Republican candidates to win the next elections. Indeed, the Republicans have largely stood by and watched Obama harm our national security, not to mention our economy, and have hardly spoken a word, much less sought to do anything about it. That's because it's one big establishment club in Washington, D.C.

Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."

Don't really know what to say.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

An editorial where the author confuses "socialism" with "socialization"


Major function for teacher union is to socialize students
Public education has become Socialists' primary instrument to promote Socialism.
The National Education Association (NEA) meets every year for a big national convention and teachers from all over the country show up for this event.

An agenda is usually presented showing all the things nationally that the NEA is either for or against. Many of the issues they choose to address have little or nothing to do with education, but everything to do with their leftist worldview.

While many have heard of the NEA, they don't have any idea of how long it has been around or what it really does, only that many of their kids' teachers belong to it. The compliant media, when it reports on NEA conventions, is not about to give out any more real information than it has to. In all fairness to public school teachers, there are some that are not in favor of what this "teachers union" does, but their opposition is generally ignored or ridiculed.

Samuel Blumenfeld in his informative book "NEA, Trojan Horse in American Education" has given us a view of the NEA that is seldom presented in other places.

Blumenfeld noted on page 13 of his book that it was in 1829 that Josiah Holbrook launched the Lyceum movement to organize the educators of America into a powerful lobby for public education. And if the socialists decided to further their cause through the instrument of public education, we can then understand why the system has had such a pro-socialist bias for as long as anyone can remember. Indeed, public education was to become the socialists' primary instrument for promoting socialism."

Also in 1829, radical socialist and feminist Frances Wright lectured in this country. She spoke in favor of a national system of education -- and who was to be the beneficiary of that system? The students? Hardly! In speaking of public education, Ms. Wright said quite forthrightly "That measure is national, rational, republican education, free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the state, at the expense of the state, for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state."

That's quite a mouthful of socialist dogma. Karl Marx would have loved it. Maybe he did. Frances Wright, after all, was a little ahead of him in promoting "Free education for all children in public schools." Remember now, we are talking about events that happened in 1829 -- not 1929, but 1829 -- a mere forty-two years after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Blumenfeld has informed us that: "The NEA was founded in 1857 at a meeting in Philadelphia called by the presidents of ten state teachers associations."

Thomas W. Valentine, president of the New York Teachers Association, told the gathering, "I trust the time will come when our government will have its educational department, just as it now has one for agriculture, for the interior, for the navy, etc."

Blumenfeld continued: "Thus it should come as no surprise that the call for a federal department of education was made at the very first organizational meeting." The socialists didn't get what they wanted right away, but they never quit working toward it and planning for it. Jimmy Carter finally gave it to them during his one-term presidency in the late 1970s as a payback for teacher union support during his election. Ronald Reagan claimed he wanted to disband it, but, somehow, he never quite got around to it.

Trouble is, the Constitution, as flawed as it is, gave the federal government absolutely NO role to play in education in this country, so the feds just usurped the power and did it anyway. Few people dared to complain. After all, it was "for the kids" right? Well, not exactly. Originally the organization was called the National Teachers Association but, according to Blumenfeld, in 1870 the name was changed to the National Education Association and membership was opened to include"any person in any way connected with the work of education."

Shortly, the NEA became the "forum" where all the educational issues of the day were dealt with such as public vs.private education, the role of government in education, religious educations vs. secular (humanist) education and others. And Blumenfeld has noted that these problems remain with us even today "just as insoluble now as they were then."

As you dig further into the socialist origins of both the public school system and the National Education Association, you learn more and more about the socialist direction public education has always taken in this country -- if you are willing to look.

Many of you have heard of John Dewey, one of the giants of public education in the 20th century. His name is to 20th century public education what Horace Mann's name was to 19th century public education. John Dewey was an atheist, a socialist, and just happened to belong to fifteen different Marxist front organizations, as well as being a co-author of the Humanist Manifesto. Dewey had an "interesting" education philosophy which should give parents no comfort. He said: "You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society, which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."

Look at what he said. With a statement like that do you wonder why the minions of both the NEA and the government school system hate homeschoolers so much? Most homeschoolers learn to think independently, at least to some degree. Therefore, they will ask questions; they will even question authority where they feel it is right to do so. So they won't fit easily into the socialist collective that public education and big government are planning for us. They will not go easily into the New World Order, but will question and resist -- therefore they must be suppressed at every opportunity that the "socialist collective" may flourish.

Back in 1936 the NEA stated a position from which it has never retreated. It said: "We stand for socializing the individual . . . The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy."

Notice that this statement did not say that education was a major function of the public school. because it never has been, but rather"social orientation." That statement alone should tell you what the public school system is really all about, and folks, it ain't education! Paul Haubner, an NEA specialist, has informed us that "The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kinds of values-education their children receive in school . . . that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values." Christian ideals are not in line with what the schools have for an agenda and so must be put down in whatever way possible.

I hope you have noticed that, through all of this, there is almost no emphasis on real education, but every emphasis on changing the values of the students away from what their parents have taught them.


Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


A Whiff of Privatization

Three decades ago, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher implemented a policy called “privatization” to rejuvenate the moribund economy of the United Kingdom.

Like the United States today, the cost of a too-large government was sapping the vitality of the U.K.’s economy. The private sector was staggering under the heavy tax burden needed to fund the public sector. In fact, despite very high tax rates, taxation could not keep up with government spending, so the Bank of England (the U.K.’s central bank) created more money (what we euphemistically call “quantitative easing” today) to make up the difference.

Prime Minister Thatcher’s solution to this untenable situation was brilliant and elegantly simple: She decided to divest the government of its nationalized businesses by selling them to private investors—i.e., privatization. This shrank the budget deficit dramatically, first, by shrinking expenditures, since the government would no longer have to fund those businesses, and second, by increasing revenue. Revenue was increased both immediately, via the price paid by private investors for government assets, and on an ongoing basis, as private firms and their employees became net taxpayers.

A whiff of privatization is in the air here in the United States, and at the federal level. (Privatization has been widely practiced by American states and local governments during the past two decades.) A bill called the Civilian Property Realignment Act (H.R. 1734) is “in play” in the House of Representatives. Its objective, according to Congressman Mike Kelly’s press release, is to “save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling or redeveloping high value federal properties, consolidating federal space, maximizing the utilization rates of space, and streamlining the disposal of unneeded assets ... If passed into law, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that H.R. 1734 could generate $15 billion in revenue from property sales, in addition to the billions more generated from future cost avoidance from simply owning less property.”

Given the federal government’s gargantuan debt and deficits, H.R. 1734 should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk. One would expect any member of Congress who professes any concern for fiscal responsibility to vote for this bill. Nevertheless, the bill is flawed.

Selling properties outright is a great idea, but is “redeveloping ... properties and consolidating ... space” a great idea? Sorry, but I have no confidence in Washington’s ability to manage resources efficiently. Just sell the stuff and let private-sector experts in property management figure out how to make economic use of those properties.

Hopefully, H.R. 1734 would be a first step in a much larger privatization process. While the United States doesn’t have a large inventory of nationalized industries to privatize like the U.K. did in the ’80s, there are many assets that Uncle Sam could sell to the private sector to start reducing the national debt.

First, Uncle Sam could divest itself of vast swaths of federally owned land. Surely, the government needs nowhere near the 30 percent of our national territory that it owns.
Second, privatize AmTrak; privatize the Post Office and rescind its monopoly privilege; and completely privatize government-sponsored enterprises, so the taxpayer doesn’t get stuck with any more Fannies and Freddies.

Third, privatize the Government Printing Office and any other federal agency or office that unfairly competes with unsubsidized private companies.

Fourth, privatize any government activity that profits private businesses: energy research, the Export-Import Bank, the advertising programs in the Department of Commerce, etc. At a time when many large American corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, we don’t need to increase the national debt to subsidize them.

Fifth, whether you can find a bidder or not, quit funding the PR and grant-bestowing desks in federal agencies. Their main function often is to use our tax dollars to promote their own expansion. If federal employees want to toot their own horn or give money to non-profits who will do their lobbying for them, let them do it on their dollar, not ours.

Finally, don’t waste time trying to reform bureaucracies or make them more efficient. Only the profit-and-loss calculus in competitive markets can do that. Put any federal agency on the block if it is performing a function that conceivably could earn a profit, and sell it to the highest bidder. (If there are no bidders, you’re looking at an economically unviable operation, so axe it – unless our lives depend on it.) If an agency isn’t fulfilling its purpose, and its primary function seems to be to provide well-paying jobs to otherwise unemployable holders of undergraduate and law degrees, then just pull the plug and abolish it.

Let’s hope that the whiff of privatization leads to far more than selling a few unused properties, and that there’s real movement toward shrinking the federal government by privatizing many of its properties and activities.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Thatcherism, the cure for America's economy.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

The avatars are honestly the best part of that. Also I forgot to include a picture of the guy that wrote the editorial that I posted:

Why yes I would trust this man's advice on economics, why do you ask?

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Not even Glenn Beck is far enough to the right


The Curtain Has Been Opened
The Great and Mighty have been exposed
A few weeks back I wrote an opinion piece on the subject of Obama's eligibility issues, forged documents and hidden past and why the various groups from the media to conservative talk show hosts, refused to acknowledge or even discuss the possibility that there now serves, in our White House, an usurper. At that time I had given the talk show hosts a bit of a pass, crediting them with having weighed the potential trouble that would result as the country became aware of Obama's crimes, against any good that could come from it.

Time has run out on that free pass. For the many people that have been involved in the forensics of Obama's activities, there has been no doubt in our minds concerning his fraudulent documentation. Understanding that our so called conservative talk show hosts, have intentionally avoided this issue and all it's associated facts, it was easy to see why they are oblivious to them.

A Game Changer Fellows:
This past Thursday, Sheriff Joe Arpaio released a report on his six month investigation into Obama's eligibility problems and document manipulation. The evidence he produced left no doubt that there has been and continues to be a massive cover up of fraud and forgery. It has become clear that not only would the main stream media continue it's denial but so would the likes of Rush, Sean, Mark and Glenn.

But wait, they all did not ignore it. No, not quite. Glenn on his radio show and his Blaze website, shook off the horse blinders and brought up Sheriff Joe's investigation. So, were we finally going to get a prominent conservative to speak of the crazy uncle in the attic? Well, not exactly, but what we did learn was the real reason those supposed defenders of the Constitution have been silent.

Glenn Beck exposed himself and the cadre of others yesterday. They do not fear unrest in the streets. They do not fear a Constitutional crisis. They fear Obama. That's right! They fear him and what would happen to their careers if that occupier of our White House is in reality so smart and cunning that he is setting a trap for them. This is what they fear and this is what drives their silence. Self preservation is their highest priority.

All of these hosts speak about and promote the Constitution. They give it away free, demand our politicians abide by it and espouse its virtue, sometimes, ad nauseam. That rhetoric as well as their phony demeanor as to being its protector and savior, is beginning to stink worse than the south end of a north bound bull.

As Glenn and his cohorts ridiculed and belittled not only Sheriff Arpaio, his extremely efficient investigative team and a very large part of his listeners and viewers, it became evident that he had not even watched the press conference. If he had, he could not have possibly come to the conclusion that Obama has no Hawaii birth related issues because a "newspaper reported" his birth.

Earth to Glenn, Obama and his mother could have been on Mars when the doting grandparents called the local newspaper and told them of Obama's birth. There is no fact checking or backup required. You give them the info, pay the cost and it gets printed. What grandparents would not like to get their grandchild's birth in the paper so they could have a keepsake and proudly display it to their friends? Glenn, in contrast to what you said, the person wouldn't have to be an embedded KGB agent to get that in the paper. Knowing how to dial a phone is all it would take.

I'm not going to go into the many extremely troubling aspects released in Arpaio's report, you haven't bothered to read them there and would most likely not read them here. However, to laugh at and impugn a person of great stature, such as Sheriff Arpaio, a person that has always done the right thing, despite the blow back and personal danger he has faced for years, is nothing less than despicable.

Glenn could have and probably should have, continued to ignore the issue. But he chose, instead to "hold up as some kind of joke" not only the millions of people who are concerned about what is going on, but his inclusion of Sheriff Arpaio in that charade, was deplorable.
I lost a lot of respect for Glenn yesterday. TPATH had intended on promoting Glenn's Dallas event. Now we will not be going or promoting it. It is doubtful we will renew our subscription to GBTV. Glenn promotes his web cast something like this "News the main stream media won't report". Why would anyone "pay" to be kept in the dark? The main stream media does that for free.

Finally, to all of you celebrity hosts, who have decided to keep yourself as well as those that depend on you, uninformed, know this. Maybe not this year or next, but eventually, each of you will have been proven to be on the "cowardice" side of this issue. Just as the internet has lessened the people's dependency on the main stream media, we the people shall wean from the so called conservative talk show hosts. Its your call and its not too late.

In closing, for all the girlie-man hosts that think Obama has intentionally, and masterfully created a deception that will end your careers, wake up. There are many much easier and lawful ways of trapping the enemy. No fellows, Obama has a real big problem. He knows it and has done everything he and his gang of organized forgers and ideological supporters could think of to hide his past for as long as possible. He has managed to subvert and corrupt judges and state officials, he has managed to destroy government passenger manifests, he has criminally used official government seals in forged documents and has hidden every aspect of his life from the public. This man is not a brilliant contriver of an elaborate plan to take down a few talk show hosts or the Republican Party. He is scrambling, lying and breaking the law at every possible opportunity in an effort to continue hiding from his past in order to complete his planned destruction of this country.

The left will continue to hide these things from the public, for ideological reasons. You guys, the pious protectors of the Constitution are actually just protecting yourselves and in the process helping the usurper. That is a shame.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

Frankly, I'm quite surprised that Arpaio hasn't been indicted by the federal government for numerous counts of violating the civil rights of people in Maricopa County.

He's still under investigation.

Dr. Tough fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2012 around 15:21

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


Evangelical patriarch Rev. Pat Robertson has long been a leader in the conservative movement advocating for a better civil and moral society. But his recent support of marijuana legalization couldn't be more wrongheaded.

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol," Robertson said last week in an interview with The New York Times. "I've never used marijuana and I don't intend to, but it's just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn't succeeded."

"It's completely out of control," Robertson added. "Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all."

Robertson's arguments are wrong on each and every fact. First, regulating marijuana like the way we regulate alcohol (or cigarettes) will only result in the increased use and abuse of marijuana, particularly among youths. As the late, great political scientist, James Q. Wilson, put it, "The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption." Arguing that adding a dangerous substance to the legal marketplace will reduce its usage is to renounce all common sense. Does Robertson truly believe that addicts and first-time users will be curtailed once the substance they seek becomes easier to obtain?

To stay on alcohol for a moment: There are about 79,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. The Center for Disease Control calculated that excessive drinking cost the United States $223.5 billion annually and the government pays more than 60 percent of these health care costs. Is that really the model that Robertson would recommend for the betterment of society?

The Household Survey of Substance Abuse tells us that alcohol, more than tobacco and illegal drugs, is the most used and abused drug among youth. Why is that? Because alcohol is legal; drugs are not. Alcohol is easily available; drugs are less so. Alcohol is culturally acceptable; drugs are, for the most part, stigmatized, in large part because they are illegal. Robertson has long respected the importance of the law and the culture. It is a grave error for him to abandon that now.

As for his other claims, the 2011 World Drug Report paints a detailed picture of marijuana abusers. Among cannabis users in treatment in the United States, 80.5% are not married, 90% have obtained an education of 12 years or less; 25% are unemployed and 46% are not in the labor force (of which 55% are students). Of the cannabis users who entered treatment services from 2000 to 2008, nearly a quarter report psychiatric problems. In addition, new research suggests that driving under the influence of marijuana could double a person's risk of getting in a serious or fatal car crash.

Why should we promote the legalization of a substance that can irretrievably harm our children's brains and makes our citizens less intelligent, less productive and less safe? Open and unrestricted drug use cannot coexist with a free, safe and productive society.

Moreover, Robertson's claim that our prisons are overflowing with marijuana users are wildly exaggerated. The U.S. criminal justice system is the largest referral source for drug treatment programs. And, the large majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, recently reported that of all the inmates in state prisons, 0.3% are arrested for offenses involving only marijuana possession.

Contrary to Robertson's view, we have had successes in the fight against drugs. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 700,000 fewer teenagers used illicit drugs in 2010 than a decade earlier, a 16% decline. From 2000 to 2010, current marijuana use by teens has dropped 9%, methamphetamine use by teens has plummeted 60%, LSD use has dropped 50%, and current cocaine use among high school seniors has dropped 38%.

There have been other important victories, too. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the help of the Partnership for a Drug Free America, America's policymakers and opinion shapers got tough on drugs. Through movies, television, mass media, and, yes, sermons, America sent a message: Drug use is not culturally or morally acceptable and it will not be tolerated. The nation was committed to defeating the cocaine epidemic, and it did.

We have much work left in our own fight against drugs. We need more drug education and prevention classes in schools, more rehabilitation and treatment centers, and more resources for law enforcement officials. But all this is for naught if our nation's leaders, including its religious leaders, undermine and abandon the cause.

During a recent trip to Mexico, Vice President Joe Biden was right to reject the idea of legalization. "There is no possibility the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalization," he said. It's time for a new bipartisan coalition committed to defending our children and our future from the dangers of drug abuse and addiction. Surrendering, like Robertson suggests, is not an option

The War on Drugs, that famous success story

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


President Obama’s actions are cause for impeachment

On June 28, 2009, Honduran President Zelaya was ousted after defying a Supreme Court order to drop plans for a referendum to ask Hondurans if they wanted to change the Constitution. The coup had the support of the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and a majority of its citizens.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected Honduras’s Supreme Court and Congress, and a Honduran citizen majority of ousting President Zelaya by demanding the return of Zelaya as Honduran President. Honduras is a free government today.

It appears President Obama and other members of his administration may be replicating Honduran President Zelaya’s miscalculations of violating or considering the violation(s) of our Constitution and US Code.

“Free and open elections” are one of the most “precious freedoms” for each and every citizen who is a legally qualified voter under our US Constitution. The importance is for each individual legally, qualified voter to have that person’s votes to be fully weighed. “Voter fraud” is a violation of our Constitutional freedoms. “Voter fraud” is an “obstruction to justice” as each counterfeit vote actually diminishes every legally, qualified voter’s values and rights.

On March 12, 2012, AG Eric Holder “blocked” Texas “Voter ID”. On March 2, 2012, AG Eric Holder prosecuted Florida’s “Voter ID”. On December 2011, AG Eric Holder “blocked” South Carolina’s “Voter ID”; a law mirrored after Indiana’s “Voter ID”. President Obama and his Attorney General seem to continue in efforts to authorize “Voter fraud” for their own personal and political advantages.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a 6 to 3 vote that “Voter ID” is permitted. President Obama and AG Eric Holder “must” abide by SCOTUS or be “Impeached.” Do President Obama and AG Eric Holder believe they are above US Supreme Court rulings?

On March 9, 2012, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta and his military advisors say U.S. Military is under the control of UN & NATO - NOT Congress .

The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, says, “The Congress shall have Power… To declare War..”. At no place does (y)our US Constitution give the UN and/or NATO any power to “supersede” Congress. Do President Obama and AG Eric Holder believe they are above the US Constitution?

Sec. Panetta’s conclusions came after President Obama used military force sending our US Military to Libya without any Congressional authorization. Based on US Constitutional law, any violations by President Obama, Sec. Panetta, or any other(s) without Congressional approval must be “Impeached.”

On a somewhat daily basis, we see and/or hear on our TV, radio, and/or in the newspapers of additional allegations of unauthorized and/or illegal activity within this President Obama administration.

As Honduran President Zelaya was ousted after defying their Constitution, our Constitutional freedoms must be preserved.

Oscar Y. Harward
Monroe, North Carolina

Protecting the right to vote: a crime worthy of impeachment.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

This whole HENRY thing is getting pretty retarded pretty fast. These people need to have their taxes raised just as a punitive moran fee.


How to Make $100,000 and Still Feel Poor

Our family income recently topped $100,000, but we aren't spending as though we make six figures. We don't sip Mai Tai cocktails at resorts or buy pricey tech toys.

According to recent data, incomes are rising and consumers have more money to spend. They are also taking on more debt for the first time in three years. Financial experts say the increase in borrowing can be attributed to buying cars and paying for college . We bought a new car this past year so our son could earn money for college delivering pizzas. He may need to borrow money for grad school.

Is six figures the new minimum wage?

Although I admire people who live on fixed incomes or minimum wage, I have no idea how they do it. When I was younger, I got by on a salary of just $19,000 a year. At that time, I did not have a mortgage or two sons attending college. Back then, the high cost of childcare took a big chunk out of my pitiful paycheck . Still, I never thought we would have trouble living on $100,000.

What's up with my net worth?

I always figured my net worth would increase as I earned more income. In fact, I thought that clearing that six figure "hurdle" meant we would be financially set. However, our net wealth plummeted since the housing bubble popped. Our home is on the "liability" side of our net worth chart. Although the stocks have recovered, our retirement accounts do not reflect the balance I would have expected once we earned six figures.

Why don't I have money to burn?

My lifestyle isn't extravagant. We are spending less money on clothing, entertainment and anything that is not a necessity. We don't have money to burn because of the high cost of gasoline, car insurance, groceries and college tuition. We also have a high tax bill every year.

Housing: We live in the Tampa, Florida area, where we had our 1,800-square-foot home built at the top of the housing bubble. I’d feel a lot richer if I could take the $183,000 we spent seven years ago and buy a home twice the size today in a better neighborhood. Some of the homes in my subdivision have been vandalized. I never thought I’d see broken sliding glass doors and graffiti on the walls of homes that people had to get on a waiting list to buy. Houses were in such high demand we put a $3,000 deposit on our lot at the builder’s model home center before even seeing the subdivision. To try to stay above water on our mortgage, we pay an extra $250 a month to the mortgage company. That way, we will at least have the option to move if we need to in the future without ruining our credit.

Expenses: Our fixed expenses include $350 a month for utilities, $300 for car insurance, $175 for Internet, cable and phone. We owe $1,222.02 a month on our mortgage and $300 on a car loan. We have no other debt. We save 10 percent of our income for retirement. We spend at least $500 a month on gasoline and an astounding $1,000 a month on food. I’d feel rich if I was eating at upscale restaurants or buying gourmet foods, but our food budget just provides the basics for four people.

Education: We are spending about $15,000 a year for tuition and books to send our two sons to community college. When they transfer to the university in another year, those expenses will more than double. My older son pays $5,000 or about half of his tuition costs since he has a part-time job, but my younger son hasn’t been able to find employment. I’d feel wealthy if I was struggling to send my sons to an Ivy League College, but this is just community college.

We purchased stocks to help fund our sons' college education, but the stocks took a big dive. We are hoping the value of their stocks will recover to help pay for the last couple years of college. We don't want them to take out college loans, but they may have no choice.

But it's not all bad

Although we have a lot of expenses, we have managed to stay out of debt. I am sure if we did not make six figures, we would fall into the debt trap. Experts say people tend to take out more debt when they have more equity in their homes. Even if the value of our home begins to increase one day, I won't feel comfortable taking on more debt. Instead, we plan to be free of our mortgage debt within the next 10 years.

I may never have money to burn, but I hope to have a chance to enjoy something before the tax man takes his cut.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Saint Sputnik posted:

Jonah Goldberg provides the valuable white male perspective on true racism

Isn't he the guy that wrote the whole "liberals are the real Nazis because vegetarianism"

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Should ask them if they think that highways are evil as well.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

The local small town paper is obsessed with Obama, but they can't decide if he's stupid and ignorant or if he's scheming and evil. Today he is stupid and ignorant.


Obama: The Affirmative Action President
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer," a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Matt Patterson is a columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post and San Francisco Examiner. This August 18, 2011 article is reprinted with permission from

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

George Soros: a modern day Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto


George Soros … suicidal maniac?!!
With regard to George Soros dedicating $10 million dollars into the left-wing scheme to unseat Sheriff Joe, allow me to draw upon the following analogy:

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto realized that he had made a huge error and exclaimed shortly thereafter: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

As wealthy as George Soros may be, the accumulation of wealth doesn't necessarily equate with being a mentally well balanced individual! Little does he realize that pouring all of this money into ventures attempting to undermine those law enforcement officials dedicated to enforcing our Constitution, just infuriates the majority of mainstream America. History is replete with examples of Americans taking just so much abuse and nonsense before they decide that they have had enough and will inevitably strike back!

George Soros doesn't have enough money in this life or in his wildest dreams that will cause the American spirit to bend to the will of an egomaniacal, mentally defective billionaire! Keep throwing your money down that dark hole George! It only serves to make the will of your opponents (the American people) stronger, more resilient and determined in dealing with nothing more than a political street punk who happens to have figured out a way to game the very system he is determined to destroy! This is not intelligence … this is a suicide slowly unfolding with people being sacrificed in an ideological rush to certain anarchy and chaos!!

Vince Ansel

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Well the dude that wrote that bribery piece works for the Cato Institute so of course it's completely insane.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

There's no punchline in the letter, this guy really does want to shut down the GSA.


Shut down the GSA!
When it comes to government waste and arrogance, folks like us are just not creative enough. It takes true bureaucrats like those at the General Services Administration.

The GSA is supposed to help other government agencies work more efficiently. But, to no American's surprise (except possibly President Obama) the "professionals" at the GSA spent over 800,000 taxpayer dollars on a 4 day Las Vegas conference that included mind readers, poolside clowns, lavish private parties and more. Oh, and of course, there was a rap video competition where our supposed "public servants" mocked taxpayers for funding their parties and excesses.

Emails from the conference organizer reveal he actually planned for the conference to be "over the top."

Was the conference organizer punished? Of course not! This is the federal government. President Obama's appointee heading the GSA actually awarded the organizer a $9,000 bonus – even after knowing about the conference. Finally, after the story broke, the GSA had to put him on leave – with his full federal salary.

Want a window into just how out of touch these Obama bureaucrats are? When asked yesterday why she approved the $9,000 bonus for the conference organizer, former GSA Administrator Martha Johnson replied that he was "entitled" to it. I'm not making that up.
There's so much more. Testimony yesterday in the House of Representatives reveals that the White House knew about these outrages months ago but took no action until the news finally broke.

The GSA is one of the more useless federal agencies (among many). They're supposed to help other agencies be more efficient. Again, I'm not making that up. Now they are being investigated for criminal bribes and kickbacks according to testimony before Congress yesterday.

We need to make sure Members of Congress know just how disgusted we are by this latest example of government waste and abuse.

The GSA unsuccessfully attempts to replicate private sector efficiency in government. In the real economy, businesses of every size are held accountable by their customers and healthy competition. Bloated government agencies like the GSA are accountable to no one and cause real harm to taxpayers.

Permanently closing the GSA would save the taxpayers at least $200 million each year, and would shrink the overgrown federal government bureaucracy. We must not allow waste, bribery, and inefficiency like this go unchecked.

Tim Phillips
President, Americans for Prosperity

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


Like father like son?
Israeli Psychologist Dr. Sam Vaknin comforts me in that I'm not alone in my worries about the mental health of "el duce" Barack Hussein Obama II.

Obama's obsessive revisionist attempt to raise capital gains taxes under any guise he can, is only his way of compensating for almost being laughed off the stage when he suggest the same thing in a debate with Hillary Clinton. Then there was the big lie about how he was against Mandatory Health Insurance to win the primary! All one has to do is search Sam Vaknin on Youtube.Com and hear him talk about Obama's alarming Narcissistic behavior, and then go to SNOPES.COM (sponsored by GEORGE SOROS) and see how Snopes claims Sam is not saying what he is saying on Youtube!

Obama's parents hated America. His father was jailed for trying to overthrow another Government. Look at Obama's record! Everything he has done has been to weaken us, economically, militarily, energy-wise, Industrial-wise and spiritually! What don't his supporters comprehend? We can't survive another 4 years of this!

Joseph DuPont
Towanda, Pennsylvania

So I looked up Sam Vaknin on youtube and got this:

Wherein the guy claims that Obama thinks that his dreams affect reality. Because he's a sorcerer or something I guess. Also the top comment:


Obama is an underachiever becasue he is a CIA noname guinea pig who served in Iraq when we was supposedly in university. He is not american. He is inperturbable because he knows he doesn't really have to be good or have substance because the political machine around him is so huge that it takes care of everything he does, including what he says. They hire him because he has no empathy. He can appeal to the needs of secret government, and lead voters into supporting. Then he fucks them sideways.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

Attention UK goons: Good news! There is no austerity in Britain!


Britain, "austerity," and the lessons of economic history

Economists and pundits alike are going wild over the United Kingdom’s recent “double dip” recession. The 2008-09 recession prompted the election of a conservative coalition led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron decided the best path for economic recovery was “austerity,” a program of reduced government spending and smaller government debt. The new coalition – with the aid of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne – sought to drastically slash the government budget. With the addition of increased taxes, the plan was dubbed “Tax and Axe.”

Two years later, the United Kingdom is back in recession. Keynesian economists are enjoying a savory “I told you so” moment, as many pointed out the dangers of austerity during troubled times. The logic runs as follows: when businesses, households, and governments all try to pay back their debts at the same time, they spend less. As they spend less, national income falls, leading to even less spending. This sets off a cycle of decreased spending and economic collapse.

The Keynesian solution is government spending. It goes like this: Governments can increase spending during recessions to keep national income up, preventing the spending collapse. In short, more stimulus is the answer.

In turn, many progressives in the United States are arguing that any similar austerity here (such as Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan) would have equally bad results: another recession.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is based on a faulty premise. Here is the reality: There is no austerity in the United Kingdom.

Quite the contrary, government spending in Britain has increased in the last two years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. In real terms (based on estimated inflation and GDP growth), spending was set to decrease this fiscal year. Unfortunately, this prediction was made on the assumption of positive yet small GDP growth. As we now know, this assumption was bad and GDP shrank, heralding a recession.

Public debt in the United Kingdom continues to rise. The 2012 budget clearly outlines increases in public debt all the way until 2016 (when the predictions stop). To top it all off, these numbers exclude the 2008-09 emergency financial interventions. The financial sector in the United Kingdom took a hit in the previous recession and was promptly bailed out in 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional 124 billion pounds to keep banks afloat.

Furthermore, some British think tanks estimate that only around 6 percent of Cameron’s cuts have been implemented, with the remaining 94 percent still waiting to actually be cut by 2016-17. Is this “austerity” (itself a loaded term) in any sense of the word? Suppose you were driving towards a cliff. Is it enough to ease off the gas pedal, or do you need to hit the brakes?

Economists such as Paul Krugman are already branding Europe’s approach a failure. In many ways, it is. But what is really at stake is the real reason things are failing. We cannot allow history to think that the United Kingdom tried austerity. It is simply not true. If we interpret this wrong, we will get the wrong historical lessons.

In fact, something similar happened during the onset of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover was in office when panic struck and the history books claim he tried free-market principles, which failed. In the first year of the depression, 1931, federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion to $5.5 billion. The federal government incurred a $2.2-billion deficit the same year. In 1932, Hoover raised taxes.

Sound familiar? Despite the fact that President Hoover increased government spending and debt, his approach was labeled “free market.” The exact opposite is true. When running against Franklin Roosevelt, Hoover actually argued that Roosevelt would make things worse by lowering taxes and decreasing spending. Roosevelt responded by accusing Hoover’s administration of being a profligate spender.

The same classification error is happening again today. The United Kingdom has raised taxes, increased government spending, and taken on more debt. This is the exact opposite of the clear meaning of austerity. What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is being used when “free market” means more government?

Of course, the situation in the United Kingdom is not identical to the United States. Exact comparisons and examples do not translate. One thing we do know, however, is that the British have not attempted to rein in out-of-control government spending. Like many governments, Britain scheduled cuts years into the future and continue to pile on debt. Before we even consider the failure of austerity in England, we must first be convinced austerity has really happened.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

A letter in which a Jack C. McVickers demonstrates that he does not understand civics. Also he doesn't realize that during the Korean War South Korea was allied with the US or that the entire point of the war was to defend that country from communism.


Can you help me out here?
Not being a lawyer, I am confused.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona cannot have a law that makes it illegal for someone in the U.S. illegally to work in Arizona. Because the U.S. has such a law, Arizona cannot have a similar law. The U.S. alone has the right to enforce (or most often, not enforce) the prohibition against illegal aliens working in the U.S.

Here’s my problem:

There are also U.S. laws against bank robberies and kidnappings. If I follow the Supreme Court’s logic then Arizona should not have any laws against bank robberies or kidnappings, nor should Arizona apprehend bank robbers and kidnappers as those are federal responsibilities and those laws can be enforced (or not enforced) at the sole discretion of the president. Note that we also have federal laws governing voting intimidation but the president has ordered that “black on white” intimidation not be enforced (remember the Black Panthers in Philadelphia).

I also recall the history of WWII when there was a federal POW camp near Phoenix. As I recall the story a half a dozen or so German POWs escaped the prison and were at large in the community. Our police eventually captured them as they were hiding under bridges. Now how would that work today? First, since the POWs were under federal jurisdiction, the Phoenix police could not be involved. Also, how could the feds approach the escapees? They couldn’t “profile them” because they looked different, wore ragged clothes or did not speak English. After all, they could be German-American citizens who did not speak English. And the feds could not ask them for ID papers simply because they were sitting under the shade of a bridge. Or, as would probably be the case today, the president would not allow the feds to apprehend these escapees because it might offend the German-American voters to whom he was pandering.

Now consider that we no doubt have a few thousand Middle Eastern jihadists that slipped across the Mexican border into the U.S., bringing their kids with them. The kids have been filled with the jihadist theology all of their lives. But they have kept their noses clean (except for having false IDs and working without a permit, which are “non-crimes” in the federal parlance). Now at age 25 these jihadists apply to join the U.S. military and seek citizenship under Obama’s self-proclaimed “Dream Act.” (This will automatically give the parents a free pass also because the feds are not going to expel the parents of “Dream Act” kids.) Meeting all of Obama’s “qualifications” they are accepted and a year later they are supposedly “defending“ my grandson’s flank during a military action in Iraq. This is ABSOLUTE MADNESS! When I was in the Korean War I sure as hell did not want a Korean citizen defending my flank. And yet today 17 percent of our marines are not American citizens.

And while all of this pandering for Mexican votes is happening, each year we have fifteen million refugees who are fleeing countries where their very lives are being threatened. But they die while waiting in the “legal immigration” line … because they do not have relatives here that form a voting block to protest in the streets for them. And this is “justice” and “strong family values”?

What in the world is wrong with us that we permit this? Or do I simply not understand the legal “logic”?

Jack C. McVickers

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

An editorial against Medicare (yes you read that correctly) that among other things claims it violates the 13th Amendment.


A prescient and profound 1966 letter about socialized medicine

I’m feeling inadequate and humbled.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has a commentary of mine in the Summer 2012 edition. It also has a reprint from the journal’s archives of one of the most prescient and profound pieces I’ve ever read about socialized medicine. Comparing my commentary to it is like comparing an article in People magazine to a Shakespearean play.

The archival piece is “A Letter to Mississippi Physicians,” written on May 1, 1966, by Mississippi physician Curtis W. Caine.

Remember the date: May 1, 1966.

The letter summarizes Dr. Caine’s thoughts to his fellow physicians about Medicare, which was signed into law on July 30, 1965, to go into effect on July 1, 1966.

Now, 46 years later, the Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Pelosi-Reid-Obama plan to socialize the rest of medical care, although Medicare is unsustainable in its present form and will be insolvent in 20 years

Dr. Caine made 122 enumerated points in his letter. Below is a sampling. To see how relevant his points are to today’s situation, just replace the word “Medicare” with “ObamaCare.”

- Socialized medicine, stripped of its deceptive whitewash, is reactionary; it is the imposition of central power and control over America and Americans in the false guise of beneficence; it is the opposite of the American way.

- Medicare was drafted by politicians and bureaucrats. Official representatives of the medical profession were not consulted about the provisions of Medicare.

- Socialized medicine has always, in every era and in every location, arrested progress in medical science through restrictive, burdensome, suffocating regulation, leading to loss of incentive, stagnation, and decay.

- People almost never value anything that is free.

- Ponder this – would a patient be wise to place his life in the hands of doctor who has lost his self-respect for practicing government medicine? Then again, perhaps the patient would be even less wise if that physician were of the type who had not lost his self-respect for doing so.

- Under Medicare the good doctor will be equalized with the mediocre doctor. There will be less incentive to be the best doctor possible.

- Under socialized medicine, the Department of HEW [the former U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare that was subsequently split into separate bureaucracies] has patients and the Department of HEW has doctors. But doctors do not have patients; and patients do not have doctors.

- By participating in socialized medicine, physicians unilaterally become hired clerks – employees of appointed political bureaucrats.

- The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude.

- Government produces nothing; therefore it has nothing to “give” to anyone except what it has first taken from him or someone else (minus a sizeable brokerage fee).

- Medicare is legal plunder. It promises the possession of someone else (the doctor); it promises something the government does not possess (medical knowledge).

- It is a mark of moral bankruptcy for one group (legislators) to arbitrarily guarantee the professional ethic of a second group (doctors) to a third group (the citizens).

- Only doctors can practice medicine. No one else is equipped by training and experience to do so.

- All [people] over 65 (except certain criminals) are eligible to receive “benefits” under Part A of Title XVIII of PL 89-97 [the Medicare law]. This includes an estimated six million over 65 who have never been under Social Security and thus have paid no Social Security “taxes.” For this six million, Part A of Medicare is pure charity. [Today, most Medicare beneficiaries are getting more back in medical care than they paid in Medicare taxes over their working lives.]

- Under Title XIX, all recipients of welfare, regardless of age, will be eligible for Medicaid by 1970. There are in excess of 200,000 on welfare in Mississippi alone. It is estimated that Title XIS of the present law, without amendment, will cover forty million people by 1975. [There are now more than 50 million people on Medicaid, plus an additional 5.5 million on Supplemental Social Security Income, or SSI.]

- While money is squandered by the bureaucrats in administering Medicare, doctors participating in Medicare will be required to be economical. Cheap treatments and cheap prescriptions are to be given preference. HEW employed referees will set the standards – not the patient’s doctor.

- If you participate in Medicare, any praise or commendation will go to the bureaucrats, but its failures will be blamed on YOU. [Just as Obama lambasted doctors for unnecessarily removing body parts to make money.]

- HEW, the liberals, the bureaucrats, and other socialists will never admit the inherent fraud of socialism or their own guilt in perpetuating it, but will, instead, divert the blame to DOCTORS for the predictable shortcomings of socialized medicine.

- Medicare, though it is called such, is not insurance. There is no contract. There is no policy wherein the provisions are stated. It is whatever “the Secretary of (HEW) may direct” at any given moment.

- That Medicare will destroy private insurance and private medicine should come as no surprise to no one. It was planned and promoted for just those reasons. That is its purpose!

- By the end of 1965, 57 percent of those eligible for Part B of Medicare had not enrolled. The bureaucrats frantically put on an all-out propaganda drive of deceit. Threats of the deadline of March 31 were utilized. Most agencies of the government, entertainment stars, governors, and many others participated.

- On January 31, eight million people – that’s 46 percent of those eligible – had not enrolled; 1.1 million had actually signified they do not want to enroll – God bless ‘em. Efforts by the social planners were intensified.

- The politicians and bureaucrats desire the nationalization of medicine. The people are not demanding it.

- The socialization of medicine in the United States is not intended as an end in itself. It is planned as a means to an end – the total socialization of America.

- For the American miracle to continue we must have less government and more individual responsibility. [Federal debt per person was less than $2,500 in 1966, versus over $45,000 today.]

Mencken’s Ghost is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who needs an ego lift and can be reached at

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

John McCain: a well known liberal, an election more important than 1860, a new birther conspiracy, and other treats.


Obama’s Marxist View

Here we are about 100 days until the most important election in the history of our magnificent country. No I didn’t vote for Marxist Barack Hussein Obama. I held my nose and voted for RINO John McCain, an obvious lesser of two evils vote. At least in McCain’s case no one could accuse him of lack of patriotism. He would have ruled as a hawk, but with heavy liberal overtones. How could any sane person be a buddy of the infamous Teddy Kennedy?

But Obama is beyond what anyone would have believed, except national media who still will lie to support him and the public gives him wide latitude because he claims to be black. He is something less than 50 percent black if indeed his father was Kenyan since he was principally Arabian. However new studies offer the possibility that Franklin Marshal Davis is more likely his father. Davis was a black poet, writer, communist and pornographer. There is a video which shows naked pictures of Obama’s mother when she was a teenager and his writings seem to indicate Davis was the photographer. But whether or not Davis was his father, he spent huge amounts of time with Obama and surely poisoned his mind as did 20-year minister Reverend Wright.

Much of this information was available to McCain, but he refused to use it. He did himself and the nation no favors for Obama is clearly a dictator who ignores the constitution and dictates by executive order.

With only three months until the election it is frightening that, so far, although Mitt Romney has dealt with the abysmal record of Obama there is so much more. Donald Trump, the billionaire developer, said the pleas from the White House that Romney reveal his tax records should be met with a Romney suggested trade; he will release tax records when Obama produces his birth certificate, college applications, school grades, travel records, etc.

Obama recently drew fire from conservatives of the nation when he gave a speech claiming that no one’s business was started by an individual without government help. A well written editorial by Michael Barone suggested the rain in South Carolina where Obama spoke didn’t allow use of a teleprompter.

Barone noted Obama was defending his policy of higher tax rates on high earners when he said, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back.”

And, as Obama continued, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this incredible American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you have a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Barone says Obama’s statements were equivalent to saying it wasn’t Steve Jobs who made Apple into what it is. More than that Bill Gates of Microsoft didn’t graduate from college but was once the wealthiest person in the world. Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, is a billionaire who just bought Lanai Island in Hawaii for $500 million. He spoke to a graduating class in Harvard and asked why they were there; he mentioned he was high school graduate.

I once wrote an obituary about a friend named “Hank” Raymond Patterson, a brilliant engineer but a lousy student in college. Someday I will write about an ex-sailor, who, without any formal training, was a brilliant engineer and program manager.

Silicon Valley is full of entrepreneurs who have had multiple start ups and successes on their own. Sure, venture capitalists funded many of them but that is a classic part of the capitalistic system.

Obama has had no experience except Chicago style chaos and crime. How can he dare to speak on business success when he has not one iota of experience and has his czars staffed by communists, Marxists, liberal misfits and perverts.

It is unthinkable an American President would have such a jaundiced view of capitalism and entrepreneurship. It is further proof he is a Chicago thug and extremely dangerous. The next election, now close, is the most important of any election in our country. He already has used the federal treasury to benefit voters. He has passed executive orders to backdoor amnesty and is attempting to save his fellow traveler friend, Eric Holder, who is trying to take away our guns.

You can expect he will attempt to vote the graveyard, a Chicago tradition. He will try to allow votes to illegal aliens and felons. We can only hope the Tea Party will expand sufficiently to block his illegal actions.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

TetsuoTW posted:

The Davis thing has been going around since the last campaign, btw.

For some reason this is the first time I'd heard of it. Was it just a little too crazy to become widespread maybe?

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


We the People are the force!
It was useless to argue, she thought, and to wonder about people who would neither refute an argument nor accept it. – Dagny Taggart, main character in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

Written in 1957 by Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” which was again put to the silver screen recently, is relevant even more in today’s world than many decades ago. Published during a period when socialism and communism were on the march in Europe, the Soviet Union and China, Rand foresaw government taking over in our nation as well, removing from our lives the incentive to produce and prosper freely, and instead sharing and redistributing wealth. In response, key industrialists, led by the other main character, John Galt, literally destroy their own companies to deny this monstrous and inherently evil government access to their resources. They then flee “civilization” for a secret refuge in Colorado, waiting for the time when the nation predictably collapses under government rule. Only then will they return to rebuild the nation and restore freedom and individual initiative – which Rand sees as the driving force of mankind.

Rand’s vision of total government control has come true, particularly under the reign of President Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist comrades. Indeed, Obama’s calls to redistribute wealth, to tax heavily those who produce and prosper, and to in effect loot the motors of our society to give to others who do not contribute much of anything, should create a chill in any reader’s soul. Rand’s vision has indeed become reality as the country sinks into economic abyss and social retardation.

However, the blame does not just fall on Obama. This steady slide toward socialism and the Robin Hood mentality to loot the rich to give to the so-called poor has been thrust upon us by several past administrations, culminating in the now-infamous Obamacare. And, all the while, We the People have just stood by and watched it happen. Now the nation is on the precipice of disaster, and the uneducated masses –distracted with mindless reality shows, smart phones and intellectually worthless social media – are clueless.

The representatives we have sent to Congress and the White House have not represented us, but instead only their governmental selves. Even Republicans, the claimed party of less government, have collaborated to remove the freedoms our Founding Fathers envisioned and successfully fought for.

Apart from the destructive actions of the legislative and executive branches of government, the judiciary has played a substantial role as well in bringing the nation to its knees and enslaving us to the “god of government.” Judges, who are either put in place through political patronage – that is by politicians – or elected through contributions by special interests, have become the yes men of the establishment governmental elite of the other two branches. In effect, these “kangaroo courts” do the dirty work for other government officials to keep the people down and in their “place.” The judicial minions, as I will call them, are even worse than their masters, as they seek to legitimize the corrupt and destructive actions of those who put them in power.

This column is not permitted enough words to educate readers on the many instances I have experienced in recent years where judges intentionally made either clearly wrong rulings (i.e., over Obama’s eligibility) or put cases on ice to avoid having to reach a determination on a politically charged issue or matter. As just one example, a leftist judge in New York City, Justice Lucy Billings, for two years has sat on a simple nuisance lawsuit (filed by a first responder who was fatally injured trying to save victims of 9/11) to shut down the Ground Zero mosque.
Justice Billings has not even ruled on the preliminary motion of radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to dismiss the case. This is because Billings knows that our case has merit and must go forward. So, despite many pleas to her to get the show on the road, she does nothing.
But Justice Billings’ perversion of the rule of law is not isolated. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed or sat on tens of crucial cases challenging government power and the ethics of the judiciary. This federal court is, in principle, the most important one in the land when it comes to checking government abuse, and it has instead become the rubber stamp for the political benefactors who got the judges their lifetime jobs. And when the actions of its judges are challenged, fellow judges of this court simply circle the wagons and protect their colleagues from scrutiny, much less remedial punishment. The federal court in D.C. is not alone. The courts in general have grown even more corrupt over the last two decades since I founded Judicial Watch in 1994 to police judges in particular.

With this slide toward government power enabled by the judiciary, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that I must move outside of “the corrupt system” and instead use the God-given rights our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us: the Citizens’ Grand Jury. And, just this week, as reported by WND, as Citizens’ Prosecutor I appeared before a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Fla., to seek the criminal indictment of President Obama and Vice President Biden for their having illegally breached and compromised U.S. national security.

See After presenting evidence of probable cause that the crimes had been committed, the Citizens’ Grand Jury, comprised of 16 jurors, returned a true bill of indictment. Obama and Biden will now be put on notice of the criminal charges against them and be provided with an opportunity to plead guilty or not-guilty at an arraignment. They then will be tried before a people’s court. I am confident that they will be convicted. This is just the beginning of our use of Citizens’ Grand Juries and other legal and peaceful means to reclaim our nation from the cancerous hold of our government officials.

Ayn Rand, if she had been alive, would obviously have approved. As in Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” she would have realized that We the People can no longer do business with government. Instead, like John Galt and his entrepreneurial colleagues, we must not simply wait for its present incarnation to be destroyed under its own weight; we ourselves must also be prepared to take actions to restore the nation to its original

There was another editorial last week in the same paper where a guy basically said that white people who didn't vote for Romney were race traitors. This is the best newspaper.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

In which a heart warming letter to man who is believed can rescue the GOP is ruined by yet another birther conspiracy theory.


Dear Senator Rubio:
Senator Marco Rubio
United States Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Rubio:
I am writing you today in the aftermath of the 2012 Presidential election which has so discouraged and disconcerted our Republican Party. The election has brought about a great deal of introspection about the direction of the party given the nature of the electorate that currently appears to be the majority in the United States. While it is true that we must articulate our positions in a manner that does not offend broad sections of the American people, it is also true that we must hold true to our values and defend liberty and free market capitalism against the pervasiveness of socialistic tendencies and an ever increasing federal government.

I ran for the city commission in the City of Coral Gables many years ago on a platform of reducing government regulations and decreasing its role in our everyday lives. To my great surprise, on a quiet evening when I was working at home on my little campaign, you showed up at my door and offered me your help because you liked the principles I was running on. I believe this was one of your first actual forays into political campaigning and, though you may not even recall this episode, I have always admired your initiative and your willingness to work for a cause. I will always be grateful for your help but now is not the time for reminisces. It is time for action. I have retired after 23 years as a municipal attorney and want to offer my services to you during the next four crucial years for our country.

While standing outside a polling place for the last two weeks holding a Romney/Ryan sign, I had a front row seat to the current electorate, one that is very much of our own making. I have heard you speak many times of your parents’ story as immigrants, one which mirrors mine and countless others. I came to the United States at age 11 with a 52 year old father who had given up everything to give my sister and me a chance at freedom. I started to work at age 12, helping my father, an auto mechanic, from the moment I left school until 10 o’clock at night and all day Saturday and Sunday. I did this until I was 21 when I finally went to work on my own. I remember railing against my misfortune, angry that I could not play sports or go to the school dance as others had the opportunity to do. It is only in retrospect I have realized how lucky I was to have learned the value of hard work. I went on to work my way through college and law school and made a wonderful life for my family in this great country.

The reason I mention that the current electorate is of our own making, is that we did not learn the lessons our fathers taught us about self-reliance and hard work until it was too late. We collectively made the mistake of not wanting our children to miss out on the things we had. I ensured my kids had everything I could afford, and sometimes what I couldn’t afford, allowing them to play ball and go partying without earning any of it. The result of such coddling is a generation accustomed to receiving without giving, to earning dividends without making the investment, simply put: getting something for nothing. That brings us to today. The essence of what I heard from the Obama voters while I was holding my sign was not that he has the better economic plan or foreign policy, but that he will “give me stuff.”

I don’t profess to know how to redress the wrong that I have contributed to by my own actions. I don’t know how to reach the younger generation which has been convinced by its own parents that they do not have to give in order to receive; a myth perpetuated by their socialist college professors and a leftist media. What I do know is that you are the most articulate voice of our party and you must find a way to reverse this catastrophic tide which, if not immediately addressed, will turn the American Dream into an American nightmare. You are our only hope to reach young and especially Latino voters who I believe share our moral values, but have been blinded to the prosperity that hard work and tenacity can produce in a free society.

As you well know, the growth of government is inversely proportional to the demise of personal freedom and it cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, I am urging you to immediately begin to campaign for the Presidency in 2016. I will pledge any time and help that I can give you during the next four years and hope that you will give me the opportunity to atone for my sins of overindulging my progeny and helping create the atmosphere we now face. May God bless you and the United States of America.

Rafael Diaz, Esq.
Coral Gables, Florida

Editor's Note: Mr. Diaz ignores the fact Senator Rubio is not a "naural born" citizen.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


Tucson City Court arrogantly asserts the power of Prior Restraint

As a matter of fact, the Tucson City Court is a limited jurisdiction court of non record, directed by the Tucson City Council, partisan political and economic interests and local "Good Old Boys."
In other words it is one of the smallest courts in the land, where, speaking very frankly, most of the significant constitutional violations begin.

Yet arrogantly and unlawfully, the Tucson City Court asserts an authority surpassing that of the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land: the power to issue a non-appealable order of prior restraint to silence a political speaker who challenges the rectitude of local political authority.

The issue of "prior restraint" is addressed in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, notably New York Times vs United States (1967) which says they should never be issued, and Walker v Birmingham (1971) which says injunctions which temporarily restrict expressive conduct must be obeyed until they are appealed.

The Arizona Supreme Court, in State v Chavez, (involving the Director of the Farm worker's Union, activist Cesar Chavez), affirmed the holding in Walker v Birmingham.

And the 9th Circuit, in accordance with Walker and Chavez, has precisely set forth the conditions which must be met regarding any prior restraint restrictions on free speech:
Prior restraints on free speech "will be upheld only if they ...provide for a prompt decision during which the status quo is maintained and there is the opportunity for a prompt judicial decision" Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir 2004).

Significantly; none of the rulings in any of the courts cited above conflict. All are in accordance with each other regarding orders of prior restraint.

And it is abundantly clear: NONE of the above courts would condone the policy of the Tucson City Court, to wit: Use Non Appealable Conditions of Release Orders of Prior Restraint to Silence the Voice of Those Who Challenge Local "Open Border Policy."

Some may ask: "Then, why is there no case precisely on point specifically outlawing the issuance of Non-Appealable Orders of Prior Restraint?"

For two reasons: (1) no local attorney has ever had the guts to frame the issue correctly and thus anger local courts, or (2) no court (other than Tucson City Court), has ever been stupid enough to issue one.

Because of my experience with local attorneys I'm betting the answer is #1.

In any event the issue of local courts suspending constitutional rights, now that it has been properly framed in Warden v Tucson City Court, is going to Pima County Superior Court, and from there up the Judicial Food Chain towards the Arizona Supreme Court.

Roy Warden
An Exercise in Aggressive, Non-Partisan Political Activism

Amidst a bunch of letters babbling about how Obama is a tyrant because of his executive orders I found this.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007


An Honest Question

I would like Gabby Gifford to answer the following question:
When you decided to have a political meeting for your constituents in a Safeway parking lot, why did you not request a police presence or hire a security guard??? Also, do you feel any guilt knowing that all or most of those people would still be alive but for a carelessness on your part?

Rose M. Sampieri

This is probably one of the cruelest things I've ever read. It was also only printed this week, so I don't know if this person is just late to the party, or if the whole assault weapons thing has caused them to become truly unhinged.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

It is time for a fair and truthful discussion of race courtesy of The Eagle.


Race-mongering-lynch mobs divide a nation

Important Editor's Note:
Not long after that criminal who calls himself the United States Attorney's General took office and began his campaign to destroy race relations, our Constitution and anything else that would interfere with his socialist agenda, Eric Holder made the statement which, paraphrasing, accused whites of being cowards for not taking on and talking about black and white racial issues.

Then again, most recently the Divider and Chief suggested, right after fanning racial tensions as he imposed himself into the Trayvon Martin case, suggested that the time has come for a discussion on race.

While both comments were equally disgusting and hypocritical, both of those two racists have had their wishes answered by the Eagle. They might think again before venturing into a request for unfettered truth.

So, here it is, request granted.


It’s time for a Black reality check. Let's start with this; “Know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.

First, put the blame for Trayvon Martin's death where it belongs. Stop whining and blaming whitey. The media, which never fails to enjoy racial tension, and the Judge for the Zimmerman trial prevented America from knowing just who and what Trayvon Martin was. So here it is.
Trayvon Martin was nothing more than a two-bit punk hoodlum. At 17 he already had a long history of drug abuse, suspensions, assaults, possession of stolen jewelry and burglary tools. He was not the 12 year old everyone in the media loved to portray. Trayvon was an experienced fighter and even held his own street fight matches where he would referee. And Trayvon was 3 inches taller and 35 pounds heavier than Zimmerman. Trayvon was sent to his father to live because he could not be handled or controlled by his mother.

It is important for all to know, being black doesn’t entitle you to any special treatment. Being young and black does not entitle you to smash the skull of even a white Hispanic. White Hispanics, just so we understand each other are not entitled to special treatment either. But they are entitled to prevent someone from killing them.

Speaking of special treatment, you’ve been here for four hundred years. Are you saying you’re not real Americans? What’s with this “African American” garbage? You’re Americans and you should be proud of it! When was the last time you heard other races or nationalities running around saying, I’m an Italian, Polish, German or Irish American? Wake up you idiots! Color, race, or nationality should never divide us as a people, and that’s what the establishment has been accomplishing. Everyone of you who allow yourselves, your race and your color to be used by the racial hucksters and savage media are as much to blame as the perpetrators. As long as you offer up your lives as fodder for those evil groups, you will remain oppressed, even if only in your hearts. Perception is reality. How long will you remain there?

All Americans celebrate Dr. King, but fail to understand the dream “…I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of the character.” Many of you shame Dr. King’s legacy.

The same could be said, concerning the esteemed men and women from the black communities that escaped poverty through hard work to realize the American dream in every profession.
Instead of trying to emulate the successful black, the race Nazi's title them “Uncle Toms” and then the intentionally uneducated buy into their crap. Understand there is a profit in misery and despair. There will be a very special place in hell for those inciters of riots and death.

The attempted Zimmerman lynching, reached a new low for blacks as they once again failed to prevent their race from being used like pawns as this government endeavored to further divide us as Americans. You can thank the media, and the race-baiting reprobates in the White House. The Zimmerman case was not the first time Obama pulled this garbage. Remember the Louis (racists) Gates incident, when without any facts Obama accused a white police officer of "acting stupidly" for doing his job. Obama claims his son could have been Trayvon. Take a look at what Trayvon really looked like, and not the twelve year old depicted by the whores in the media, who just love to stir the pot, and turn us against each other.

If America is so intolerably racist explain how blacks that comprise 14-percent of the population elected Obama President? It’s time you stick your racist crap where the sun doesn’t shine. The fact is it was ‘White’ Americans who put the lying, deceitful Obama in the Oval office. Blacks, even if there were massive voter fraud, simply would not come close to getting Obama elected without a very large percentage of white votes. It’s time now for some other facts.

A Black Racist Cesspool
The reason the Black Community is in poverty is because of your useless racist leadership, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, (CBC) NAACP, and the progressive controlled Media that are aiding and abetting in dividing us as a people. The CBC repeatedly sells out the black community; as they bow to their white-liberal/progressive masters who want to keep you on the government plantation.

One of most racists Presidents in American history, (Outside of Obama) was Lyndon B. Johnson who created the “Nanny State” and destroyed the black family that existed for a hundred years following the Civil War. Fathers became optional and unnecessary as the State became the sugar daddy. The Democratic Party, even back when they were fighting to prevent the Republicans from passing equal rights laws, were formulating their sinister plan to keep blacks uneducated and dependent on them and voting Democratic. Evil is as evil does.

Thereafter, the Progressive/Democrats instituted the 3-D’s plan for American blacks; Keep them ‘Dumb, Dependent, and Democrat”. Yet, the CBC refuses to see what their Democrat/Marxist puppet masters are doing to their communities.

Discussion on race you say? Okay! A few more facts? Your school districts are run by the Progressive/Marxists Teachers Unions and corrupt school boards. What did Obama and the CBC do in the very beginning of his reign of destruction? They ended the voucher system in Washington D.C. which returned your children to drug and gang infested substandard schools that the charter system had allowed a few to escape. Keeping your children away from real education will ensure they remain voting Democratic. Shame on you for not only allowing this desecration of your culture but actually working to ensure your children will spend their entire lives in abject poverty. Yes, shame on you.

These same CBC carpetbaggers support amnesty for illegals ignoring the fact that one out of seven blacks are already unemployed? Did any of you hypocrites in the CBC read the bill? If you had, my question is how can you accept a bill that allows a corporation to be fined $5000 if they employ an American over an illegal granted amnesty? As low paying, low skilled jobs are being given to illegals, black American citizens will be the ones who suffer as corporations take tax breaks handed to them on a silver platter. May it be that you in the CBC are products of the nanny state education system and you can't read? If that's the case, call someone who graduated from a charter school and have them read it to you. Oh yes, and you might call Rubio and Ryan to join the read in. It appears they can't read either.

It’s not racist to say that blacks will be the most effected by the loss of low to middle income jobs. It is a fact and it is proof that the Democratic Party has been very successful at keeping your community uneducated and unskilled. Congratulate them the next time one of them passes you by in their stretch limo.

Black unemployment is approximately 14 percent, which calculates to 6-percent higher than the national rate. Why did the CBC turn its back on the “Black American Leadership Alliance” that marched 3000 strong on Pennsylvania Avenue to protest amnesty and how it will hurt all Americans, especially the black community?

If you think the black unemployment rate is high now, wait until corporations start replacing you with newly legalized illegals. The Amnesty bill exempts corporations from paying medical coverage or the ObamaCare fines if they hire those given amnesty. Wake up. Obama doesn’t give a hoot about your community. By legalizing 11 to 20-million illegals and seeing to it that they get your jobs they kill two birds with one stone. Hispanics will be grateful and vote Democratic and you, the black American citizen will remain dependant and vote Democratic. Great little game they are playing with you, your children and their future. How long will you continue to play?

The CBC’s own Charlie (the Tax cheat) Rangel, a master of lip-service says he recognized that violence in black neighborhoods existed, but used that same racist excuse. The only way to solve it he declares - is equal opportunity. He goes on to say: “I don’t know why young people shoot each other, but I do know one thing, those who do not shoot each other are young kids who are inspired. They have education, they have families, they have a country that is the wind beneath their wings. And too, they want to make a contribution to this great country. Well Charlie, the CBC, to which you belong has done nothing to implement those concepts. Nothing. It has however, in cahoots with teacher's unions, sold out your children’s opportunities for a better education.

You’re not alone Charlie, listen to your idiot colleague, CBC, Rep. Yvette Clark: “The lives of black men and women are not accorded the same value as the lives of white Americans….” This of course is confirmed continuously, by her and the rest of the CBC as they sit by while hundreds of blacks are slaughtered in liberal cities each and every day. She may be onto something. The white community would not put up with their children playing in a slaughterhouse. Ms. Clark may have to ask herself, why does she put up with it? Why is one young thug's life, killed by a White Hispanic, more important to her than the 11,000 blacks murdered by each other since Trayvon's death. To whom does she address her question? Perhaps a face to face with a looking glass would be appropriate.

Black blood, at the hands of black perpetrators, flows like a river down the gutters and washes out of sight and out of existence without a tear or a word of sorrow, but let a policemen make an error or a white person defend himself and out of their rat-holes comes the purveyors of hate, Jesse (the extortionist) and Rev. Al (the instigator) Sharpton (Rev. my backside). Only the lives of those who can pad a racist's coffers have value. The others, be damned.

Did you know Obama’s Justice Department funded these two has-beens with taxpayer dollars to organize and protest? I would be remiss if I failed to mention this intellectual mental midget Anthea Butler, Professor of Religious Studies at University of Pennsylvania has the audacity to say ‘America’s God is a White Racist.”

Trayvon Martin was a violent street hardened thug, depicted as this poor little innocent boy that just came from the candy store after buying his candy and an ice tea. Bull! Trayvon had just purchased ingredients to create a morphine type drug; when you combine Skittles, Robitussin cough syrup, and let’s not forget the Arizona Water Mellon fruit juice – waa la, a cheap high that also makes the idiot paranoid and aggressive! Trayvon’s autopsy showed his liver was damaged from abusive use of this homemade drug.

Now a few things about George Zimmerman that have been kept from the public:

Zimmerman is of Hispanic origin and not white.
He was raised with two black children.
He battled the authorities for six-months to have a police officer’s son arrested after accosting a black homeless man.
He was the first to welcome new black families into their multi-cultural community.
Witnesses attested that Trayvon accosted Zimmerman and was brutally beating him.
Color had nothing to do with Zimmerman’s justified action.

Because an innocent man wasn’t convicted, your communities resort to uncivilized behavior; running in packs like animals, rioting, looting, beating and killing innocent white individuals without justification. And where’s the outrage, you disgusting phony frauds? Where is the media coverage, where is the Department of Justice? Are these not hate crimes? This is not the kind of behavior any of my black friends, and I have many, would ever condone. Civilized people adhere to the law. Again, put the blame where it belongs; the Media and the absence of moral leadership by our elected officials; lack of disciple and curriculum in our schools, silence from the pulpit concerning involvement in government.

The United States ranks 3rd in per capita murders worldwide. If the cites of Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and New Orleans were not counted, the United States would rank 4th from the bottom. What else do these murderous cities have in common? They have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States. Interesting, every one of these cities are controlled by Progressive, liberal Democrats who spend all their energy and time preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves while continuing to ignore criminals and gun crimes.
Other murder meccas are Trenton, Newark, Philly, and L.A. And as with previously mentioned cities they too have common connections.

They are run by liberals.
They are predominately black.
Guns are not legal.
Blacks are killing blacks with guns.
No black leader or politician gives a drat.

As I stated above Obama and the Progressive Media want to divide us as Americans. Racial strife has become a profitable enterprise and a cover for the numerous (phony) scandals plaguing this corrupt administration.

What is needed are honorable men and women of character to be elected to political office. Sadly most of you in the black community will continue to vote for the party that worked in the past to enslave you and worked even harder to keep you from enjoying the benefits of true freedom and are working today, just as hard as ever to keep you addicted to the milk of the government teet.
So, how was that for a discussion on race? Brave enough for you Mr. Holder?

The Eagle


Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007

President Reagan, not a racist man.


There you go again, Hollywood.

You’ve taken a great story about a real person and real events and twisted it into a bunch of lies.

You took the true story of Eugene Allen, the White House butler who served eight presidents from 1952 to 1986, and turned it into a clichéd “message movie.”

“Lee Daniels’ The Butler’” stars Forest Whitaker as Cecil Gaines, a fictional character supposedly based on Eugene Allen’s real life.

But, let’s compare the two White House butlers.

Guess which one grew up in segregated Virginia, got a job at the White House and rose to become maître d’hôtel, the highest position in White House service?

Guess which one had a happy, quiet life and was married to the same woman for 65 years? And who had one son who served honorably in Vietnam and never made a peep of protest through the pre- and post-civil rights era?

Now guess which butler grew up on a Georgia farm, watched the boss surprise sex his mother and then, when his father protested the surprise sex, watched the boss put a bullet through his father’s head?

Guess which butler feels the pain of America’s racial injustices so deeply that he quits his White House job and joins his son in a protest movement?

And guess which butler has a wife (Oprah Winfrey) who becomes an alcoholic and has a cheap affair with the guy next door? (I’m surprised it wasn’t the vice president.)

After comparing Hollywood’s absurd version of Eugene Allen’s life story with the truth, you wonder why the producers didn’t just call it “The Butler from Another Planet.”

Screenwriter Danny Strong says he was trying to present a “backstage kind of view of the White House” that portrayed presidents and first ladies as they really were in everyday life.

Well, I was backstage at the White House — a few hundred times. I met and knew the real butler, Mr. Allen, and I knew a little about my father.

Portraying Ronald Reagan as a racist because he was in favor of lifting economic sanctions against South Africa is simplistic and dishonest.

If you knew my father, you’d know he was the last person on Earth you would call a racist.

If Strong had gotten his “facts” from the Reagan biographies, he’d have learned that when my father was playing football at Eureka College one of his best friends was a black teammate.

Strong also would have learned that my father invited black players home for dinner and once, when two players were not allowed to stay in the local hotel, he invited them to stay overnight at his house.

Screenwriter Strong also might have found out that when my father was governor of California he appointed more blacks to positions of power than any of predecessors — combined.

It’s appalling to me that someone is trying to imply my father was a racist. He and Nancy and the rest of the Reagan family treated Mr. Allen with the utmost respect.

It was Nancy Reagan who invited the butler to dinner — not to work but as guest. And it was my father who promoted Mr. Allen to maître d’hôtel.

The real story of the White House butler doesn’t imply racism at all. It’s simply Hollywood liberals wanting to believe something about my father that was never there.

My father’s position on lifting the South African sanctions in the ’80s had nothing to do with the narrow issue of race. It had to do with the geopolitics of the Cold War.

But, facts don’t matter to Hollywood’s creative propagandists. Truth is too complicated and not dramatic enough for scriptwriters, who think in minute terms, not the big picture, when it comes to a conservative.

Despite what Hollywood’s liberal hacks believe, my father didn’t see people in colors. He saw them as individual Americans. If the liberals in Hollywood — and Washington — ever start looking at people the way he did, the country will be a lot better off.

Michael Reagan is a political consultant and founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation.

  • Locked thread
«2 »