Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - ex-ed

Pages: 1 2 3 »
ROLLA, Mo. -- Missouri S&T University went on a lockdown just before 9 a.m. Thursday after a report that a man with a gun was on campus in McNutt Hall, a building in the mining department.  A text alert was sent out and a message was posted on S&T's website.
Law enforcement officers later said no shots were fired on campus but some shots were fired near campus.  One shot hit a sheriff's deputy's car.
Law enforcement officers chased the man to Rolla from Fort Leonard Wood.  The Rolla police chief says the man crashed a stolen vehicle in Rolla, walked through a university classroom building with a rifle, broke into a home near campus, and then stole a car from the person in that home.  Just before noon, the chief said they think the man is still in Rolla.
                         The chief said, at one point, he had the man in his sights and could have shot at him, but the man was near a school and the chief thought there was a risk that a student could have been hit if he'd fired.
Late morning, law enforcement officers confirmed they are looking for Cody Willcoxson, 31, who has served time in prison in Oklahoma.  He's 5-foot-10, 180 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes.  He's reported to have tattoos, including symbols from an Indian tribe, skulls, an iron cross, and faces.  He's reported to have a 12-inch scar on his stomach.  In some instances, he's spelled his last name Wilcoxson.
Online records show Willcoxson has convictions for assisting the escape of a prisoner, two counts of escape from a county jail, two counts of second-degree burglary, and another count of escape.  The records show his concurrent prison sentences started on Dec. 15, 2004, and ended on May 27, 2008.
Jeff Maddy, a spokesman for Fort Leonard Wood, says Willcoxson tried to enter the post on Thursday morning.  Guards requested his identification and tried to deny him access to the post after discovering he is an ex-con.  They say he ignored their commands and drove into Fort Leonard Wood.  Maddy says a chase by Military Police officers ensued and Willcoxson left the post by another gate and fled to Rolla.
Pulaski County Sheriff J.B. King said St. Robert police helped chase the man to Rolla.  He said his deputies were behind St. Robert police, and the sheriff was behind his deputies during the chase.  King said at 11:50 a.m. that there was no indication Willcoxson had doubled back toward St. Robert and Waynesville.  He said all his deputies were back in his county.
At 9:10 a.m., the university posted that the man had left campus, but advised those on campus to continue to secure buildings and stay indoors.  The message advised people not already on campus to avoid campus.
A Missouri S&T representative says law enforcement officers believe the man is no longer armed, because they found an AK47 rifle under a brown pickup on campus.  The university says finals are still going on and students on campus are being told to stay inside buildings.  Students and staff not on campus are being told to stay away.
Police have shut down exits 185 and 186 in Rolla because of police activity.  The Missouri Department of Transportation estimates the closure would last until early afternoon.
News release, 10:35 a.m.:
ROLLA, Mo. – The campus of Missouri University of Science and Technology remains in lockdown mode after a man who fired shots near campus entered a Missouri S&T building around 8:45 a.m. CDT today.
No shots were fired on campus and no injuries to any campus personnel (students, faculty or staff) were reported.
As of 10:15 a.m. CDT today, the suspect, a white male, is still at large and was last seen near White Columns Drive, a residential area northwest of campus across Interstate 44.
The suspect was last seen wearing a blue-and-white t-shirt and may be bleeding from one hand.
Missouri S&T issued a lockdown alert at around 8:40 a.m. today after the suspect had entered McNutt Hall, which houses classrooms, offices and laboratories. The suspect soon exited the building and traveled on foot north of campus.
Police recovered a firearm near McNutt Hall.
All university students, faculty and staff are to remain in their buildings until Missouri S&T Police issue an all-clear. Individuals off-campus are asked to remain away from campus until the all-clear has been issued.

National Political Opinion / Remember -- and vote accordingly
« on: October 28, 2010, 05:00:27 PM »
  Something to think about between now and Tuesday ...
The Republican Final Message
By Monica Crowley (bio)
We are less than a week away from the midterm elections. We are hearing about the typical Left-wing fraudulent hijinks: rigged voting machines, union thugs assigned to “monitor” the machines, free food and union “gift cards” given to folks who vote for the Democrat candidate. Democrats have been pulling these kinds of frauds since at least 1960, when the Kennedys stole the presidential election from Richard Nixon.
To overcome their criminal activity (which the Obama Justice Department will dismiss out of hand), we need to stay focused and vigilant. In addition to the fraud, they are trying to clutter the airwaves with all kinds of mangled and baseless accusations and weird, extraneous stuff.
This is why the final Republican message needs to be short and sweet and needs to cut through it all.

In ALL fifty states, the following message needs to be repeated incessantly: When it counted, all Democrats were Obama Democrats.When it counted, no Democrat stood up to the president and his agenda.

When it counted, the Democrats rallied enough votes for passage of the Obama agenda.

When it counted, no Democrat spoke out against the smearing and slandering of the citizens of this country. Their silence was deafening and telling.

When it counted, there were no “moderates” or “blue dogs.” They were all progressives.
Actions and records speak louder than words and empty promises for the future.

Obama is not through with his progressive agenda. He has only just begun. This is why we need to stop this murderer of the Constitution in his tracks, before he can kill again.
Remember in November.

National Political Opinion / Obama's government by extortion
« on: July 08, 2010, 05:52:49 PM »
Extortionist Government 
By Arnold Ahlert
I used to think extortion was a crime. Now I realize it's government policy.
Nowhere is this more evident than the Obama administration's take on two issues that are dominating the news: the ongoing oil leak, and the lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law. There is absolutely no question both issues could be handled quite differently--were it not for the fact that both issues are related to far larger agendas than those which immediately present themselves.
And in both cases, the Obama administration has made it crystal clear that they will hold the country hostage to those agendas, unless Americans "come around" to the administration's point of view.  Spare me the idea that government has done, is doing, or will do all it can regarding the oil leak. The reports of inefficiency, ineptitude, bureaucratic foot-dragging, and radical environmental stupidity are now so numerous that it is no longer possible to consider them unrelated. The big red flags here are the president's adamant refusal to suspend the Jones Act, and his refusal to eliminate the massive amounts of bureaucratic red tape hindering the clean-up effort. Both would literally take minutes to implement, since they require nothing more than executive orders to do so. So why won't Mr. Obama do so?  Because this president is more than willing to have America endure a far greater ecological disaster than is necessary as a springboard for invigorating cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. 
Cynical? Again, there's another tip-off that speaks volumes: as the result of one accident, the administration has sought to suspend deep-water oil drilling in its entirety. That would cost America another twenty to thirty thousand jobs, and makes as much sense as completely suspending air travel as the result of a single plane crash.  Add this tactic to the above mish-mash and it become impossible to believe anything other than my original premise: we have a president willing to take an extortionist approach to governance as a means of implementing his agenda.  As bad as this approach is with regard to the oil leak, it is despicable with regard to the federal lawsuit against Arizona's immigration policy. That saga can be reduced to a simple idea: the federal government refuses to enforce its own immigration laws--but won't let anyone else enforce them without being subjected to litigation. This is something like a homeowner being sued for putting out a fire at his house, despite the fact that the local fire department refuses to do it.  Yes, it is that absurd.  Once again, a big red flag reveals this administration's true intentions: why hasn't a lawsuit been filed against any number of "sanctuary cities" whose violation of federal immigration statues is beyond dispute? In what universe is aiding and abetting illegal immigrants more acceptable than trying to prevent them from running roughshod in numerous communities across the country? 
And does anyone seriously believe that the federal government is incapable of sealing the border? America could stop illegal immigration dead in its tracks at any time. It isn't even debatable. Put two hundred thousand troops on our two thousand mile-long southern border and that's a hundred soldiers defending every mile. Think that would solve the problem?  You betcha.
But if the administration did that, it couldn't hold Americans hostage to "comprehensive immigration reform." It wouldn't be able to repeat the scam embodied in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was one hundred percent "reform" and virtually zero "control." Who, besides the open-borders crowd, honestly believes that the enforcement component of any reform bill would be taken more seriously now than it has been all along? 
So what do you call an administration that sues a state for trying to protect itself from an illegal onslaught, even as it refuses to enforce the laws already on the book--even as it demands comprehensive reform in exchange for policing the border?  Extortionists. 
In all my years, I don't think I've ever seen Americans more frustrated, afraid and disgusted than they are right now. We are witnessing the full flower of a political ideology whose adherents consider so important, that any means necessary to implement it becomes perfectly acceptable.  What is the phrase, "never let a crisis go to waste" other than extortion by another name? 
Don't tell me that an oil leak which began fifty miles offshore could threaten the entire Gulf coast and possibly the Eastern Seaboard, without a coordinated effort to expand the scope of this tragedy. It is simply no longer believable that mere incompetence is the culprit here.  Nor is it remotely believable that illegal immigration is beyond our control, and that it is "impossible" to seal our borders.
Only an ideologically-contaminated administration would be actively working to undermine the interests of its own citizens in that regard. The Obama administration is telling the citizens of Arizona they don't give a damn that their state is being over-run by illegal aliens--and with this lawsuit, they're telling Arizonans they're not allowed to give a damn, either. 
When did government of, by, and for the people become government against the people?  When the progressive movement felt secure enough to drop its facade and reveal its true face to the American people.  It's an ugly face. It is the face of an ideological movement whose core is a complete disdain for our traditions, customs, culture--and Constitution. It is the face of those for whom the average American is an unpolished rube "clinging to guns and religion" and incapable of running his own life. It is a movement which uses political correctness as a sledgehammer to stifle dissent, even as its adherents laughingly profess tolerance. It is a movement which will accept nothing less than total control of every aspect of American life into which it can insinuate itself--even as it divides us by race, gender, and class in order to do so.  It is embodied in an Obama administration which threatens to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to bypass the legislative process if Congress refuses to pass cap-and-trade, and uses a Justice Department to force Arizona into allowing illegal immigrants to ruin that state if that same Congress doesn't pass comprehensive immigration reform. 
And note the common thread here: the use of the courts to enforce the progressive agenda. It doesn't matter that a moratorium on drilling would destroy certain segments of the Gulf coast economy, or that Arizona is the primary gateway for the illegal entry the federal government refuses to prevent. It doesn't matter that if either issue were put to a popular vote, a majority of Americans would vote to keep oil flowing and illegals out of the country. Progressives know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming majority of their agenda is completely unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of Americans. 
So they turn to the courts--but even then, only if those courts reach the "proper" conclusion. When U.S. Justice Martin Feldman overturned the administration's moratorium on deep-water drilling, and refused to stay his ruling pending an appeal by the federal government, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced he would attempt re-impose the moratorium anyway. 
That is thuggery, plain and simple. 
Unfortunately, thuggery is entirely in keeping with the Obama administration's "Chicago-style" approach to governance. It remains to be seen if there is an ultimate "enough is enough" moment where the entire progressive house of cards comes crashing down on itself.  I have to believe we're close. I have to believe near-ten percent unemployment with no relief in sight, the unconscionable escalation of our national debt, the government take-over of major industries, and the continuing defiance of the American majority on a host of important issues is unsustainable.
Unlike my progressive brethren, I believe in the innate wisdom of the American people. It is a wisdom that tolerates many things in the effort to make this a better nation. 
Thankfully, extortion isn't one of them.

I have just read and signed the online petition:  "An Appeal to Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan to Withdraw Ground Zero Mosque" hosted on the web by, the free online petition service, at:

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing yourself.
God bless you!

National Political Opinion / Ship of fools ....
« on: June 21, 2010, 02:29:55 PM »

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a puppet. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Memorial Day weekend's coming. We who've spent much time around the military know how seriously service members take their oath of enlistment to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They are serious about what they do and why they do it.
It pains me how lightly the current administration seems to take our service and military heritage. Obama and crew, by their words and actions, too easily give it away in the name of "equality" and "social justice." Guaranteeing equality of opportunity is admirable. Guaranteeing equality of results in the name of "social justice" is inimical to everything the USA stands for and everything we have fought for and guarded. It is a slap in the face of all who have applied themselves, worked hard, and built a prosperous, successful life for themselves and their families. It is especially insulting to those of us who have given most of our adult lives in service to our nation and its heritage of freedom and "liberty for all."
Take time this Memorial Day to remember our proud heritage and renew your dedication to keep America operating under the rule of law -- the U.S. Constitution -- and save it from those who would squander our way of life, our freedom to choose, and our prosperity and that of our children and grandchildren.

National News / Texas gov makes "mulch" of predatory coyote
« on: April 28, 2010, 12:00:46 PM »
Texas gov. shoots, kills 'wily' coyote during jog
By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer Tue Apr 27, 7:55 pm ET 
AUSTIN, Texas – Pistol-packing Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a message for wily coyotes out there: Don't mess with my dog.
Perry told The Associated Press on Tuesday he needed just one shot from the laser-sighted pistol he sometimes carries while jogging to take down a coyote that menaced his puppy during a February run near Austin.
Perry said he will carry his .380 Ruger — loaded with hollow-point bullets — when jogging on trails because he is afraid of snakes. He'd also seen coyotes in the undeveloped area. When one came out of the brush toward his daughter's Labrador retriever, Perry charged.
"Don't attack my dog or you might get shot ... if you're a coyote," he said Tuesday.
Perry, a Republican running for a third full term against Democrat Bill White, is living in a private house in a hilly area southwest of downtown Austin while the Governor's Mansion is being repaired after a 2008 fire. A concealed handgun permit holder, Perry carries the pistol in a belt.
"I knew there were a lot of predators out there. You'll hear a pack of coyotes. People are losing small cats and dogs all the time out there in that community," Perry said. "They're very wily creatures."
On this particular morning, Perry said, he was jogging without his security detail shortly after sunrise.
"I'm enjoying the run when something catches my eye and it's this coyote. I know he knows I'm there. He never looks at me, he is laser-locked on that dog," Perry said.  "I holler and the coyote stopped. I holler again. By this time I had taken my weapon out and charged it. It is now staring dead at me. Either me or the dog are in imminent danger. I did the appropriate thing and sent it to where coyotes go," he said.
Perry said the laser-pointer helped make a quick, clean kill.
"It was not in a lot of pain," he said. "It pretty much went down at that particular juncture."
Texas state law allows people to shoot coyotes that are threatening livestock or domestic animals. The dog was unharmed, Perry said.
Perry's security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.
"People shoot coyotes all the time, snakes all the time," Mange said. "We don't write reports."
The governor left the coyote where it fell. "He became mulch," Perry said.

I find myself among the one third who see the federal government as a threat to our individual and collective freedoms.  The Obamanation of America is a danger to us all and a threat to freedom and democracy in the world. ...

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Nearly one out of three Americans view the US government as a "major threat" to their freedoms, and four out of five say they don't trust Washington to solve their problems, according to a new poll out Monday.
Just 19 percent say they are "basically content" with the federal government, against 56 percent who say they are "frustrated" and 21 percent who describe themselves as "angry," the Pew Research Center survey found.
Only 22 percent say they trust Washington to do what is right almost always or most of the time, according to the survey, which had an error margin of plus or minus four percentage points.
More at

National Political Opinion / Constitution Party meeting
« on: March 04, 2010, 07:04:41 PM »
When:          Monday, March 8                     6:00  pm
Where:          Price Cutter's Restaurant                      Waynesville, MO
Guest:           Meet the Candidate for U.S. Congress, Greg Cowan
Purpose:       Organize, promote and grow the Constitution Party in our community                     
Let's give Americans an option to the current political parties                     
How can we help get Greg elected
Contact:        Bob Leinbaugh,

Obama, Pelosi and Ried are continuing their push to pass the Democrats' profane abortion of healthcare legislation by simple majority vote in the Senate to adopt the House-passed Healthcare Bill, followed by a reconciliation by committee. I urge all who are opposed to this travesty contact Ike Skelton and Claire McCaskill -- especially McCaskill -- and voice your concerns to them. I did so this morning. Following is my comment to McCaskill:
    "Please DO NOT allow the Senate to ram the current House healthcare plan down American throats! The majority of American citizens --over 60 percent -- DO NOT APPROVE of this legislative abortion and DO NOT want to be compelled to participate, nor do they want such garbage imposed on them by such tyrannical methods as currently being push by Ried, Pelosi or the President!"
    You can copy and paste these words into your message, or you can voice your opinion your own way, but please contact your legislators and let them know how you feel!

National Political Opinion / Constitution Party meets in Waynesville Feb. 8
« on: February 04, 2010, 06:36:11 PM »
When:       Monday, February 8 at 6:00 p.m.
What:        Informational Monthly Meeting
Where:       Price Cutter’s Restaurant in Waynesville
Guest Speaker: Greg Cowan, candidate for U.S. Congress
Purpose:      Organize our county chapter and discuss the purpose and platform of the Constitution Party.

National Political Opinion / Food for Thought
« on: January 27, 2010, 01:50:28 PM »
"McDonald's French fries have a longer shelf life than Obama's pledges of fiscal accountability."
    - Michelle Malkin

National Political Opinion / ObamaCare: Dems still don't get it.
« on: November 21, 2009, 12:23:50 AM »
The Dems preach "stick together or die together. I predict they will shoot themselves in the foot if they pass the Obamacare bill. When Harry Reid says, "The finish line is really in sight," he's talking about the finish line for the Democratic Party in the United States.

Health Care: Do the Democrats Have Enough Votes?

WASHINGTON -- With health reform's first test vote on the Senate floor less than 72 hours away, a platoon of top strategists - including pollsters Mark Mellman and Geoff Garin, incoming White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina - met with Democratic Senators Thursday afternoon to impress upon those who might be wavering that everyone's political fate is now joined with the success or failure of President Obama's top domestic priority. (See 10 players in health care reform.)

 Addressing the Senators over lunch in the Mansfield Room just off the chamber, Mellman quoted Benjamin Franklin: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." According to one person who was there, Mellman invoked memories of 1994, when the party lost control of both houses of Congress in the wake of its failure to enact Bill Clinton's health care initiative. And he noted that the chief casualties in that election had been moderates, many of whom had tried to distance themselves from the President. What Democrats will need more than anything else in this midterm-election season, Mellman said, is for Obama and his agenda to succeed.

 The White House team also pledged whatever support the Senators might want, including visits to their states by Vice President Biden and making Administration officials available for interviews with home-state media. Some of the very tactics that helped get Obama elected, the team said, could be brought to bear now. Messina told them it will be important to achieve parity against the opposition on the airwaves, with paid advertising and surrogates; to overwhelm them with ground organization; and to "stand for something, go for it, and always play offense."

 Members of the team also said it is important to frame the message carefully - emphasizing, for instance, estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the health overhaul will save money in the long run, reassuring seniors who are afraid of seeing Medicare cut and stressing new provisions like ones that would protect people from becoming uninsurable as a result of pre-existing health conditions. (Watch TIME's video "Uninsured Again.")

 But the Republicans are readying their message as well. "After six weeks of drafting a bill behind closed doors, the majority has produced a bill that increases premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars to create a new government program," minority leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday. "This is not what the American people want. I don't believe they think this is reform. This is not the direction to take."

 A day after receiving a positive budget score from the CBO for his health-reform bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid told his caucus that he hopes to hold the first test vote - on the motion to proceed - by 8 p.m. on Saturday. In the face of a promised GOP filibuster, that will require 60 votes, which is exactly the number Reid has in his Democratic caucus. While several Democrats have yet to commit to voting with Reid on the motion to proceed, the majority leader is "reasonably confident" that they will be with him when the time comes, says spokesman Jim Manley. "The whole goal right now is simply to get on the bill, and then we'll start some old-fashioned legislating." More questionable is whether Reid can muster 60 votes several weeks from now, when he presses to end debate and move to final passage.

 The real fights - including those over provisions in the bill like a government-run public option and its language allowing abortion coverage if it is paid for by private funds - are not likely to come until some time in December. Then, if it passes the Senate, it will move into a conference committee with the House, where the two chambers will hash out some significant differences over abortion (the House bill has far more restrictive language than the version now before the Senate), the public option (the House version is almost certain to be more robust) and how to pay for the health overhaul (with the House favoring higher taxes on the wealthy and the current Senate version relying on new levies on high-priced insurance plans).

 "The finish line is really in sight," Reid said as he unveiled his bill, which was a hybrid of legislation previously okayed by the Senate Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But no one knows better than Reid that it is still going to take a lot to get there.

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the white firefighters had been discriminated against ....
Black firefighters object to white promotions
Associated Press Writer   
NEW HAVEN, Conn. – A group of black Connecticut firefighters hopes to block promotions for white firefighters who won a discrimination case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The black New Haven firefighters argue in papers filed Monday that they still have a right to challenge the validity of the promotional exam.
The white firefighters sued New Haven after the city threw out results of some 2003 promotion exams when too few minorities did well. The Supreme Court ruled in June in their favor.
The attorney for the white firefighters filed papers in U.S. District Court Friday asking for promotions. Attorneys for New Haven filed similar papers.
But the attorneys for seven black firefighters say there still has been no finding that the promotional tests were valid.

Hey, David, What are the chances of the Mo. Legislature promulgating something like this to protect Missourian's from being coerced into buying Obamacare health insurance?
PHOENIX — In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health-care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."


Maybe we should see if the Mo. Legislature can do this for us, too, and keep us out of the "mandatory health insurance" game Obamacare would bring.
Unlawful health reform?  By George Will | PHOENIX — In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute here with an idea. The institute, America's most potent advocate of limited government, embraced Eric Novack's idea for protecting Arizonans from health-care coercion. In 2008, Arizonans voted on Novack's proposed amendment to the state's Constitution:
"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."
Proponents were outspent five to one by opponents who argued, meretriciously, that it would destroy Arizona's Medicaid program, with which many insurance companies have lucrative contracts. Nevertheless, the proposition lost by only 8,687 votes out of 2.1 million cast, and Arizonans will vote on essentially the same language next November.
But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, "It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections." 
Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Constitution's system of "dual sovereignty," states' "retained sovereignty" empowers them to "remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority." The court has been critical of the "federalism costs" of intrusive federal policies and recently has twice vindicated state sovereignty in ways pertinent to Novack's plan.
In 2006, the court overturned an interpretation of federal law that would have nullified Oregon's "right to die" statute. The court said states have considerable latitude in regulating medical standards, which historically have been primarily state responsibilities.
In 2000, Arizona voters endorsed an English immersion policy for students for whom English is a second language. Federal courts had issued an injunction against such policies because they conflicted with federal requirements of bilingual education. This year, however, the Supreme Court mandated reconsideration of the injunctions because they affect "areas of core state responsibility."
The court says the constitutional privacy right protects personal "autonomy" regarding "the most intimate and personal choices." The right was enunciated largely at the behest of liberals eager to establish abortion rights. Liberals may think, but the court has never held, that the privacy right protects only doctor-patient transactions pertaining to abortion. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department officials under the Reagan and first Bush administrations, ask: If government cannot proscribe or even "unduly burden" — the court's formulation — access to abortion, how can government limit other important medical choices?
Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the [commerce] Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the commerce clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" — e.g., drivers can be required to buy auto insurance — "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress can tax — i.e., punish — people who do not buy insurance because the Constitution empowers Congress to tax for "the general welfare." So, could Congress tax persons who do not exercise or eat their spinach?
When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

How can any patriotic American still respect this president or the mainstream media that fawns over him?
"President Titanic"
By Arnold Ahlert
   Is there anything worse than a president who spent three minutes speechifying at a Dept. of Interior tribal leaders conference before mentioning the massacre of American soldiers at Ft. Hood?
Maybe not. But coming in close second is the CBS television network, which decided to edit those first three minutes out of its news presentation in order to spare the president the national embarrassment he so richly deserves.

But it gets “better.”

On their Thursday night national newscasts, both NBC and CBS decided not to mention that the alleged mass murderer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was a Muslim. And then there was the latest gaffe arising from the media’s unspoken First Commandment, aka “get it first, even if it’s wrong:” despite widespread reports that the shooter was killed, he is still alive.
Is there a bottom for this bunch?
Several months ago I wrote a column in which I stated that a hopelessly biased media was “all in” with this president and the Democratic party. I said if Democrats and the president tank, they take the MSM down with them. Anyone examining the ratings of three-out-of-the-four national networks knows it’s already happening. The lone exception is Fox News, which, according to the president and his odious enablers, isn’t a “legitimate” news source.
So what’s legitimate about covering for the president by editing his remarks, refraining to mention that alleged shooter Hasan is a Muslim, or saying he was killed when he’s still alive?
Beats me. But each time I think the Fourth Estate can’t stoop any lower, they prove me wrong. And I’ll stand by what I said yesterday: the presidency of Barack Obama is effectively over. His true colors have been revealed: he is so completely out of touch with the ethos of America, it never even occurred to him that the murder of twelve and the wounding of thirty-one American servicemen made everything else he wanted to talk about irrelevant by comparison.
And all the media spin in the world won’t change that reality.
Americans know a watershed moment when they see one, and what they saw can be reduced to six words: he is not one of us.
Barack Obama is a “citizen of the world” for whom America is just another country that must be re-shaped in accordance with the new reality of global governance. He is the latest member of an historical lineup of leftist megalomaniacs who brook no dissent with their “vision.” American soldiers? Cogs in a military machine he has little use for. Troops left twisting in the wind, even as the promise of making a troop level decision once the election in Afghanistan was concluded remains unfulfilled.
Barack Obama is now President Titanic. The iceberg has been hit. The sinking, however long and drawn out, inevitable. The MSM? Going down with the ship.
Shame on all of them.[/]

National Political Opinion / If George Bush had done this ...
« on: October 29, 2009, 05:17:54 PM »
If George W.  Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be  able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said  this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If  George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of  dollars to take Laura
Bush to a play in NYC, would you have  approved?[/]
If  George W. Bush had reduced your retirement  plan's holdings of GM stock
by  90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have
If  George W.  Bush had made a joke at the expense  of the  Special
Olympics, would you have  approved?[/]
If  George W. Bush had given Gordon  Brown a set of inexpensive and
incorrectly formatted DVDs, when  Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
and  historically significant gift, would you  have approved?[/]
If  George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an  iPod containing videos
of  his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic
and  tacky?[/]
If  George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi  Arabia , would you  have
If  George W. Bush had visited  Austria   and made  reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you   have brushed it off as a minor
If  George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle  of advisers  with
people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes,  would you
have approved?[/]
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as  to  refer to "Cinco de
Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it   was the 5th of May
(Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he   tried again, would you
have winced in  embarrassment?[/]
If George W.  Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered
him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he
If George W.  Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel  to go plant a
single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?[/]
If George W.  Bush's administration had okayed Air  Force One flying low
over millions of  people followed  by a jet fighter in downtown  Manhattan
causing widespread  panic, would you have wondered whether  they actually
get what happened  on 9-11?[/]
If George W.  Bush had failed to send relief aid to  flood victims
throughout  the  Midwest  with more people killed or  made homeless than in
New Orleans  ,  would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue
with claims of  racism and  incompetence?[/]
   If George [/][/]W.[/] [/]Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to
him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in  America ,
would you have approved?[/]
If  George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO  of a  major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority  to  do so,
would you have  approved?[/]
If  George W Bush  had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken
more than  two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you  have
If  George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
years, would you have approved?[/]
So, tell  me again, what is it about Obama that makes  him so brilliant and
impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't  worry. He's done all  this in 5
months -- so you'll have three years  and seven months  to come up with an

National Political Opinion / Leftists, liberals believe in Fairy Tales
« on: October 28, 2009, 07:41:49 PM »
 The Left’s World of Fairy Tales  by Dennis Prager   fairytales
How is one to rationally explain the Democrats’ belief that the government taking over another one-sixth of the American economy is a good thing?
The answer is religion.
Given the huge economic failures that the left itself attributes to Medicare and Medicaid and given the economic collapse or near collapse of these systems in other countries, the left’s prescriptions can only be explained in one way: The left has made its views a form of religion.
Most individuals on the left are not religious, but virtually all people, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, yearn to believe in dogma, i.e., absolute beliefs that transcend reason. For people on the left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, belief in the state — the notion that the state can do a better job at helping people and making a good society — is one such dogma. This applies especially to educating the young and to health care.
Examples of left-wing dogmas that transcend reason are as numerous as any religion’s catechism. One example is the belief that men and women, boys and girls, are basically the same, that the vast majority of characteristics we ascribe to male and female natures are in fact socially induced. This irrational dogma was virtually universally believed and taught by the left-wing faculty when I attended college, and remains so today.
Another is the belief that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are heating the world to the point of imminent worldwide catastrophe, including island nations disappearing underwater, mass starvation, inundation of the world’s major coastal areas and much more. The fact that the world has been getting colder for the last eight years is as irrelevant to most people on the left as the absence of archaeological evidence for the biblical exodus is irrelevant to believing Jews and Christians. That includes me; I do not believe in the Hebrew exodus from Egypt because of scientific evidence, but because of faith. But unlike the left’s belief in manmade carbon emissions leading to unprecedented and calamitous heating of the planet, I admit my belief is a leap of faith. And my belief in the exodus will not ruin Western economies. In other words, my non-scientific belief in the Jews’ exodus is innocuous while the left’s non-scientific beliefs (though shrouded in scientific jargon and promulgated by scientists who put dogma over science) are forced on societies.
One cannot understand the left if one does not appreciate the world of dogmas in which most left-wing thinkers live. What the monastery is to monks, the university and the mainstream media are to the left.
That is the only way to explain the left’s belief that government-run health care, having the government take over so much more of society, raising taxes yet again, expanding government even more and increasing the number of people employed by the government will all be good for America.
Dogma explains why it is useless to point out to the left how the left has economically crippled California, once the most prosperous, most adventurous, most successful “country” in the world (it has an economy that would make it about the seventh largest country in the world). Likewise, it does not matter to blacks what Democrats have done to their cities. As they watch their cities crumble, they will once again vote overwhelmingly for the party that oversaw this destruction.
None of these facts matters because religious-like dogmas are not derived from facts.
In addition to dogma, the left relies for its policies on “hope,” which it often substitutes for analysis. People on the left rarely vote based on reality. They vote based on “hope.” That’s why the word “hope” is so much more significant to the left than to the right. The last two Democratic presidents ran as candidates of “hope.” The right doesn’t have “hope” candidates because conservatives don’t live on hope. They live in reality, meaning that people are not born basically good; that investing men and women with great state power leads inevitably to abuse of that power; that people stop innovating if they are taxed too highly; and that a perfect health care system is understood to be impossible.
And, finally, the left dreams. Robert F. Kennedy often cited the statement first made by George Bernard Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say ‘why?’ I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?’” The left dreams of an America in which health care will constantly improve, health insurance will be given to every American at the same price irrespective of his or her health, doctors will be fairly reimbursed, there will be no waiting lines, and there will not be a dime’s increase in the national debt for all of this.
Frankly, I don’t yearn for what is unseen. Rather, having a realistic understanding of the limitations of human beings, I am in awe of what I already see — the unique American achievement of affluence, liberty, decency, opportunity and medical innovations.
And I see this all being squandered for the sake of left-wing dogma, left-wing hopes and left-wing dreams.

National Political Opinion / Obama vs. Barney Fife. Which is more competent?
« on: September 25, 2009, 05:19:53 PM »
Caroline Glick says Obama showing himself to be a "weak, bumbling politician"    ....
     Since Obama took office, he has been abandoning one US ally after another while seeking to curry favor with one US adversary after another. At every turn, America's allies - from Israel to Honduras, to Columbia, South Korea, and Japan to Poland and the Czech Republic - have reacted with disbelief and horror to his treachery.
     And at every turn, America's adversaries - from Iran to Venezuela to North Korea and Russia - have responded with derision and contempt to his seemingly obsessive attempts to appease them. 
     The horror Obama has instilled in America's friends and the contempt he has evoked from its enemies have not caused him to change course. The fact that his policies throughout the world have already failed to bring a change in the so-called international community's treatment of the US has not led him to reconsider those policies. As many Western Europeans have begun to openly acknowledge, the man they once likened to the messiah is nothing but a politician — and a weak, bungling one at that. Even Britain's Economist is laughing at him. ....

National Political Opinion / Doing business with al Qaeda
« on: August 27, 2009, 05:27:40 PM »
Sign in an INDIANA store front window.....



This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business  in
Whiting, Indiana .  You are probably outraged at the thought of such an 
inflammatory statement.

However, we are a society which holds freedom of Speech as perhaps our
greatest  liberty.

And  after all, it is just a sign.

You may ask, "What kind of business would dare post such a sign?"           

"Owen's  Funeral Home"   
You  gotta love it!!!

God  Bless America

David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine explores the roots of Barack Hussein Obama's philosophies and his unspoken ultimate goals for our nation: the current system's total destruction, to be replaced by a totalitarian regime a la Stalin's USSR. Obama's driving force is none other than '60s radical Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his seminal work to the devil.
Read the first four parts at
Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me

By David Horowitz
  Glenn Beck will be on vacation this week but when he returns on the 24th he has invited me to come to New York to talk to him on camera about Saul Alinsky, the strategy guru of the Obama era. For the Hillary-Soros generation of johnny-come-lately radicals and their ACORN footsoldiers, Alinksy is their Sun-Tzu and his book Rules for Radicals is the field manual for their struggle. I thought while I'm refreshing my acquaintance with this destructive fellow and re-reading his text, I would share my thoughts with readers of the NewsrealBlog serially over the next week.
For this first post, let's just focus on the dedication of the book -- to Satan:
"Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical." (Pause here for second. Now continue): "from all our legends, mythology, and history(and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
So Alinsky begins by telling readers what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. This is something that conservatives have a very hard time understanding. Conservatives in my experience are all together too decent, too civilized to match up adequately, at least in the initital stages of the battle, with their adversaries. They are too prone to give them the benefit of the doubt. Radicals can't really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal and has brought wealth and prosperity to so many. Oh yes they can. That is in fact the essence of what it means to be a radical -- to be willing to destroy the values, structures and institutions that sustain the society we live in. Marx himself famously cited Alinsky's first rebel (using another of his names -- Mephistopheles): "Everything that exists deserves to perish."
This is why ACORN activists for example have such contempt for the election process, why they are so willing to commit fraud. Because just as Lucifer didn't believe in God's kingdom, so the radicals who run ACORN don't believe in the democratic system. To them it's a fraud -- an instrument of the ruling class, or as Alinsky prefers to call it, the Haves. If the electoral system doesn't serve all of us, but is only an instrument of the Haves then election fraud is justified, is a means of creating a system that serves the Have-Nots -- social justice. Until conservatives begin to understand exactly how dishonest radicals are -- dishonest in their core -- it is going to be very hard to defend the system that is under attack. For radicals the noble end -- creating a new heaven on earth -- justifies any means. And if one actually believed it was possible to create heaven on earth who would not willingly destroy any system hitherto created by human beings?
Read it all -- and think about what it means if our nation falls into his trap.
BTW, this also might give a few PCWebbers some insight into people like What_The? who seem to want to trash everybody who even remotely tries to engage in a reasoned discussion of Obama's radical ways. The first defense of leftist-socialist radicals of Alinsky's ilk is to personally trash everybody who disagrees with them -- character assassination instead of reasoned discourse. WT seems to fall easily into that category of disseminator-prevaricator-destroyer.

Why do U.S. Taxpayers Fund Pro-Hamas Propaganda?
By Steven Emerson

With the federal government facing trillions of dollars in red ink, one might think that the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which receives upwards of $30 million a year from the taxpayers, would want to show Congress it wasn't squandering money on propaganda for terrorist groups like Hamas.
But that hasn't happened. Instead, USIP has issued a new report that twists reality to argue that Hamas has moderated and Israel needs to negotiate with the terror organization. The authors of the report are a Jew and Muslim, USIP informs readers: Paul Scham, a visiting professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Maryland College Park, and Osama Abu-Irshaid.
USIP identified Irshaid as a writer who "is completing a Ph.D. thesis on Hamas at Loughboro University, U.K., and is founder and editor in chief of Al-Meezan newspaper, published in Arabic in the United States." But USIP (and Foreign Policy magazine, which has published lengthy excerpts of the report ) neglected to inform readers that Irshaid used to be editor of Al-Zaytounah, the biweekly Arabic-language newspaper published by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).
In the summer of 2007, evidence in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and its officers showed that the IAP played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The committee was created to advance Hamas' agenda in the United States by, among other things, "what it needs of media, money and men and all of that."
More at /

  Paul Greenberg wonders why people go out of their way to be hateful, spiteful, and vindictive. I wonder the same things, sometimes about a few select individuals on this board.
    Bottom line for me: I have a choice today, to be kind, loving and charitable, or to be crabby, bitchy, and critical. The best way to make the choice wisely is to make it while looking in a mirror.
    Enjoy the read!
Life and its discontents

By Paul Greenberg

Good morning. What do you think your day holds in store for you?

Marcus Aurelius knew, and told us — right at the beginning of his Meditations, just after he'd finished thanking all those who had made him what he was: a well-educated, self-disciplined and effective Roman emperor.

"Begin the day," he advised, "by saying to yourself, I shall meet with the busybody, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial."

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus might have expanded his list of noxious types considerably if he'd had e-mail. Think of all the messages he missed from the bitter, the angry, sanctimonious, tedious, humorless and censorious. Plus various other categories of crank, all united by the same urge to tell somebody off — if not an emperor, then at least an editor.

Marcus Aurelius lacked not only e-mail but all the other modern inconveniences, from telephone to television. No wonder he had time to write in solitude even while directing affairs of state and conducting never-ending military campaigns.

There are indeed some advantages to being an emperor, at least one who lived long ago. It turns out that the greatest consolation for lacking some modern technological advances is to be free of some modern technological advances.

How do they get that way, those who seem to live only to trouble others? Marcus Aurelius had a theory about that: "All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil."

But this emperor and sage was not about to snub such types. On the contrary, it was part of his stoic, introspective genius that he could see himself in them, and decide to rise above it.

I remember a matriarch from Virginia who had grown deaf in her old age, but whose every rounded vowel still reflected the Old Dominion's creed of duty and self-control. I once asked her how she managed to be so sociable despite her isolating handicap. "Why," she said, "you just rise above it!"

You just rise above it. There was once a venerable lawyer in Pine Bluff, Ark., named N.J. Gantt. The new editorial writer in town asked Mr. Gantt to check out a particularly acerbic editorial. He soon got a call back from the old gentleman. "There's nothing libelous about the editorial," the older man assured him, "but why would you want to say such things?"

Good question, and one the editorial writer had no answer for. I still don't. It may be perfectly legal to do some things, but that is not a good enough reason to do them.

Mr. Gantt's was the kind of question Marcus Aurelius might have posed. "Whatever is being done," the emperor advised, "accustom yourself as much as possible to inquire, 'Why is this man doing this thing?' But begin with yourself, and examine yourself first."

The other day, an outfit here in Arkansas opposed to the usual definition of marriage as between a man and a woman put out the list of all those who had signed a petition to insert that traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution. Why publicize their names? For no apparent purpose except to harass those who had exercised their constitutional right to petition their government. And to make them a target for retribution.

Circulating such a public record is perfectly legal, and perfectly petty. Like publishing a list of all the citizens in the state who have a concealed-carry permit. That's been done, too. Why do such a thing except to embarrass them for exercising their constitutional right to bear arms?

What turns some of us into the kind of crank who cannot tolerate disagreement? How do they get that way? Here's my theory: They lack some quality that allows them to move graciously through life. So they strike out against those who do not mirror their own every opinion or inclination.

They seem to live in a purely abstract world in which all that counts is their argument with the real one. They are unable simply to disagree; they must quarrel. They seem unable to tolerate the natural differences out there in the world, and are determined to make it conform to their own idea of perfection.

Strangely enough, that same distance from ordinary life may be the one quality most lacking, if not absent, from some of the finest ethical guides, including Marcus Aurelius. They rely on reason, not grace. Or just simple charity. There is something humorless, lifeless, about such books — a remoteness. As if they were preaching an inhuman perfection rather than a little human charity.

It's as if the great emperor had never looked up at the natural world all around him, which at every turn shouts not perfection but grace. And drives out pettiness, leaving no room for self-absorption.

Ever notice how a gray, overcast day will bring out the green, green everywhere against the blue? On such days the outdoors glistens. It's as if all the world were saying: Don't be so hard on others. Or on yourself. Even a gray day, especially a gray day, can bring beauty. How can you be intolerant if you will only … look!

Maybe that is what explains life's malcontents, and even those philosophers who prescribe happiness, but do so only stoically, sadly, dully, through reason rather than revelation. They must never have looked around.


National Political Opinion / Cash for Clunkers: Bonus for Japan!
« on: August 11, 2009, 01:58:54 PM »
Cash for Clunkers: Trade in American; buy foreign
  By Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann
 The only part of the stimulus program that is working, the Cash-for-Clunkers program is, in reality, a subsidy to foreign car companies, proving that Barack Obama is the best president Japan ever had.
   The Department of Transportation reports that the ten leading trade-ins are all American branded cars while six of the top ten new cars purchased — and four of the top five — are foreign. So the United States Senate is about to pass additional funds to subsidize the trade-in of American cars and the purchase of foreign cars.    DOT reports that the following are the ten top trade-ins, all American:
Ten Top Trade-Ins Under Cash for Clunkers
1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van 
And the top ten new car purchases, subsidized by the American taxpayer, are mainly foreign vehicles:

  Top Ten New Car Purchases: Cash for Clunkers
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyndai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

National Political Opinion / Dems want to control our lives
« on: August 04, 2009, 02:17:18 PM »

Utopia versus freedom
By Thomas Sowell |"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."
If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.
Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."
If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and — more important — ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.
     Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. ….
  Read the rest at

By Rick Joyner

         When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement—this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed—it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke—this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.

         I have resolved to always be as generous as I can toward people with opposing views of my own. I do this because I believe it is the mandate of I Corinthians 13 to always believe the best about people, rather than the worst. I know this opens me up to be misled by some, but I consider that a small price to pay to not become cynical. I also do it because I think it is wise to always try and understand the position of my opponents—to be open to consider their positions and not be too rigid or inflexible to change because we all “see in part,” and “know in part.” Because of this, I have been chided for being too generous by giving those I do challenge grace by believing that they had not thought through the consequences of their proposals, or had other good intentioned reasons for doing what they were doing. However, after reading the brief on this health care bill, I don’t see how anyone could not see that there is profound evil and evil intent at work here. I just do not see any way to be any more generous with those who proposed this bill than that. It is that bad.

         This bill is obviously designed to put the authority to determine who lives and dies in America into the hands of government bureaucrats. As outrageous as that seems, it is true—you can read it yourself. It even gives the government access to all of your accounts, and the authority to make withdrawals. I know this is hard to believe, but you can read it yourself.


National Political Opinion / World Jihad = Sum of Local Jihads
« on: July 28, 2009, 03:45:18 PM »
Hugh Fitzgerald:
The worldwide Jihad is simply the sum of all the local Jihads

     The worldwide Jihad is simply the sum of all the local Jihads. Each local Jihad receives automatic support from Muslims worldwide, who are quick to identify, always and everywhere, with other Muslims. For a century and a half the pursuit of Jihad was largely abandoned, not because the doctrine of Jihad had been changed, or had fallen into permanent desuetude, but because Muslims were too weak, vis-a-vis others, and they were fully aware of that weakness. 

    After World War II, the main objects of Jihad were the State of Israel and Kashmir. The former, in particular, received so much attention because, as Bernard Lewis so dryly put it, expressing what we all know to be true, disputes involving Jews were certain to attract attention, not least from antisemites (who found a new, more politically and socially acceptable outlet for their antisemitism, now that Mr. Hitler had temporarily dampened the open delight one could take in it).
    Others who were feeling, often unaware, an intolerable civilisational guilt, found it quite a relief, eventually, to accept the Arab narrative about those terrible Israelis and thus to have the psychic consolation, in the most extreme form of this mental illness, of allowing themselves to believe that it was Jews who were now behaving like Nazis. This was utter nonsense, but what a boost, not least in Germany and other parts of Europe.
    The cult of "Palestinianism" could be tied in -- quite wrongly -- with a hypertrophied sense of embarrassment about anything that might, however implausibly, be linked to European "colonialism." ....
   More at

National Political Opinion / Who's a racist?
« on: July 22, 2009, 04:20:34 PM »
Who's racist?
Obama pressures Israel to stop jews from moving into Arab part of Jerusalem
Reality check
Black president demanding segregation in Jerusalem
By Jeff Jacoby

It just doesn't stop!

National Political Opinion / Left vs. Right: The real difference
« on: July 21, 2009, 02:47:36 PM »
Columnist Dennis Prager explains the difference between the left and right in a very succint, understandable way. Very enlightening.
Americans are beginning to understand the Left 
By Dennis Prager
There is only one good thing about the Obama administration's attempts to nationalize most health care and to begin to control Americans' energy consumption through cap-and-trade: clarity about the left. These attempts are enabling more and more Americans to understand the thinking and therefore the danger of the left.

The left has its first president — with the possible exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — and for the first time controls the Democratic Party and both houses of Congress. In the name of compassion for the sick and the poor and in the name of preventing worldwide environmental catastrophe, it is attempting to remake America. 

In so doing some principals of the left are becoming clearer to more Americans: 
Principal One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth. The left is no more interested in creating wealth than Christians are in creating Muslims or Muslims in creating Christians. The left is interested in redistributing wealth, not creating it. The left spends the wealth that private enterprise and entrepreneurial risk-taking individuals create. 

The left does not perceive that poverty is the human norm and therefore asks, "Why is there poverty?" instead of asking the economic question that matters: Why is there wealth? And the obvious result of the left's disinterest in why wealth is created is that the left does not know how to create it. 

Principal Two: The reason the left asks why there is poverty instead of why there is wealth is that the left's preoccupying ideal is equality — not economic growth. And those who are preoccupied with equality are more troubled by wealth than by poverty. Ask almost anyone on the left — not a liberal, but a leftist like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — which society they consider more desirable, a society in which all its members were equally lower middle class or one in which some were poor, most were middle class, and some were rich (i.e., America today). And whatever they say, in their hearts, the further left they are the more they would prefer the egalitarian society. 

Principal Three: The left everywhere seeks to make as big and powerful a state as possible. It does so because only the state can redistribute society's wealth. And because only a strong and powerful state can impose values on society. The idea of small government, the American ideal since its inception, is the antithesis of the left's ideal. 
The cap-and-trade bill's control of American energy and the "ObamaCare" takeover of American health care will mean an unprecedented expansion of the state. Added to increased taxes and the individual becomes less and less significant as the state looms ever larger. Americans will be left to decide little more than what they do with vacation time — just as Western Europeans do. Other questions are largely left to the state. 

Principal Four: The left imposes its values on others whenever possible and to the extent possible. That is why virtually every totalitarian regime in the 20th century was left-wing. Inherent to all left-wing thought is a totalitarian temptation. People on the left know that not only are their values morally superior to conservative values, but that they themselves are morally superior to conservatives. Thus, for example, the former head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, could say in all seriousness, "In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don't think children ought to go to bed hungry at night." 

Therefore, the morally superior have the right, indeed the duty, to impose their values on the rest of us: what light bulbs we use, what cars we drive, what we may ask a prospective employee, how we may discipline our children, and, of course, how much of our earnings we may keep. 

It is dishonest to argue that the right wants to impose its values to anywhere near the extent the left does. This can be demonstrated to a fifth-grader: Who wants more power — those who want to govern a big state or those who want to govern a small state? 

The president of the United States and the much of the Democratic Party embody these left-wing principals. Right now, America's only hope of staying American rather than becoming European lies in making these principals as clear as possible to as many Americans as possible. The left is so giddy with power right now, we actually have a chance.

Pages: 1 2 3 »