This Week-Sept. 24

Is it just me or has the U.S.A. totally lost it's way, it's sanity, and it's path in the world.

The president is flying around giving interviews and hitting the late night talk shows like a new super star on tour. He gives speeches and turns it into a pep rally where the people chant back to him in a frenzy as he encourages them to back his every idea.
School children are taught songs praising the "dear leader" and sing them in a cult atmosphere, (one of them to the tune of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic".

Obama claims that he not only hasn't been following the ACORN scandal, he didn't realize that they had been receiving federal funds. He quickly disavowed any knowledge of the group that he represented as an attorney and helped out as a trainer at their seminars, and, following suit, ACORN cut him loose from their records. He was oblivious to the fact that both the House and Senate were in the process of cutting off billions of dollars to ACORN, and said he had more important things to consider. (What's more important than where our tax money goes? Silly me, he didn't care in the Stimulous debacle either did he!)

The feds have issued warnings to insurance companies, instructing them not to send out any more mailers explaining the loss of Medicare benefits in the new health care plan even though it was confirmed that their information was correct. They are now controlling what private companies can and cannot say to their clients?

Leaders of countries met at the U.N., and the most radical of them endorsed and praised the president. Quaddafi called him "my son" and the "black Kenyan president".

England, however, is aghast that not only couldn't the PM get an audience with the president, while the president was presented with a pen holder carved from the ship HMS President, a sister ship of the Resolute, whose timber furnished the wood for the Oval Office desk, the PM was presented with 25 DVDs of old American movies. Winston Churchill's bust has been removed from the Oval Office.

If you don't think that Obama is trying to run his presidency as a budding dictator, complete with children singing praises, and people chanting, and everyone who opposes him being told to "shut up and let him do his thing", then you are part of the problem. Your brain has been washed, your democratic values misplaced, and your Constitutional rights dwindled.

This is serious. Be afraid- be very afraid.

WHAT THE HELL IS ACORN AND WHY AM I FUNDING THEM?

Acorn is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded in 1970, as a community-based advocacy organization which registers voters, among other things.

It was founded by Wade Rathke, an activist for labor unions and low income workers, and Gary Delgado, an activist on issues of race and social justice.

According to Acorn, they have chapters in 110 cities, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. It has become far-reaching, influential, and a bit frightening if you care at all about the possibility of a world government and socialism.

Departure from ACORN

The New York Times reported on July 9th, 2008, that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was found to have embezzled $948,607.50 from the group and affiliated charitable organizations back in 1999 and 2000.^[1] ACORN executives decided to handle it as an internal matter, and did not inform most of the board members or law enforcement, and instead signed an enforceable restitution agreement with the Rathke family to repay the amount of the embezzlement. Wade Rathke told the Times, "the decision to keep the matter secret was not made to protect his brother but because word of the embezzlement would have put a 'weapon' into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to ACORN's often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers." A whistleblower revealed the embezzlement in 2008. On June 2, 2008, Dale Rathke was dismissed, and Wade stepped down as ACORN's chief organizer, but he remains chief organizer for Acorn International L.L.C.^[1]

According to an article in the New York Post, Oct. 8, 2008, 40% of Acorn's operations are funded through grants it receives from the government through various agencies, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Justice Dept.

So, while Acorn has vehemently declared that they are not mentioned in any way, shape, or form in any stimulus package, they are right. What they don't point out, is that money directed at other agencies has already been earmarked to be funneled through to Acorn and other organizations similar to Acorn.

According to http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/ACORN, Acorn also receives funding from private organizations such as the Bauman Family Foundation, George Soros Open Society Institute and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and several labor unions.

Included in the funding participants are, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, Ben & Jerry's foundation, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Citigroup, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation and a foundation associated with the founder of the UPS! Very interesting.

Acorn is a growing social organization that is in no way non-partisan in it's approach, unbiased in it's voter registration agenda, or non-committal in it's efforts to influence people as to their liberal programs. It certainly is no organization that I would want to conduct a census!

While they may be within their rights to accept money from any group, or government faction, I personally do not want to fund them.

Funding draws criticism - From Ballotpedia

Donations to ACORN from traditionally "progressive" groups has drawn criticism to the social justice organization from other political organizations. The Consumer Rights League (CRL), in particular, has focused on ACORN's funding. They assert that ACORN's budget is "is fed by extracting immense resources from labor unions, government grants, private foundations, its members, and "settlements" with targeted businesses".^[13].

A press release from CRL on June 18, 2008 claimed, "The ACORN Housing Association (AHC), an ACORN affiliate that receives over 40% of its funding from government sources, claims to be a consumer advocate. In a newly-released report from CRL, however, a series of documents obtained from a whistleblower source reveals hypocritical and potentially illegal use of taxpayer dollars by ACORN and its related organizations."^[14]

ACORN's financial construction has also led to investigation by authorities. According to an October 21, 2008 article in the New York Times, "Acorn faces demands for back taxes by the Internal Revenue Service and various state tax authorities."

Requests to end government funding

On October 22, House Republican leader John Boehner asked President Bush to block all federal funds to ACORN because of the voter fraud allegations surrounding the group. Boehner said, "It is evident that ACORN is incapable of using federal funds in a manner that is consistent with the law," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote Bush, saying that funds should be blocked until all federal investigations into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now are completed.^[15]

The following is part of an editorial from- Washingtonexaminer.com The Examiner

May 24, 2009

Under the guise of due process concerns, congressional Democrats have opened the way for organizations with criminal histories to gain greater access to taxpayer funds. Exhibit A here is the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), now under investigation in at least 14 states for voter registration fraud.

Earlier this month, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, sponsored an amendment to the $140 million Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. The Frank measure allowed organizations being investigated by state or federal authorities on corruption charges to receive federal funds as long as they avoid conviction. Frank argued that his amendment, which was approved by the House, protected the presumption of innocence in federal spending.

In the light of what transpired this week, it would seem that what we all knew about ACORN is not only true, but rampant. And, there were those, that for many years have been calling for the investigation of this organization and were ignored, because ACORN is, of course, the champion of liberal causes and candidates.

On the surface, any group that is actively trying to help the poor, the homeless, and the underdog is a good thing. But, not if they are merely a front for more sinister purposes, and illegal tactics. ACORN has only lasted this long because the atmosphere of political correctness has chastised anyone who dared investigate them, or deny funding to them. Hopefully, they will lose their preferred status, and finally be exposed for what they are.

You Go Joe!

Recently, Joe Wilson committed an unforgivable act during a speech by the president (I know it’s technically supposed to be capitalized). He acted without restraint, in an abusive, irrational and, according to some, who read his mind and knew what he was really thinking, racial manner. In a rare moment of unrestrained rationality, which is rare in Washington, and even more endangered in Obamaland, he called someone out on a lie.

Perhaps, it just might be possible, that this man, like many of us, has just had enough of the half-truths, coded little passages meant to throw us off the real agenda, and down right lies that have plagued this “ transparent administration.”

Bear in mind that this man works in the inner circle, where he sees, on a daily basis what deception, contradiction, boot-licking, and game playing ensues. I believe that anyone with a conscience left in their soul would eventually break under these circumstances, or at the very least, become physically sick.

Never-the-less, he apologized to the president and the vice for his act- the act of calling him out at an inappropriate moment. Not for accusing him, of, what was later to be discovered was indeed a lie, (or an oversight if you’re in the Obama camp).

So- the left is worried about a breach of decorum in a joint session while their president delivers his speech. Pelosi struts about and demands that he be chastised further.
They are without blame. They certainly never booed President Bush, or called him a liar. They have always acted with perfect protocol in their dealings with others, mocking the Tea Party protesters, calling the CIA liars, accusing the right of everything from being Nazis to racists.

I know that it was a breach of protocol. I know that both sides have criticized him. I know that by saying it he only gave the left more ammunition. I know that everyone agrees that he shouldn't have said it.
Everyone but me.

YOU GO JOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carter is Still Oblivious

While I always believed that Jimmy Carter was a few peanuts short of a full jar, he really topped all my expectations of his incompetency when he stated that the reason people are disagreeing with Obama is because they are racist and against blacks in general.

I have to assume that either, one, Jimmy has family members kidnapped and threatened by ACORN, and has been forced to proclaim further stupidity to the world, or, two, his mind has been affected, (possibly by finally reviewing his presidency).

When are these morons going to realize that the chasm between Obama, his liberal radicals and the rest of the country is ideological and not racial. Were he a conservative, or at this point, even a centrist, with a clean background, substantial morals, and a constitutionally sound plan for this country, he would be applauded by the heartland, regardless of race.

Those who are using the liberal war cry of racism do no good for their country. They divide neighbors, insult the legitimate concerns of average Americans, and, divert attention from the real problems at hand.

The very fact that they would try to create false situations, and foster unrest and divisions in the country to further their political agenda is disgraceful and alarming, but not surprising.

In Honor of the Victims of 9/11

This is a day of remembrance, honor, sorrow, and renewed pride in our country. Thanks to the leadership of George W. Bush, we defended our country, learned from our lapses in security,became stronger because of our tragedies, and went after those who attacked us.

We wore flag pins, and flew flags on our homes and car windows, and bought patriotic t-shirts- not because, as our current leader said, out of some phony act of patriotism, but because, sometimes, it takes a tragedy to bring out our real feelings about our country, ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Obama has dubbed 9/11, the First National Day of Service and Remembrance, bringing his own socialist agenda to a day that is reserved for the honor of those who died on that day, and all who have given their lives since. It would seem that even on this sacred day he cannot and will not stop his incessant drive toward his goals.

Reagan said that the United States was "The shining city upon the hill". and Obama tells Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world that we are an arrogant people, derisive and cruel.

John Kennedy asked the country to ask themselves what they could do for their country, and Obama asks small children to think about what they can do for their president.

We are a nation of service oriented people, who regularly volunteer their services to others daily.
We are not a nation of Acorn people, bent on the destruction of the country's basic values, and geared toward driving this land into a Socialist state.

Let this day now and forever be dedicated to those who lost their lives to our enemies and those who serve in all walks of life daily and risk their lives for the rest of us.

BETWEEN BARACK AND A HARD PLACE
(Just found out that this is an O'Reilly ism didn't mean to copy!)

The Dems were desperate to find a candidate that would take them back to occupying the White House. They chose, or were presented with, Obama, because he had what they were looking for. He was young, well spoken, charismatic (at least some think so), and he is bi-racial, a characteristic that they could use if anyone dared disagree with him.

On top of these sterling qualities, he had connections, with Acorn, and more organizations from the Chicago days than you can count.

The fact that he was radical, that he had less than exemplary connections, and no experience, were secondary. I really believed that they either turned a blind eye to his previous associates, or convinced themselves, in the name of securing the Presidency, that these were all things from his past, and would miraculously go away.

I don't believe that anyone (and I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), expected him to be as radically liberal and socialistic as he openly admitted to being during and after the election.

According to the recent polls, more folks disagree with the Obama administration than agree, but that doesn't stop the arrogance. Recently, Obama told the American people basically to "shut up and let him handle things." He feels no more concern or responsibility for the opinions of the American people than he did during the campaign, or going into the Presidency.
We have to wonder where this disdain and subsequent confidence comes from in a democracy where his grand plan has been exposed and the people are beginning to open their eyes and see what some of us knew from the start.
He has confidence that he has the elected Dems in his pocket, his czars have his back, Acorn and other liberal groups are his new army, and the combined experience of his Chicago training are his strength.
He has indeed fulfilled his promise of change. He is on a roll to change democracy to socialism, the presidency into a dictatorship, and the American people into servants and dependents of the state.

Now, our elected officials are holding town meetings, where they have to answer for their transgressions, explain why everything that has transpired in the last few months was done with haste and in the dark of night, why they don't read what they vote on, and why they don't listen to their constituents.

On the one hand, they are mandated to "stand by their man", and their decision to support him. On the other hand, they are faced with the fact that they are not popular with the people who put them in office.

Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

The Pres Will Not Tolerate Dissent
Resistance is Futile and any Attempt is Idiotic

Ok, so here's the play book and the rules. When liberals protest, they are exercising their freedom of speech, and they have the ACLU and ACORN to back them up on that.
We've seen a lot of liberal protests through the years. It was the "in" thing to do. The ironic thing is that a great many of their demonstrations led to violence, and that is most often not the case with conservatives.
Our President, himself, should be all too aware of this concept, since he is well acquainted with the radical faction himself.

During the Bush administration, Cindy Sheehan protested a lot, and others joined her. I certainly understood her pain and her right to express it. When asked about the protests, some of which occurred on the President's front driveway, President Bush said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's the great thing about America. Everyone has a right to express their own opinions." He never made fun of people, or forgot that it was his duty, responsibility and honor to represent all the people.

Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

James Rivera
New York Examiner
July 5, 2009

WASHINGTON- A classified memo written by the President, in which he instructs Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on how to address questions concerning so called Tea Parties, has been leaked to the public.

The document, dated April 13, details President Obama's instructions on how Gibbs should respond to questions asked by reporters. In it, the President tells Gibbs to downplay the importance of "social events that are aimed at undermining [the President's] plan to fix the economy."

President Obama also instructs Gibbs to "not answer any questions regarding these gatherings directly," writing that they are "idiotic" in their aims to curb government spending.

This leak comes at a time when the President has been criticized by Republicans for being too wasteful in his spending and agenda.

"Once again, the President has shown that he is utterly out of touch with the American public," said Joseph Barton, a representative of Texas's 6th Congressional District. "Doesn't he understand that people are sick and tired of unending taxes? Apparently not."

The Administration defended the memo, stating that its release was "unintentional," but that it is how the President characterizes "unnecessary criticism." Robert Gibbs also released a statement, writing that he does "not understand the uproar about something that the majority of Americans agree with anyway."

The President has not released a direct statement to the press, but one is expected in the coming days.

So, the President deems the Tea Parties, as unnecessary criticism. In his mind. Arrogance abounds. And, according to his press secretary, most of Americans agree with the President anyway. Really.

Protesters are disrupting "his" economic plan, and they are "idiotic"! He doesn't get it. He works for us. The house he is living in belongs to the people.

Today, the press secretary has made the statement that most of the dissenters at the Town Hall meetings are actually from some devious right wing group hired by some mysterious backers to disrupt the peaceful and benevolent meeting of representatives and their constituents.
Once again, the President is discriminating against and mocking a large percentage of the same people that he vowed to serve.

If any other President, Democrat or Republican, had said any of these disparaging remarks either about the citizens of his country or the country itself, it would have been a scandal.

"We Have to Make Judgments Very Fast."

Foxnews.com Monday, Aug. 2. 2009
(A Town Hall meeting in Philadelphia)

The following is an excerpt from this article.

While supporters offered courteous applause to the officials, Sebelius didn't earn any fans when she said that if lawmakers say they don't understand the legislation voters should urge them to go back and read it.

Specter was shouted down when he said that lawmakers divide up the bills into sections and have their staffs read portions because, "We have to make judgments very fast."

Sebelius apparently is laying the responsibility of checking out legistation on the voters. Funny, I thought that is what we were trying to do. However, we shouldn't have too.
Say you hire a guy to put a new roof on your house, but every morning you look outside, and he's sitting in his truck. You have to go out and tell him to start doing his work?

Sebelius is as much as saying that our elected officials aren't going to work unless we get on their case.
Specter's comments were equally priceless. They have their staff read the bills, because they don't have time. What are they doing? And, why do they have to make judgments very fast?
Anyone will tell you that is you have a really big decision, involving life changing events, and a lot of money, you need to think things through.

Whose putting the screws to these people? Is there a time limit that we don't know about, from the Pres, the Cabinet, Alien beings? The only things historically that demanded immediate decisions were war, and natural disasters. Could it be that they just don't want any analysis of what they're doing? If it goes on for awhile, the people might actually be able to figure the whole mess out and decided for themselves what they want and don't want. Imagine that, the people, the ones that the government work for, deciding for themselves what they want and don't want.

If that continues, we might just keep our Democracy.

What to Look for in a Socialist

I recently ran into a blog that was pro-Obama, which, declared that his association throughout his lifetime with socialists, communists, radicals, and a convicted terrorist or two was just a matter of politics. They stated that he needed these associations to further his career and get him where he wanted to go, but that he, in no way, subscribed to their beliefs. This, I assume, was supposed to be a glowing report on his crafty, smooth political maneuvers.
Apart from the fact that that that is hardly a great character report, it's also - well- bull.

The following was in the Washington Post, March 15, 2009 It was written by Billy Wharton, a member of the Socialist Party. (Notice that this was written in March.)

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to re-energizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.


Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. The Washington Post By Billy Wharton
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page B01

Our representatives are declaring with vigor that neither they or the Pres wants a single payer health system, however, in his campaign, Obama said that that is just what he wanted. A lot has changed in the last few months. So, the socialists have given us some guidelines to look for in the future. How many of these are we getting a glimpse of already.

Rationing? This is Tragic !!!!!!!!!

This is Not Your Father's America-Literally!!

We have heard a lot about the various frightening aspects of the Health Care Bill. Sometimes, we are tempted to believe that it couldn't possibly be as bad as they make it out to be. Could it?

Are we headed for telling mom or dad that the doctor simply won't help them because they are "past it", no longer a productive part of our society? Never mind that they worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes, fought for their country, and expected to be cared for as much as they cared for others.

I spent a lot of time lately reading testimonies from citizens of Canada and England and other countries that are dealing with these problems, and they are frightening. A man, who needed heart surgery, but was denied, a woman who needed brain surgery but was denied.

One of the most frightening aspects has got to be rationing. Can't happen? Guess again. This is not your father's America.

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Goodman's website, listed below, giving a brief overview of the White House Medical advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, GET THIS , recognize the name? Yep, brother of Rahm Emanuel.

What is the basis for these allegations of biased healthcare rationing? Dr. Goodman cites none other than White House healthcare policy adviser Ezekiel Emanuel. “Allocation by age is not invidious discrimination,” Emanuel wrote in the January 31 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet. “Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” So because everyone would get an equal chance to be favored when they are young, they would be equally discriminated against when they are old. “Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist,” Emmanuel maintains, but “treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

http://www.ncpa.org/about/john-c-goodman --- John C. Goodman is NCPA president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Wall Street Journal and the National Journal, among other publications, have called him the "Father of Health Savings Accounts," and the Media Research Center credits him, along with former Sen. Phil Gramm and columnist Bill Kristol with playing the pivotal role in the defeat of the Clinton Administration's plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system.

Here is Emanuel's take on the Hippocratic Oath.

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

A member of my family had quadruple bypass surgery many years ago, and has since had two other surgeries that saved his life. He volunteers at Church, helps out with whatever needs done, enjoys his grandchildren and children and this year went on a 4,5oo mile trip with his wife and family.

A great uncle of mine lived to be 105, and he was a wealth of information about his WWI experiences and history until the day he died.

Our medical professionals have worked hard over the last century to prolong life, preserve life, and give us the inaleinable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How many politicians, judges, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and just plain retired grandpas and grandmas are out there whose families feel that they are just as important as they were when they were 25 or 45?

Ah yes, we sure could save money, and it seems like we're headed in that direction, by getting rid of excess babies and excess seniors. We need to leave the world to the 25 year olds, because they don't need the experience or the advise of those who have gone before them- do they?

Shame on any person, country, party, anyone who would even consider this barbaric practice against their own people.

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

CNSNews.com

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?

So, we are told that we need to rush a bill through, that we have never had for all these 200 plus years, overnight , that no one has actually read, and, according to Conyers would not understand if they read it without the aid of lawyers.

These are dangerous and potentially lethal games that the Washingtonians are playing with our lives. Every one of these people who blindly go along with signing anything that passes under their noses needs to go at election time. Clean house!

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

Obama speaking to a group in San Francisco

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I know this is an oldie, but I think it's pertinent right now. Not just because it was the President's sentiments, but because it seems to represent the elitist attitude of the inner circle of politicians, lobbyists, and journalists that are shaping the "remake" of America.

Hello out there. Just because folks work with their hands, doesn't mean that they don't have brains. This has been a factor for years that continues to worsen to the point of nausea. Middle America, the Heartland, the place where every politician (except the Kennedys) swear their ancestors came from, is the core of this country, and probably every other country.

Scratch a politician, (at least during an election year), and you will find a father or a grandfather, or uncle that was a factory worker, a coal miner, a farmer. Why is it that they are so proud of this during an election, and the rest of the term, the working men and women are suddenly "hicks". Yes, we have guns, to hunt with. Unlike "city folk", they are mostly used for recreation, or to hunt animals, which people eat.
Yes, a whole lot of middle America is religious. When did this become a bad thing? Our reps should carry more of that into Washington.
No, we are not freaked out by people of different races and nationalities. What era are these people channeling. In every small town in the Heartland, we have a pretty mixed bag of cultures.

Anti-immigration and Anti-trade. If they mean that we don't like the idea of illegal immigrants, who sneak into the country, are funded by our tax dollars, and pose a potential securtity risk, then, yes, we have an issue with that.
If they mean that we are opposed to importing oil and other trade goods from countries who hate our guts, when we could be putting American workers to work drilling oil and mining coal and producing goods in this country, then yes, we have an issue with that.

I cannot count the number of times that political analysts and reporters have mentioned the fact that middle America somehow doesn't count, doesn't understand, needs to be lead by the hand.
Hey folks- this country started here, with people who knew how to take care of themselves, help their neighbors, and survive with common sense and hard work. Folks in the Heartland were the ones who grew their own food, and survived the Depression, when people in the cities were standing in bread lines.

If we get frustrated and angry it's because we know what's causing our problems and the nation's problems, but no one listens. We are not "explaining" our frustrations through some imaginary "witch hunt". We are not mob rule reactionaries, taking it out on whoever and whatever.
If we get frustrated and angry it's because of the mismanagement that has caused our factories to leave, the taxes that put small businesses out of business, and the rising costs that are crippling the small farmer.

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

From the "Virtual town hall" at the White House on Thursday March 26th

Obama: "We could set up systems so that everybody in each house have their own smart meters that, uhh, will tell you when to turn off the lights, when the peak hours are, can help you sell back energy, uh, that you've generated in your home through a solar panel or through, uh, eh, other mechanisms. All this can be done, but it also creates jobs right now. Our biggest problem, we don't have enough electricians to lay all these lines out there."

So, where to begin
I'm sure that I am not the only one to have priced solar panels and wind turbines. This would be a blessing. Imagine, having your own electricity, off the grid. I love the idea. However, I discovered that there are certain drawbacks. First of all, in an average household, the cost of installing wither of these options is anywhere from $40,ooo-$75,ooo on average. For just one household! Of course, there are the do-it-yourself options, but these are expensive too, and unless you are really handy, you will probably have to hire someone to do it anyway. Also, if your state has a grant program that is willing to pitch in some money, you need to have it installed by a certified dealer. Aha! Also, not all electrical companies will allow you to directly link to your meter, let alone give you a kickback on extra electricity you produce.

"Smart meters" - I can just see that 100 plus, humid, stick to your clothes day, when your smart meter suddenly goes off, incicating that you are using too much power, and you need to turn off the central air. Let's see, do the "proper thing fot the sake of the national energy conservation, and die. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Big decision.

This leads us to the next question. I don't know how many homes are in the U.S., but I don't believe that the government is in any position right now to finance alternative energy for all of us. And, maybe that's a good thing. Assuming what we are hearing is that the government is going to run linves to our house from wind turbines or solar panels, and then monitor our homes, doesn't that mean that the intention is to take over the evergy sources themselves?

All this cannot create jobs "right now". Let's assume that we are going to build umpteen wind turbines and solar panels. First we need the funding for said businesses. Of course the private factor doesn't really have that right now. So, the government would have to fund it. With what money? Of course we could go partners with China, (they are certainly pro-environment). Oh, wait, China is having second thoughts about our borrowing now.
Anyway, it would take probably ten or fifteen years minimum to get the factories up and running, people trained, and the plan in action, which, according to some, would pose a major security risk for the nation by consolidating our system onto a major grid.

We could get this going if we only had enough electricians and enough lines? Please!!!!!!!

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. (emphasis added)

What? At what point did anyone, Supreme Court Justice, or anyone else become in charge of population control? And, what exactly are the populations that we wanted to control? And, who is "we", the so called elite, the government, the intellectuals?

Are we controlling the population of poor, potentially disabled, minorities, dysfunctional? How do we know they would have been?

Many famous, influential and successful people who have impacted society in a good way have come from these "less than desirable" roots. Who decides?

I seem to remember, or at least have read a lot, about a time, when someone said that their country would be better off without Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and physically and mentally impaired people. Did this not spark some sort of reaction in the German people? We are appalled that no one stood up and said, "These are human beings. They have rights!"

Since about 1974 there have been over 50 million abortions in this country. 50 million. Not all of these were the result of rape or incest or some other tragedy. I would guess that the bulk were recreational abortions, the result of someone who gave up the pill because it caused weight gain, or got careless because it just didn't matter. There was always a way out.

50 million. Who were they, or more to the point, who might they have become?

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”- Rahm Emmanuel

You can say that Obama's Chief of Staff was pretty much on the money with this observation, and it's amazing, and a testament to the times we live in, that not more was made of it. It is frightening and discouraging that we weren't appalled, forewarned, and alarmed at this revelation. Isn't this as much as admitting that "if there was time", and "if the people knew everything", and "if we had time to think things out", that certain measures would never in a million years become accepted?

Say I'm a used car salesman and your'e looking at a car and I tell you that this is absolutely the bottom line price, but only for today. Then I tell you that my boss told me to say that the prices would triple tomorrow, that there was a crisis in the car industry and this would be the last chance you'd have to buy. I also told you that this wasn't exactly true, but my boss thought a crisis would encourage you to commit. First of all, you would be appalled, astounded, and mad. Then you would leave, hopefully.

But, that was exactly the whole point. I may be wrong on this one, but it was someone in the cabinet that also said, "The people don't really care." That's disturbing too.

So, off they went, in a flurry of spending trillions that we don't have, in a matter of months. Striking while the iron was hot, and the bloom of new Presidency and administration was still on the political rose. Prepare the bills, finish them in the middle of the night, and insist that they be voted on in the morning. We were in a crisis that demanded overnight action, with no reflection, discussion, or consideration as to what we were spending.

I know a lot of good salespeople who employ the same strategy. You go in for some small item, and they convince you that you need a package plan that is absolutely essential, but you have to get it now, because it will cost more later on, and this is your last chance or you will be sorry forever. We needed the money overnight, immediately. We couldn't survive another day without it. Then, the over 9000 pieces of pork or ear marks or whatever became public knowledge. Too late. All done. Thousands of endowments for projects that could wait if we were in such dire circumstances, but now if it was owed to those who could benefit you the most.

Flim-flam.

I don't know all the answers and I'm in really good company these days. However, the amount of "change", and proposed actions that have crammed down our throats in the last few months is alarming in anyone's book. Most of us wouldn't decide in a matter of hours to buy a business or a home without researching all the facts, or take out an enormous loan when we hadn't a clue how we would pay it back. Yet, we have.

Get Real America

I recently watched a program on TV, “Secrets of the Founding Fathers”, or what I could stomach of it. It was obviously, for whatever reason, an infantile attempt to discredit them in the eyes of Americans. The conclusion one of the so-called experts came too was that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution while intoxicated and smoking hemp. That they were all influenced by the devious Freemasons, and that they were secretive about their decisions, keeping them from the populous.
First of all, I do not believe they were perfect people. They were human, and never, in any stretch of the imagination, did they propose to present themselves as perfect. In fact, if you read statements from Washington, he cringed at the idea that he would be set up as a demi-god. Did they drink? Of course. It was safer to drink whiskey and beer than water. Did they propose a break with England for financial motives? Of course. The whole taxation issue was at the heart of the Revolution, not only in the eyes of the professional, wealthier class, but the everyday man.
One of the main focuses of the program was the growing of hemp. Apparently, someone stumbled upon this fact, and decided that the Founding Fathers were all potheads. Hemp was widely used in the colonies for sail making, paper making, rope making and fiber for clothing. In fact, it was one of the largest crops grown in the colonies. The argument against Washington was that in one of his letters, he lamented the fact that he wasn’t home in time to separate the male and female plants. The comment was that this proved that Washington smoked it since the female plant apparently is used for this purpose. In all actuality, according to botanists, there are two types of hemp plant, one that has both male and female characteristics and the others that are male and female. They claim that a good and experienced grower tries to separate these to increase the yield. In fact, smoking the form of hemp that they grew would, it is claimed, give anyone a massive headache that would increasingly get worse.
It is highly unlikely that, in a country that grew tobacco, they would have considered hemp as a possible smoke, but, even if they did, we need to remember that up until the middle of the last century, heroin, cocaine and opium were often used as magic miracle cures. Some were used in elixirs and even soft drinks.
In the same “documentary”, Washington was both labeled a possible homosexual and a “womanizer”, which would have been quite a feat even for him. It was hinted that he had a relationship with La Fayette. He did. If you read their letters to each other, you can see that Washington, after some qualms about this Frenchman in the New World, eventually thought of him as a son. And, La Fayette, thought so much of Washington that he named his son after him. When they used words like embrace and love in their letters, you must remember that people in the eighteenth century (men and women) often hugged one another when they met. And they used the word “embrace”, not in a sexual sense, but in a warm and loving term. It was a different era. Letters were long, mushy and gushy, because it was the manner of the time- a social must. Much like when we were in elementary school, unworldly, innocent and holding hands with your friends on the playground. No one thought anything of it.
Washington often lamented the fact that he was going to die without an heir, and he thought of La Fayette as the son he never had.
As far as his womanizing , who knows. There is no real evidence of it, but it was well known that even when Washington was a young teenager, he always had an eye for the ladies. This trait continued until his old age.
One of the other suspicions about the Founding Fathers was their creation of the Constitution behind locked doors, and, their disagreements and arguments. You get any group of men or women together to organize or create, or legislate, and there’s going to be conflict. The locked doors were an effort to get things done, with only the delegates input, and not added influences from outside. Remember, this was a time when the Revolution was recent, Tories, British sympathizers abounded, and not everyone was convinced that the country was a viable idea. Also, it was important to them that no 18th century lobbyist influenced their representatives with their own agendas. Something that we have not learned to avoid in this day and age apparently.
The Freemason factor. Yes, some of them were. Bottom line, if they brought anything to the Constitution from the factors included in Freemasonry, it was items like “checks and balances”, hardly detrimental. They drew on what they were familiar with. Don’t we want checks and balances? Or, anyway, some of us do.
Yes, it is interesting to find out everything we can about those who set the wheels in motion to bring this country into being. But, there is also a move to change historical facts and bend them to further individual causes. This accomplishes nothing but demoralizing people who, do not expect perfection in our ancestral leaders, but honor their sacrifice.
The remarkable facts about these men is not their faults, which they would readily admit too if they were here, but their courage and sacrifice. These were, for the most part, men, well established in a British colony under British law. They had the most to lose from their actions, including their lives.
There is a shameful and ridiculous trend to rewrite history, omit certain aspects of history and distort facts, even in the text books today. The frightening thing is that there are some who will believe it.
The creators of this “program” were obviously trying to discredit the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and virtually the entire birth of our country. The same country that allows these people the opportunity to flourish, prosper, and deride anything they choose, all in the guise of intellectual freedom. These people should know that in many countries around the world their lives would be much different, but thanks to the old ladies and gentlemen of our past that they ridicule, they are free to invent their own versions of reality to their heart’s content.

Define Who You Are

Growing up, most of us were pretty sure who we were, and what we believed in. Maybe, we need to get back to basics and remind ourselves of what we really stand for. Here goes.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, as were many generations before me. A lot of them served in the service of their country, and I thank them and all the others for their sacrifice. I am descended from pilgrims, pioneers, laborers, farmers, teachers, patriots. They flew their flags proudly, fought for their homes and their rights, helped their neighbors, and worked hard for everything they had in life.

I love my country, the United States of America. There, I’ve said it. I confess. I get teary-eyed when I hear the Star Spangled Banner played, and when I see our troops marching by and when someone plays taps. I am proud of the fact that we, and we alone, were the experiment in democracy that succeeded. I know, there have been problems along the way. No one ever said there wouldn’t be. I am proud that our Constitution is based on freedom, and justice, and reference to God. Yea, you got me. I’m a patriot. I’m one of those, who in the “good old days” before what is “in”, overruled what is “right”, and “stretching and bending the law for the sake of political correctness” was acceptable would have been considered a good person.
But, that was then, and this is now. Patriots are those of us who still believe in old fashioned things like individual freedom.

The United States of America has come to the aid, financially, and militarily, more often than any other country in the world. We are the first to arrive with supplies and aid during natural, and unnatural disasters. We defend the rights of humanity when no one else wants to get involved.

Our young men and women have died for people around the world that they didn’t know. They have cried over the bodies of babies who never had a chance to know freedom, and people barely alive who survived the horrors of Dachau and Auschwitz.

I do not want anyone to apologize for my country. For all our faults, we are still the best place to live. I do not feel arrogant or politically incorrect for saying that. There are people arriving here every day from all over the world who feel the same way. They dream about coming to America, just as folks have for two hundred years, and they sometimes risk their lives to get here.

Nothing in my genetic makeup, or the cynicism that abounds today, or the constant “America bashing” we are subjected too, or the pseudo-intellectual distortion of the history of our country will change my admiration for my personal ancestors, or the millions of other patriots who have worked hard in the past to hold onto the America they loved.

As only one of the millions of Americans in this country, those whose families go back generations, and those who only recently became citizens, I am not important. What is important is that we never lose pride in this great country, or feel that we must humble ourselves in the eyes of the world.

"Thanks for the free clip-art to the Just A Touch Art Studio of Jonesboro, Georgia; www.justatouch.com"

We Are All Americans

What is so difficult to understand about the idea that if you live in this country, are a citizen, pay taxes, uphold the Constitution, and abide by the laws, you are an American? If your ancestors came over on the Mayflower and you are still living here, you are an American. If you took the oath and got your citizenship yesterday, CONGRATULATIONS!, you are an American.

My background is English, Scottish, Welsh and German. I do not call myself an English, Scottish, Welsh, German American. This isn't to say that I am against cultural festivals, where folks celebrate the food and drink and dances of their ancestors. But, give it a rest people. When it comes down to petitioning for special perks because of former ancestoral or religious or any other characteristic that you might possess, then it has gone too far.

I'd like to know what the government or some particular party is going to do for me as an English, Scottish, Welsh, German, American middle aged, middle class woman." I know- I don't have a group yet, or lobbyists, and no big organization has stepped forward to champion my cause, but still........

Should we ask, "What can be done to make life easier and better for groups like the handicapped, the elderly, and children, who can't defend themselves?" Of course! But the rest of us should concentrate on being Americans, and ask "What is best for ALL of us as Americans."