Is Progressive Regressive?

Now for the sake of this discussion, I sat up one night and wondered why so many of my friends have abandon the term “liberal” and prefer to use the term “Progressive”. Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame said he was proud to be Liberal and I have heard this many times coming from others as well.

It confuse me because one of my friends once gave me a long list of what he considers Progressive polices, which corresponds with the same liberal polices. Nothing change other than the name. So why the change? Well there is a political motive behind this. There is a move over the years to protraye the democrat party and the polices behind it as more moderate than the liberal world behind it.

The Republicans stupidly have given ground to the Democrats by acting more liberal than conservative, through not living up to the very values Reagan and many other conservatives believe. From monstrous budgets to over spending on nearly every pet project around. This was the very reason the democrats won control of the congress in 2004. Literary give control to nut jobs like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

Suddenly the democrats acted more conservative than the Republicans. Out conservative the conservatives.
Yet not having to prove a Damm thing since their spending programs were just as bad and just as wild as Republicans.

In comes jumping in the newer title of being “Progressive” rather than liberal. A newer version of the same old story.
Going from renewable fuels to unionzation, Progressives could be called a political oxymoron since none of the so-call progressive inatitives are in actually liberal.
Each inatitionive would in effective strip people rights, some would even turned back the clock on including re-instituting Traiffs. It would prevent real competation in the market place and are trade deficits with other countries would go higher than what we currently have.

Our bank notes with other countries would increasing be withdrawn and create more umemployment. Strong unionization would in effect create more umemployment, our so-called crumbling infrastructure would continue to crumb since local and state governments would not have the money.

Federal deficits would run higher than what we currently have and with even higher cost on future so-called progressive programs tax reveune would botton out.

Trying to tax the rich and corporations would just create more umemployment since companies would not expand.

What Liberals and Progressives have never learned is simple and easy to understand when government taxes people suffer and in doing so there isn’t Progression, it is Regression.

One of my friends wrote the following These programs would:

“create a stable, prosperous middle class like we had before Reaganomics.”

Sadly Reaganomics was a progressive moment leading from the 80’s into the 90’s If a policy moves them closer to those two goals, they will find a reason to advocate it, regardless of how harmful the consequences of that policy may be.

Even the belief behind it is anything but regressive, It advocates a return to what they consider the good ole days of can I say liberalism.

Progressive moments promote individual rights, self determination and freedom and yet the progressives in the current moment wants to force unionization, universal healthcare, abortion without parental notification and restriction on trade. all of which is regressive. Is this so-called progressive moment freedom, or a danger to Freedom as we know it?

Blagojevich-Obama Scandal

We are now engage in what would consider one of th most diasterous scandels in democrat history and the question on everyones minds is not wheather the Illinois Governor commited a crime, but what did the President Elect know and when did he know it.

The President Elect comes from the wheeling and dealing of Chicago corruption, the only question is how much does his royal highness is evolved. The clean Boy Scout imagine that Obama will not fly as far as this blogger is concered and I like to see more of his evolvement investigated, before Obama raises his hand on Jan. 20th, and of course it would not be.

Obama briefly addressed the media, “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening. It’s a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment.”

This actually doesn’t make any sense what so ever. He either dosen’t know anything or he isn’t even aware how sad a day it really is for IIlinois? Is that not confusing to many?

When the criminal complaint was announced by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, he stated that “there is no allegation in the complaint that the president-elect was aware of it and that is all I can say!”

However according to ABCNews.com.
The 76-page criminal complaint refers to the president-elect and his representatives at least 40 times, however.
Item No. 99 in the document states that Blagojevich and Harris spoke on Nov. 7 with “Adviser B,” a Washington, D.C.-based consultant presumably working on behalf of the Obama transition team.

So we are to understand that Blagojevich indicated to many that that he would appoint a person the complaint identifies only as “Senate Candidate 1” -- presumably a candidate preferred by the Obama administration, which seem to be Valerie Jarrett, and in return for Blagojevich being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by Obama.

And of course there is Jessie Jackson Jr. who seems to be the number 5 pick by the corrupt governor and some of the favorites to replace Obama in the Senate.

During the conversations with Obama’s representatives, Blagojevich repeatedly made it clear he would not agree to name “Senate Candidate 1” to fill the position without a quid pro quo from the White House, if only indirectly, according to the complaint.

Blagojevich stated he wanted to make $250,000 to $300,000 annually.
The criminal complaint indicates Blagojevich and his staff were confident they could exact something from at least one candidate for the seat which some indicate is Jessie Jackson Jr.

Based on the complaint, it remains unclear whether any close Obama associate knew that Blagojevich was seeking monetary gain in return for the Senate appointment, but ceratinly it would seem that enough knew this and since they did not report it in a timely way could raise serious legal issues for the Obama Transition team.

If nothing else, the complaints represent an embarrassment to Obama given his support for Blagojevich’s gubernatorial reelection bid.

RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan released a statement calling Obama’s reaction to the arrests “insufficient at best.”
He added, “Given the President-elect’s history of supporting and advising Gov. Blagojevich, he has a responsibility to speak out and fully address the issue.”

However some would also indicate that when Obama takes office he would fire all 93 US Attorneys - claiming he wanted a clean slate.


This could afford Obama a oppotunity to sweep this scandal under the rug and since Blagojevich have had aclose relationship it remain to be told it Obama will axe Fitzgerald for cover? I do not believe Obama is as slick as Bill Clinton. BUt we are looking at a part of the corrupt Chicago Machine.

What seems to be a problem for Obama is his relationship with Blagojevich when he was running for Governor. How do you lie and say your contact is not extensive and be one of the contributors to his Blagojevich campaign in 2002?

Rahm Emanuel says that he, Obama and others "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. Obama adviser David Axelrod worked for Blagojevich in his races for Congress

ABC's Jake Tapper reported that Obama told the crowd, "We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Wll knowing the liberal or so-called Progressive Press we all can be sure that this would not be investigated before Jan. 20th... We always have Fox News!

Gov. Patterson: Saturday Night live Skip

I sorry, but I did enjoy this skip yesterday. SNL They doesn't owe anyone an apology. This is the nature of the show. Patterson's getting upset at this skit because it's making fun of his "disability" (he's not completely blind, anyway) and meanwhile he cuts the funding for the budget of the developmentally disabled & the mentally ill. What's worse than making fun of a disability is taking away funding that aids in their empowerment and independence. Blind in more ways than one.

Fellow Business Executives:

Editors Note: I received this from a friend and he thought it was quite fair, so what do you think?

As the CFO of this company of 140 employees, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that Clients will have to see an increase of about 8% in our fees. But since we cannot increase our fees right now, due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled through our parking lot and found 6 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I'm giving it to them.

Have a nice day.

Are Conservatives Nazis?

Editors Note:
Many years ago I wrote this piece concerning the poor excuse that some liberals use to calling conservatives, neocons, comparing us with Nazis. As you can seem that has been a very poor excuse and outright lie. The sad thing is must of the people who claim that are themselves Representative of National socialist than any conservative. So here goes:


Back in August 1996 when In the last two weeks of February, conservatives were shocked to see the onslaught the media mounted against Pat Buchanan and his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Even with all the distortion that conservatives have come to expect from the liberal biases of the newspaper and Television, the attacks on Buchanan seemed to go well beyond what most could remember or imagine.

Major newspapers, magazines, and columnists all piled on Buchanan to insinuate or claim outright that he is a "fascist," an "extremist," a "Nazi," a "racist," an "anti-Semite," a "xenophobe," a "sexist," a "homophobe," and a "nativist," not to mention half a dozen other epithets typical of left-wing demonology.


Many insisted on calling Conservatives, Nazis who they disagree with and it’s not just some that do it! Linda Ronstadt, who said of the 2004 election, ''Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers.'' And then there is Harry Belafonte who to used the same Hitler analogy when asked what impact prominent blacks such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had on the Bush administration's relations with minorities.

"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," Belafonte said


1 A Director of Holocaust studies would describes This is Incorrect: "The fact is that there were no Jews in Hitler's hierarchy; the policies of America and Israel are not similar to those of Hitler; and African-American conservatives are not comparable to Nazis."

And so many other personalities like David Hoffman, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), novelist/priest Andrew Greeley, former Vice-President Al Gore, and multi-billionaire anti-American George Soros (founder of MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups) have all destroyed their own arguments by invoking Nazi comparisons, as have many other politicians, artists, pundits, and garden-variety liberals.

That right, you all are Nazis, capital N with a.z.i.s. at the end, a pet insult that many liberals use for people too stupid to whole- hardheartedly embrace the liberal or progressive nightmare of policies. Why, they must all be mind-controlled. They must all be... Nazis!

Their is even a slur to describe Conservatives as “Neo-con”, my guess with this term they are using Nazis and conservatives in the same breath. This reaction comes from the conservatives use of the “liberal” a title conservatives use for them. The liberal term has become such a problem for the democrat party that they started to run away from it for a time. The “Neo con” label is something liberals would believe that conservatives would run away in the same fashion. They think that the public would embrace the title and compare conservatives with Nazis.

So Many liberals like to taunt conservatives with the term Nazi without understanding what it really means, the same way a three-year-old will endlessly repeat any four-letter words someone might happen to drop in front of him or her. The more you say, ''Don't say that; it's a bad word'' the more likely you are to hear it.

The Nazi slander is so over-abused that there's even a rule concerning it on the Internet, called Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Sooner or later, someone's going to resurrect the Nazis... and whoever does so is generally understood to have lost the argument.

Comparing someone to a Nazi involves far more of an emotional appeal than a factual argument, unless the person is, in fact, a card-carrying Nazi. If you're not actually discussing genocide and brutal world domination, the Nazi comparison is just plain offensive. What confuses most people is its frequent application to pretty much anybody to the ideological right of Lenin.

In fact, the Nazis were actually socialists by nature, not capitalists. In a 1927 speech, Hitler said, ''We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.''

The word ''Nazi'' is short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler came to power by turning the unemployed, the working class, and the academic elitists against the rather conservative German republic. In fact, once he gain power, anyone who questioned his policies was branded a ''conservative reactionary'' by the state press.

In a widely distributed 1932 pamphlet, Joseph Goebbels addressed the question of Socialism. ''We are socialists,'' he wrote, ''because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.''

The Nazi Party platform contained 25 demands, adopted in 1920 and essentially unaltered at the time Hitler took power. Many of those socialist demands resonate far better with modern-day American liberals than Conservatives. Consider the following examples:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Does this sound more akin to the liberal belief that the government is responsible for job losses or gains, or the conservative position that jobs are created by private enterprise (though helped or hindered by current economic policies)? Does it sound like a demand for welfare?

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

This is aimed directly at landlords and large business owners. It hardly seems likely that capitalists and conservatives would insist that no one receive any money unless he personally earn it by doing the actual work themselves.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

If that doesn't sound like today's standard liberal hate speech against Halliburton, nothing ever will.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Nationalization of industries is hardly in line with the conservative aim of privatization of industries. It's liberals, in general, who want to nationalize industries (starting with healthcare).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Wealth redistribution? Does that sound like a particularly right-wing ideal?

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Republicans and conservatives are accused of wanting to halt Medicare and steal Social Security in every election cycle, so this demand for expansion could hardly be a part of any conservative agenda.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.

Conservatives, who favor more limited government with lower taxes (in order to restrict its growth), would directly oppose a strong central government with unlimited authority (possibly resisting with guns, which German citizens first had to register, then surrender).

Despite the historical facts, liberals frequently insist on equating conservatives and Republicans to Nazis. This is only done to stir up feelings of hate, of course. If Democrats want to know why they keep losing elections, it's because they allow the left-wing politics of hatred to be their public face. Until the Democrats relegate liberals to the minority fringe where they belong, we will continue to see the country slide towards a one-party system, which would be detrimental to us all.

Editors note: I do believe that in someways Obama will have to get as far away from the Left wing reactionaries as possible.

Liberal (Progressive) Fascism: A Review

A new book by Jonah Goldberg what defines Liberalism and the history of it. In my course of Studies I found my Progressive coworkers here at the University and some friends trying to change the term for Liberal for a newer term as Progressives. The thinking I suppose is that in most American minds the words strike fear, most believe rightly, that it represents Higher taxes, a cowardice in the face of our enemies in this country. They have even try to redefine what conservatives are, But that is for another column.

Goldberg, the editor-at-large for National Review Online, argues in his book that fascism under Benito Mussolini and Nazism and even under Adolf Hitler came from the same intellectual source as Progressives, the birth-mother of American liberalism. The term “liberal fascism” comes from a speech made by author H. G. Wells when he told a group of Young Liberals at Oxford that Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”

However true, you may want to note that some liberals in the want to return to their roots and to be call "Progressives" Like some of my educated friends who see road blocks in using the term liberal. The new version with the old framework, very much similar to the Obama administration who use the word "Change" and find out that the same discredited Clinton administration officials willing be running the show, including Hillary herself.


Many people have called me a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, and yet Goldberg claims that the accurate definition and history of fascism, a word which he claims is commonly misused. In the Book the author writes:

“Many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror.....Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the square like seditious pamphleteers.”

It’s not at all, that we don’t believe them when they claim superiority, it’s just we see so many contradictions when they used it.

Proposition 8 was a perfect example of modern day progressive behavior run a mock. Progressive Gays, lost the election the second time around. They felt it necessary to find a group to protest against, so who did choose to complaint about the lost of the election. A religious group that only represents 2 percent of California’s population.

That right, the Mormons! They picketed the temples, they picketed Mormon businesses and then they file sue about the church in courts and want to strip the church of it’s tax exempt status. They even came up with a list of people who donated money to promote the proposition and post it on the Internet to I suppose threaten them. On that very list they indemnified those who were Mormon and those who were not. How very Nazi them to do that!! What is sad and even embarrassing is that they the LDS Church did not spend one dine to defeat the proposition, not one penny.

Does this not remind you of the Nazi’s of the mid 20th century who claim the Jews were the evils of the world and did the same thing. However, Mormons are use to this, being one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the United States. Who would suspect liberal Progressives would be the storm troopers of the 21st century?

Goldberg attributes this side of fascism to American liberalism would not be associated with the works of George Orwell or the racism and genocide of the Holocaust.

It is much less brutal a kinda “smiley-face fascism,” as he puts it. Goldberg claims that some “Progressives hold very similar views to the many Regine's of the past, and everyone is taken care of. This seems to be base n the perfectibility of the people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being.


It seems that the Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods and animal rights and promoted anti smoking and public health drives.

“The Nazi war on smoking would make Michael Bloomberg’s heart jump,” Goldberg jokingly said
According to Goldberg, fascism has a long history in American politics, spanning back to President Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and it seems that some fascist tendencies were within the presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Each tried to create an “all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing” state. His book traces more recent signs of fascist ideology in the economic ideas of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore. So how did fascism become associated with the political right? Goldberg asserts that this stems from the propaganda surrounding Marxism. In the 1920s, fascist ideas were popular among the American left as many saw Italian Fascism as a “worthwhile experiment.”


The German version that emerged in the 1930s had considerably less appeal. “The American left essentially picked a different team—the Red team,” Goldberg writes, “and as such swore fealty to communist talking points about fascism.”

At the same time, Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, found it beneficial to label all ideas which he did not agree with as fascist; this included socialists who were disloyal to Moscow and, of course, the political right. Those loyal to his social doctrine also began to see communism and fascism on opposite ends when, as Goldberg asserts, both are in fact socialist in nature. Hence the abbreviation to “Nazis” is National Socialist Party.

Goldberg asserts that Liberal Fascism is different from fascism of the past because today’s left are pacifists rather than militarists; their plan is to nanny, not to bully. Still, he warns that this method can be just as politically hazardous.

“Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged,” Goldberg concluded...”

It is not surprising however, that the many in the progressive fascism were sadden when the fascist Regine of Saddam Hussien was removed by those evil Americans or come to the defense of a fascist like Hugo Chavez by some in the progressives or liberals. Why they support such regimes is mind blowing!

Liberal fascism is a interesting read, What I have learn from it is sitting in my friend’s car and listening to it on the I-pod.

My close Friend thinks, I wasn’t listening, but it sure be nice if he would simply give me the book as a Christmas Present and let me read it rather than let me digest it in a car going 40 miles a hour. Hint Hint!!!

Shutting Up Churches

A long standing approach by liberals or so-called progressives is to use labels, and yet they are the ones that so often complain about the use of them. In the case of the Mormon church being involved in politics they often say something like the following:

“If the Mormon church or any other church wants to be involved in politics then they should give up their tax exempt status.”

Or they, the liberals want to take that tax exempt status away from the church in order to shut people up. In other words they threaten the church, “to be seen and not heard.” Politically castrating the churches role in society. A common tactic use in Europe and other socialist countries.

Liberals have a habit of claiming that a church does not have a right to say anything on a Moral issue once it becomes a political one. Marriage is a example of this. Not long ago, Gays would not even attempt to enter a marriage believing that the institution was the root cause of so much pain to them.

The whole make up of these types of marriages have lend themselves to abuse of the extended family or children involved in the relationships either adopted or whatever. It is a disaster waiting to happen, with complications that far out way heterosexual marriages.

One blogger indicated that something I would assume maybe right and that is the ultimate ending of marriage as a recognizable entity in California and most states, over the fact that the people of California have spoken.

This would in most aspects end not only marriage, but also divorces or for that matter child support. leaving it to the State to raise our children and co-opting marital and parental responsibility. This is all for the sake of making a institution between a man and a woman equal to all or what they think is equal?

For those who think this is simple by just extending the definition, have another thing coming. For those who feel the Mormon church or any church involved would be solved if tax exempt status was taken away have another bag of worms to be opened.

So if the Mormon church lost their tax exempted status they would in affect become a mouth piece for the state, a status where speech could be dictated under IRS laws and government interference.

What wold occur under this situations is preaching from the government. Closing down the church would become easy and like businesses a new more respectable “governmental” Church President wold become likely. Naturally the Mormon church is not going to stop talking about issues that effect the members belonging to it, and no amount of demonstrating would alter what it as a church feels is a Moral issue. This of course the same reasoning they are using for abortion.

Of course, many use the old tired red herring in the Mormon church’s past history with polygamy and of course Liberals excuse for the destruction of marriage on the whole. It is another interesting fact that Polygamy on the was never Gay. Even if those who use the excuse as a reason for alternative marriage it is in essence a silly argument and without merit since the Mormon Church gave up the practice more than a hundred years ago. The whole concept of shutting up a church on moral issues is amazing to me.

Churches on the whole expose Slavery as a Moral wrong, I realized some would jump onto this statement as a excuse for Gay marriage issue, but in this case the church is protecting a Moral issue in the same matter as it did when dealing with slavery.

For those who claim that gay marriage should find protection under the United States Constitution need to attend school to understand what is protected under this document.

Marriage, between a man and a woman, is protected as a fundamental right, having its foundation in both the history and traditions of this great nation. Homosexuality, however, has no such foundation. To the contrary, this conduct has a long history of being condemned and punished.

As such, it is not afforded the same protection as heterosexual marriage. This was why interracial marriage, although previously condemned, was legalized. Those who sought to be married to persons of other races still sought to enter this institution as a man and a woman.

Also, the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment does not protect against all forms of discrimination. The discrimination must come from the state government, or someone empowered to act by the state, and the discrimination usually is against a protected class. This includes race, national origin, gender, disability, etc. Homosexuals are not a protected class. and do not qualify for protection as such.

Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts!

Why Anti-Prop 8 Activists are beating up on the Mormons

Is it me, or is it a strange world we are living in when some one's Beliefs are mock because one take a moral stand or goes against the so-called liberal establishment in this country. This is what happen when people banded together to defeat the California Supreme Court decision to change the definition of what constitutes marriage, For five thousand years the definition of marriage was a Union between Man and woman and yet we were suppose to drop all for the new definition?
'

What the Gay community fail to realized when it came to pushing many would not negotiate on this issue to those willing to coop marriage for their own lifestyle choice. So when some in the Gay community decided to force the issue with the courts they should have realized that many would be willing to push back.

One being Catholic Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco who wrote LDS President Thomas S. Monson enlisting LDS Church support for the amendment to the California Constitution. Archbishop Niederauer had a good relationship with LDS leaders developed during his 11 years as bishop of Salt Lake City, and Latter-day Saints enthusiastically jumped on board.

The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation. California LDS leaders prompted members to sign up as volunteers, raised money, pass out brochures and distributed lawn signs and bumper stickers. Bishops have devoted whole Sunday school classes and the weekly Relief Society and priesthood meetings to outlining arguments against same-sex marriage. Some have pointedly asked members for hefty financial donations and in that the members donated the some of 20 million to win support for the amendment. they supported.

Now of course the Gay community have decided that Mormons are their arch ememy and are to say the lease a little bit upset they decide to pick on the Mormons! So this group of infantile Gay (so-called) rights (marginalized) groups decide that the big bad Mormons should be picketed. Is this not unbelievable?

So lets look at the reason the Anti- Prop 8 people lost. In some cases I really think that the Anti 8 groups thought they had it in the bag when looking at the exit Polls which on the whole tend to be dicey.

But according to the Exit Polls, the difference in Proposition 8's passage was two reasons.

First, 70% of black voters supported it. There were 10,357,002 votes case on Prop 8. The winning margin was 492,830 votes. And they were 10% of the electorate. So that means there were 1,035,700 votes cast by black voters. That right there provided a difference of 414,280 votes.

If I'm doing my math right and I tend to be dyslexic in that area, that is 84% of the winning margin.
Another group is Hispanic voters who also supported Proposition 8.

The second group that strongly supported Prop 8 appear to be Married people with children under the age of 18. Married people were 62% of the vote and voted 60-40 in favor; people with children under the age of 18 were 40% of the electorate and voted 64-36 in favor. 31 percent identified themselves as "Married with Children" and they voted 68-32 in support.

So if those protesters who went out and demos rated at the LA Mormon Temple really wanted to wanted to vent their outrage was in a word it was misplace? It seems to me that maybe just maybe Just maybe they should go out to their local black church and call them "bigots" and chant "shame on you." Could that be not something a liberal Gay rights activist would advise against or even not to politically correct, would it?

This iwas utterly shameful behavior. I understand why the losers on Proposition 8 are frustrated. But scapegoating the Mormons simply because it is politically-correct to single them out is really over the line. The sorts of Mormon-bashing advertisements that were being run by the anti-Prop 8 groups.

The Marta of Gay lifestyle and a re definition of "tolerance" of those who don't agree with you. I hope that these folks calm down and think a little about whether this is the best way of advancing their cause.

Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage, this is a question on which thoughtful people of goodwill can and do disagree. It is a perfectly reasonable and good-faith position to believe that marriage is a unique institution formed around child rearing.

And to see same-sex relationships as fundamentally a bilateral partnership between two adults that can be governed by legal institutions like civil unions that create and preserve rights and obligations between two adults and to give the opportunity to form a long-lasting mutually-supportive loving bond without it being centered on the fundamental organizational principle of child rearing.

And it is significant that married people with children apparently simply see this issue differently from everyone else--I speak from experience that marriage and children simply can and should change you as a person and your worldview. Maybe one disagrees with this argument or these people. But it is a perfectly compassionate and coherent position and it simply is not necessarily bigotry or gay-bashing to believe that. Barack Obama says he is against same-sex marriage--does that make him a bigot?
That's not to say that some anti-gay bigots voted for Prop 8. But apparently the pro-8 side does not have a monopoly on bigotry.

Something Dear to My Heart

For me, Cystic Fibrosis and SIDS are ones very dear to my heart, since I lost two people I loved and miss very much. Recent progress has been made on Cystic Fibrosis. 2008 has been a landmark year for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Today, we have see more potential new therapies in the works that could extend the lives of those with CF than at any time in history:
Denufosol moved into Phase 3 clinical trials. Initial results after a 24-week period show that patients who took this inhaled therapy had significantly improved lung function over those who took the placebo.
The first oral drug to address the basic defect in CF moved into Phase 2 clinical trials this year. Early results show that not only is VX-770 improving the patients’ lung function, it lowered the amount of salt in their sweat, a sign that it may address the root cause of CF.
PTC124, a second therapy addressing the basic defect, also moved into Phase 2 clinical trials. In early studies, this oral drug therapy has shown that it is decreasing the frequency of CF patients’ cough.
The Foundation began undertaking its most significant efforts yet to enhance the care for the growing adult CF population through our new Program for Adult Care Excellence (PACE.)

These are all great milestones and would not have been possible without the support of generous people. While these developments are significant, the mission is not yet completed. To continue this amazing progress and see the mission truly accomplished, additional funding is needed.
Your help is needed so we can continue taking these great strides Contact the CF foundation to help cure this disease by your donation..

Banning Water? Penn and Teller Explains

As can see, this is the same well inform People who elected Obama!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Obama 2008 version of Jimmy Carter?

Will Barak Obama become the New Jimmy Carter? Well after watching the Stock Market drop 1600 points since his election I think we are going in that direction, and the poor man hasn’t even taken office yet.

As we look ahead for the new Obama Presidential term we must take a look back in history and so we have not forgotten what happen in the late 1970’s when a radical liberals took over the White House.

If we see a repeat of the Carter years today with Barak Obama we will have lots more to worry about than the Banking Crisis.
Jimmy Carter himself tried to rank President Bush as the worst president ever wouldn’t be so bad, if it weren’t so wrong.

The irony, of it all is some of the very program Obama wants to used has been already try by the peanut farmer from Plains, Ga. Carter shares that distinction with a number of other presidential mismanagers of our nation’s economy and we can see the past age of time coming to Obama’s future.


Obama’s change rhetoric is very simular to Carter and if we think about it, nothing Obama has said is really change other than Grand illusions and Dreams. What the record shows is Carter inherited a bad economy and made it worse which seems to be a pattern here when it comes to the New President.

The Man that had real change was Ronald Reagan came in and changed course But here is what stood out in Carter’s last year in Office in 1980 and subsequent periods:

Carter: Interest rate, 21%. Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%. The so-called “Misery Index,” which Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election, 20.5%.


Bush today: Interest rate, 4.0 %. Inflation, 4.9%. Unemployment, 6.5 %. Misery Index, 8.09%.


It’s not even close and yet we want to change to Obama from Bush to where? Where exactly would Obama lead us?

The only question is: Why did things get so bad under Carter and what is the possiblities of it happens to Obama? Jimmy Carter made mistake after mistake, blinded by the leftist rhetoric his party adopted in ’72 Democratic Convention, when the so-called New Left seized control, Just as the Newer have done the same thing with groups like Move-on.org and the Daily Kos.

Carter adopted the theory that there was a reverse “trade-off” between inflation and unemployment, a idea that proved wrong. So in the 70’s the U.S. became mired in “stagflation,” and with both inflation and unemployment rising sharply.
What happen was that things grew far worse, and Carter boosted government spending and yet we are doing exactly that in 2008 -09.

Carter would blame the American people.

“I think it’s inevitable that there will be a lower standard of living than what everybody had always anticipated,”
he told advisers in 1979.

“The only trend is downward. But it’s impossible to get people to face up to this.”


Those remarks were followed by his now-famous “malaise” speech in which he unveiled six proposals — including import quotas, windfall profits taxes and increased spending on alternative fuels — to combat higher oil prices charged by OPEC.

Does anyone see any simulaties? Carter propose no tax cuts. Nothing about finding more energy. In short, he told Americans to consume less, but pay more.

Come on folks, you must seem some simulaties? Carter would say that: “We have learned that ‘more’ is not necessarily ‘better,’ and that even our great nation has its recognized limits,” , borrowing heavily from the “limits to growth” movement that swept liberal intellectual circles in the ’70s.

Along with so many other problems such as support the Shah of Iran led to a takeover of that oil-rich republic by fundamentalist Muslims, and a second Mideast oil shock hammered the economy and pushed inflation to new highs.

Public anger growing and his own polls lagging, Carter started wearing sweaters and encouraging us to turn down the thermostat. But his big spending didn’t work along with his forgien policy, thos e sweaer couldn’t keep public dislike for him under control.

So when Carter left the budget deficit was 12 times Larger than the one President Nixon left, and would gave him a serious public relations problem.
On this score, Carter might have escaped his own malaise if he had cut taxes to get the economy going again.

What we are seeing here is a real repeat of history and if Obama followers that forumla we will see it again. The liberals in this country have not learn from history. They keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Durning the campaign Obama promise that 95 percent of taxpayers would not pay taxes! A promise that Obama cannot posssibly keep and one that can leave us in the same mess we had when Carter left us and in some cases we are still suffering from Democratic liberal socialism.

Lets remember one last statistic: When Reagan left Office we had:
The Interest rate, 9%. Inflation, 4.1%. Unemployment, 5.5%. Misery Index, 9.6%.

Well folks here we go again!

Stupid things Liberals Say and Do!

Sometime as always people say th darnest things, so I decided to list them:

Al Gore who invented the Interent claims that the internet will say the World Click here

Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for 'seance' crack... Click here

NYC To Toll Every Major Bridge Into Manhattan... Exactly how will this improve tourism in New York? Click here

For Inaugural, Obama Faithful Say It's Washington or Bust1 BUST IS A VERY GOOD WORD FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, Click Here

A NIckel for Every bag in New York. Click here

The Intellectual Dishonesty of Liberalism: Part One

Recently, a friend of mine was comparing modern day socialism with what seems to be essential public works projects that most cities perform everyday.

What he was postulating that since local government already
socialized some government functions we don't ever need to worry about socializing more?

However, Illogical this statement seems to be, it represent the current state of liberalism today and it also represents a danger to what some Americans would understand the functions of government.

The argument is in it self a entirely ad Hominem, ridiculing those that rightly worry about become more socialistic. The underling belief is that we are not being fair to society if we do not believe in adding to a already big government.

Comparing Police, Fire and education to say health care is in itself like comparing apples and oranges as the old saying goes, it is a sophomoric argument with really no merit to it.


I remember this quote at Brigham Young University Idaho when I was taking economics:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to slavery!

Republics degenerates to dictatorships by demanding government does everything or doesn't do enough. Finding excuses why a Government should do something doesn’t in anyway mean it should. To compare one form of Government to another is it itself intellectual dishonest!

Can Obama become a Hugo Chavez?

Thoughtout the campaign Brarak Obama has use race as a crutch to explain everything from Rev. Wright to Bill Ayers away. He told a crowned audience that people the Republicans, or conservatives would attack him because of his color or even his name.

The Race issue is alive and well and it will be used again and again to explained away his future failings! Where any other candidate may not be able to use this excuse Obama will use it whenever he came. If you demean him in the same matter that you saw against Bush , you will be label a racist as it seems he did just recently when he kick three reporters off his plane.
As we go alone the race issue will become more of a issue to prevent other news outlets from having access to Obama or the White House in general. We could see Fox News reporters label as Racist just because they criticizes the Obama Administration on the very issues he wants to avoid talking about. Anything wold become a racist issue from energy to talking to dictators such as Hugo Chavez.

Obama could become so craze by bad press that his so called civilian police force could become a reality. Who knows what he would actually used the force against and why? Liberals would be then force to defend his actions as something need to protect the President.

There is allot of uncertainly envolved with this President. His actions durning the campaign are suspect as well as his actions in the future.

Be careful what you “say” maybe become watch word in our open society. Anyone that would critized this man will in all likeihood be label a racist.

Stocks fall as investors ponder Obama presidency

Could we see more of this in the Obama Presidency click here

2010- 2012 Elections Has Started Today

We cannot help, but to realized that our system has work. Our republic will survive. Many Republican heads will fall. The fact is this should be considered a happy day for us. We now can say that the moderate wing of the Republican party has fail. That Rockerfeller wing has lost power for generations to come.

The reasons we lost is simple and that is that we left the conservative Reagan beliefs behind. McCain try to befriend the Democrats and even in his concession speech, he again pledge to be Bi partisan. We as Republicans need to understand that nothing is going to make a liberal socialist cooperate with us. Fat chance!

Their is a Silver lining to this and that is we Conservatives have take our party back despite even the liberal Republicans that remain in it. We need to get the likes of John McCain to realized their Moderate views do not work anymore. Cooperation with these Socialist is and should remain taboo. Returning to our roots as Reagan Republicans is necessary and not letting the liberals coop Reaganomics is essential. We fail when Obama tried to align himself with Reagan when it came to tax policy.

Oh we may as conservatives pray for our great nation, but the people have spoken. Now the lesion has to be taught. This lesson will be hard and some people will be killed because the actions of these socialist.

We are about to embark on a four year journey with a President who is the most unqualified to be president we have had since Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. This administration will have a learning curve the likes of no other administration in our history will have and one we need to face up too.

I do not want to be mad about the in coming liberal that is about to enter office, but as American we are going to have to back him when it comes to secuity or at least give him a chance to find out how wrong he is. Not in a sense of his polices, but in a sense that he is the President. He maybe not our President, but since we live in a Constitutional Republic we Will need to support the office and not the man.

President Elect Barak Obama represents contradictions, by the thousands. We all know that his 95 percent tax claim is a folly. We also will know that higher Unemployment is in out future. He will realized that himself. If he doesn’t come thought with that promises and if he stops and backs off his promises, we will have a Republican President in 2012.

What we need to do is pray for our safety as a country and hope for the best. We are way overdue for a terrorist attack in this country and how he reacts to that attack is going to determine the direction of this country. If he attacks Pakistan as he promise, we will be in a world of hurt.

We will need to become the loyal opposition. We will need to fight socialize health care, Immigration reform, Taxation and the lack of a energy policy etc.

The 2010-2012 Elections have started today and it will be come necessary to rebuild the Republican party. Obama is the accidental President. Change should become our platform slogan starting today. Real change is not however a slogan it's a solutions the liberal socialist in this country do not have. Republican goals will be the return of the House and Senate to our hands to stop and reverse this mess that's coming.

The American people will realized as the days go along that their food prices will raised, their Gas lines will form at the service stations, and then and then only then will they discover the mistake they've made. Nothing is going to make them change their minds without hard times and the hard ones are coming. Suffering is good for he soul and we as a country will suffer under this very socialist liberal.

Predictions for a Obama Presidency

Tomorrow's elections is coming and a number of my co-authors and myself have come up with some predictions. Some may come True, other may not, But the goals of this socialist and the cronies behind him will try. If you would like to add. please write and tell us at Beaumiers@yahoo.com. Then we can in future compare notes and see which ones came true!

1) The Fairness Doctrine

One of the first things Obama and Democratic Congress will try to established. Censorship of the Conservative Talk Radio Since the Liberals try with their version of Air (Head) America stations which has fail.

2) The Fairness Doctrine for Cable and satellite Broadcasters

If they succeed in trying to stop talk radio, their next target has to be Fox News and other broadcasters!

3) Destroy Conservative Blogs

Destroying Conservative Blogs through regulations requiring a fairness doctrine in the World Wide web and Internet..

4) Establishment of a Propaganda Ministry for the Obama Presidency


Grit TV a Liberal Program appearing on So-Called Free Speech Television predicted this one. They believe that they would need some agency to decimate policy to the new media. In other words a Propaganda Ministry!

5) A Civilian National Security Force?
See video:



Here comes the Brown shirts, maybe under the direction of the Louis Farrakhan?

6) Higher Taxes on the rich equals Higher Unemployment and higher Prices!
Pretty easy to understand.

7) Major Terrorist attack!

That test his Vice President predicted.

8) Higher fuel bills!

Cost of Obama not having a energy policy start to effect the economy. Oil Prices hits five dollars and higher a gallon.. Rolling brown outs occurs. Obama blames energy and oil companies. Tries to blame the Republicans. Liberal Newspapers and television does the same with no success.

9) Obama tries to give amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens

10) Congress cuts Military spending while troops are overseas!


More predictions will come as tomorrow develops. All these are pretty reasonable and most likely will occur. Liberal fascism has no choice but to establish these polices for the so-called good of our country. Stay tune folks we going o have a wild ride. Pray a upset will occur!

A Message from Joe the Plumber

Does that not say it all?

Most Frightening Thing!

I Though Jason was bad, and then I thought Willard was bad, but now the most frightening thing coming around is, YES, we all know, the election this Tuesday.. I have come to conclusion that I am going to find a nice movie, and some popcorn and ignore the election day. My advice to everyone is to curl up with a book, a movie or go camping.
This maybe be your last chance if you know what best for you.And if all else fails I have have some advice for you concerning some activities for you.

Miniature Golf: Nothing more exciting than to kick around a ball the size of some democrat’s head.

Bowling: Nothing like rolling a ball the size of some democrat’s ego.




Well you could go to a movie, the new High School Musical 3 is well worth the 7 to 8 dollars to see, rather than Obama. I give HSM3 a 5 stars rating. The Obama inforcommerial I give mimus 6 for the most boring thing on television next to "My Mother the Car" Reruns!

The best thing I can tell you is to turn off the television, go on a week day trip lasting through Wednesday and pray that the Obama the class A socialist is not elected. Because in Ali likely hood this is the last vacation most of us are going to see for the next four years! God help us all!

Obama Vs McCain a 2008 version of 1948 Dewey vs Truman

Today column is one of either hopeful optimist or resign to defeat. So you would have to take your pick! A no time in History have we seen the press and pollsters so work together to make a candidate win a election as we see in the 2008. Not since the Dewey-Truman run have we see Fluxuating polls and the Press and some blogs out to get a vice Prudential candidate as we have now.
As a historian, I study history trying to come up with trends in history. The Truman Dewey contest in 1948 was one we all can and should remember if you study your history right. Thomas Dewey the darling of the Republicans and the sitting President of the United were fighting tooth and nail for the office.
The pollsters and Press at this time had Dewey willing the election and the famous headline in the Chicago tribune read
“The Dewey Defeats Truman”. The Tribune was not the only paper to make the mistake. The Daily Journal of Commerce had eight articles in its Nov. 3 edition about what could be expected of President Dewey.

The paper's five column headline read, "Dewey Victory Seen as Mandate to Open New Era of Government-Business Harmony, Public Confidence.


"The polls, reporters, political writers - they all believed Dewey was going to win by a landslide. On September 9, 1948, Elmo Roper was so confident of a Dewey win that he announced there would be no further Roper Polls on this election. Roper said, "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things."However Truman was undaunted and believed that with a chance he would win the election.
In one poll of political journalists by Newsweek October 1, 1948 issue, Newsweek they asked “which candidate they thought would win. Appearing in the stated the results: all 50 believed Dewey would win.”

Rhodes Cook is a veteran Washington political analyst for the Wall Street Journal writes:
"There is the sense that the Illinois senator may be putting the cart before the horse, a Dewey-like affliction of presumptive victory. And there are few things more off-putting to voters than having their ballots taken for granted. To be sure, Mr. Obama has to transform himself virtually overnight from being largely unknown to a candidate widely recognized to have the credentials to be president – a difficult feat for anyone to execute.
And there are admittedly clear differences between the 2008 campaign and the Dewey-Truman contest of 1948. Mr. Dewey was already a known commodity back then, having lost the 1944 election to Franklin Roosevelt. The Republican’s dapper presence and cool public demeanor made him no favorite of the press......
Yet there are also some critical similarities between the two elections. Just as the Democrats now, the Republicans in 1948 were bullish about their chances of capturing the White House after winning control of both houses of Congress two years earlier. As in the present, the campaign of 1948 was widely viewed as a “change” election, with a significant gap in ages between the two major-party nominees. Mr. Dewey, at 46 years old (the same age as Sen. Obama, who turns 47 on Monday), represented a new generation of leaders ready to move to the fore after World War II. Mr. Truman was nearly 20 years his senior, old enough to have served with distinction in World War I as a field artillery captain"

John McCain could be the Republicans Truman? Yet we going to see changes no matter what. certainly the big lie that Obama is that "Change" is something we will have to face. He is the rock star, a Messiah, Either way we will be left holding the bag at the end of the election. This is the first time in my memory we will see a candidate win a election by proposing tax hikes as McGovern did. I will discuss what happens after this election. next week. But a hint to that article is that even if Obama wins this election, the Liberal socialist Democrats lose.
I realized I jumping from either Obama wins or McCain wins, however, I feel we are looking at a disaster either way.
2012 is coming and I do not believe Obama is going to be President. I could be wrong and I often am. I still believe that a defeat of Obama could mean a win by Hillary in 2012. I still believe McCain will win, by a slime 2000 and 2004 margin.

Could history repeating itself? We never know. Real Change is coming!

Obama and Socialism

A many weeks ago a Friend we will call Mike said, and asked me if I knew what real socialism was all about, Ie concerning my remarks that Obama was a died hard socialist. But I took from that, that maybe, just maybe he really didn’t know what one was himself. Liberal Academics are fun these days in the twisting of facts and the multilation of realities. So lets have some fun in comparing the current Obama Campaign to what we know about Socialism.

If we are to understand what Obama and the “Socialist” Democrat party want, we have to refer to the dictionary to get a definition. That is, if the socialist havn’t redefine for us: “Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.”

We can then say that some of the very changes that Obama uses as a campaign slogan are socialistic? Karl Marx wrote; “From Each According To His Ability - To Each According To His Need” seems to becoming the modern version of what has turned into a new Obama motto of : “Change” or for that matter what is consider “Fair” to the American people. Obama said that he just wanted to spread the wealth around. The exact meaning certainly seems to be obvious and that was to take from one group and give it to another. Joe the Plumber correctly phase this as Socialism, the very system that fail.

The question is: “Why should so many rich people have so much more money than soo many poor?” That certainly isn’t “Fair” is it? I mean really! His VP Candidate Joe Biden said that it was unpatriotic not rich to pay taxes. I sure that Thomas Jefferson would agree, Duh NO!
Are any number of social issues that hamper success in this country, pushing back one group over another? Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. This obsolete system express by Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Obama seems to share the belief with modern day socialist that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. In other words this is Obama’s very campaign slogan which he uses the word “Change” as a stepping stone to the very same Socialism. Obama advocates it seems, the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly though taxation In Obama’s platform. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. We have not heard from the democrats or Obama yet, but the very Nationalization of some of the Banks could be a step in that direction. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the very means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.


The current Market economy literally stands in the way of so-call progressive trends that Obama and other Progreives like to establish in the country. They feel that we didn’t give socialism a chance to survived? Why should we since the Socialist system has to be built on a market economy, before it wipes it out. I once asked a couple of my students if they believe that Obama was spreading Socialism and their answer was that in a way they believe he was, They saw nothing wrong with government control of a few of our industries?


Sadly, it is still express by the some who believe that "change" is something our system truly needs. But is socialism the change we ned? Obama’s fascination with this concept means we are about to experience it for ourselves if elected. My Students claim that past tries at socialism like the Soviet Union and Communist China wasn’t really socialism and more a dictatorship. They feel that Lenin Stalin and Mao perverted it and that real socialism wouldn’t have killed 60 million people as Stalin did.

Liberals and radicals claimed that this was not true socialism. Yet the Weather Underground, chief belief was that in order to established their form of socialism that they need to eliminate at least 28 million Americans who would be a distraction to achieving their goal of a socialist United States. Eliminate is such a nice word to the real word is to murder? Because in the long run it would take a Final solution to really kill the market system. This would have to be a Long, Long road to Change. But the people would have to be condition for that "Change"? Would they not? Is this conditioning occurring now with Obama?

Can it be? That one of the founding Fathers of this group hung around Barak Obama and Obama started out his campaign in his home? Obama let slip his socialist leanings to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to spread the wealth around.

Yet Many Americans along with Joe just could not understand Obama’s cavalier attitude toward the American dream.
Democratic commentator Bob Beckel was dismissive of the significance of Obama's outright nod to socialism, saying we've had a progressive tax system since the income tax was initiated.

But what Beckel did not explain is that at least in those days, the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.
Is it to hard for people in this country to understand that the Obama and Democrats are not being Progressive, but regressive. To even look to a fail system of government, can’t be label progressive in any real stretch of the imagination. Yes I said the word Socialism. We in this country are about to discover what it really means. Yes Mike, I think I know what it means, and like Joe the Plumber it frightens the hell out of me. God help us!

Is Obama repeating Presidents Hoover's and FDR's mistakes?

From the Anonymous Contributor


Are we about to repeat the tragic mistakes Presidents Hoover and FDR made that created the Great Depression?

Hoover was president when the Depression started in 1929. FDR was elected president in 1932 because Hoover's actions made the Depression worse. FDR's subsequent actions also made it worse by prolonging the depression, eventually resulting in a "recession within a depression" from 1937-8, almost 10 years after the initial crash. The beginning of the end started in when the US entered WW II (1941). The economics of the war was the only thing that ended The Great Depression. None of Hoover's or FDR's remedies ended it, but instead made the Depression longer and harder, turning a normal short term repression into a terrible 12+ year depression.

Is history repeating itself right before our eyes?

It appears so.

Obama modeled his economic platform after Hoover's and FDR's most disastrous policies.

Hoover implemented the catastrophic Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which worsened the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory tariffs in other countries. US exports fell causing prices to fall and Americans to loose income. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber, causing many American farmers to default on their loans, leading to the bank runs on small rural banks that characterized the early years of the Great Depression

Failing to learn from Hoover's disastrous mistakes, Obama and the Democrat Congress promise to pursue the same protectionist impulse by "renegotiating" the NAFTA trade agreement to "protect" American workers. This means that free trade will not be so free anymore, which will, again, cause other countries (e.g, Canada and Mexico) to retaliate to "protect" their citizens.

Have we learned nothing?

FDR was an excellent speaker that projected a calm persona, a "progressive" wealthy man who assailed the wealthy. He and the Democrats of the era were fascinated with the great socialist, communist and fascist experiments countries like Russia, Germany and France were undertaking. These were new and exciting ideas on how to solve real problems: even some conservatives were intrigued. As the president over a downtrodden and hurting people, FDR was excited to actually have the opportunity to try his hand at such socialistic grand experiments in American, believing it a moral and patriotic experiment to solve our country's ills.

FDR primarily blamed the excesses of big business for causing an unstable bubble-like economy. Democrats believed the problem was that business had too much money, and the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes. FDR lambasted "trickle down" economics, extolled "trickle up" economics and pit the middle class against "the rich", raised their taxes in order to provide a "more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... [in] The New Deal...." FDR comprehensively restructured the economy and Wall Street. FDR left us with huge new social programs that are still on the books, the cost and size of which have spiraled out of control ever since.

Today, Obama, exactly mirrors everything above.

He believes socialism works and wants to conduct even more experiments to see if he can solve our ills with "progressive" programs like national healthcare. He's an excellent speaker projecting a calm persona, that blames his own class, "the rich" and "big business" for the economic crisis, promises to raise taxes to "spread the wealth around", wants to strengthen labor unions, wants significant regulatory power to comprehensively restructure the economy and Wall Street, create some form of the WPA style work programs, lambasts "failed trickle down" economics, extolls "growing the economy from bottom up" and callously plays "middle" vs "rich" class warfare. He wants to permanently add significant new social programs to our government, the cost and size of which will once again balloon far beyond his already overly expensive initial proposals. Just as FDR, he and his running mate believes it to be morally "patriotic" to be forced to pay higher taxes on behalf of the greater good.

Have we learned nothing?

Americans were hurting and afraid during the Great Depression. They put their trust in saviors who only hurt them more. Theirs turned out to be a false hope. Hoover's and FDR's policies turned a recession into a 12+ year depression that was only fixed by a wartime economy. Their kind of socialism doesn't work.

Will Obama's recycling of failed Hoover & FDR policies lead us straight into another bleak era in our history? Obama appears to be pursing that same policies and same kind of radical socialism they mistakenly believed in. He modeled his campaign and economic platform after FDR's disastrous policies and includes some of the most disastrous Hoover policies. Is Obama the answer or just another FDR socialist that will give us programs that won't help and that we can't afford?

Making matters worse is the fact the far left triaxial government of President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would possess an absolute lock on Congress and the White House, with absolutely nobody able to oppose their far, far left agendas. Pelosi and Reid are far more reckless and ideological than Obama. Together they will have free, unopposed, reign and absolute power to enact any and all normal and socialist agendas they desire.

Are we again allowing our emotions and need to be rescued from our troubles to overpower our intellect and good judgement?

Have we learned nothing?

This is most definitely NOT your run-of-the-mill Democrat v. Republican election.

This is a significantly transformative turning point in our future that we dare not take lightly.

We must be sure that we know exactly what we're doing and where we're going. If we fail, we will suffer the immediate consequences, starting next year. Our grandchildren will labor under much larger tax burdens to fund the Next Great Ociety we build for ourselves.

If we absolutely must vote for Obama, we should at least provide a counter balance in Congress and demand that he refute his plans to again employ the programs and policies that led to so much misery during the Great Depression.

Do we once again permanently increase that failed dependency of socialism in our country or do we revitalize that same spirit of American Exceptionalism that our country was founded on and made it great?

Have we learned nothing?

Glenn Beck on Fox News: Coming this Spring!

Blow me away, for the last two years I been watching the Glenn Beck TV program on CNN Headline News, Something by the way that puzzles me when today I turned on to se him and dog gone it Lou Dobbs was on. Lou is not Glenn in any stretch of the Imagination. But Glenn Beck is a original and great broadcaster.
His commentaries have upset Hispanic groups, Arab-American organizations and the liberal Media Matters for America which please me no end, He will going to Fox New and will host a 5 p.m. weekday program as well as a weekend show in a multi-year deal that starts next spring.

“I’m not surprised to see him go because it always seems like he fit in well with the other Fox people instead of with Headline News,” said Alan Breznick, an analyst with Heavy Reading, a media and telecommunications research firm based in New York. “I think (CNN) wanted character, but they didn’t necessarily want conservative ideologies.”


So good news for us conservatives Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and then Sean Hannity, Oh I have to mention Alan Colmes! Nope don't have too! Only wish he would be on sooner for Elections!

Generated Crisis!

Joe Biden warned that America's enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he's elected president - a shocking comment John McCain eagerly pounced on yesterday to claim Obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief.

A: “generated crisis”! In other words a generated Terrorist attack on this country. One we have not experience since 9-11- 2001. Of course the generated Crisis that happen to Bush was supposedly by radical democrats generated by us? What a bunch of nuts.

So I asked you what else did Plagiarism Joe Have to say, That NBC New will not release? Being that NBC News is in the tank for oh Obama?

Since Plagiarism Joe believes that we will have a attack if Obama is elected, then why in heaven’s name do so? This is one of the most political big mistakes that Biden has made.

John McCain said of Biden's remarks: "The next president won't have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world," McCain said. "We don't want a president who invites 'testing' from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting two wars."

McCain said it was even "more troubling" that Biden suggested supporters stick by Obama if the actions he takes are wrong or unpopular.

"Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign," he said.

Oh my, can we afford that inexperence?

Obama's VP Candidate admits Obama's lack of Experience is Dangerous!

Uncle Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth over the weekend and and I am sure Obama is pounding his head into the ground. So according to ABC news here is some selections from that master of oratorio.

"Mark my words, It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.

Is he comparing Obama with a conservative Democrat like John Kennedy, Oh Please.

“The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Why elect someone who can cause a crisis , then someone the world knows like John McCain. Obama is dangerous not just to the world, but to our country. Do we really need a inexperience President in office, Was it not Joe Biden who said: “The Presidency is not for on the job training”


"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. “


I thought the Great Messiah Obama could handle this, He needs help?


“And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Well dude, he going to become one of the most weaken Presidents in history. If he wins he needs to become so weak the the great savior of all woman- kind (Hillary Clinton and step in to save the country the world and the Messiah.


Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.


That right folks he will need to widen the economic crisis by socking it to the rich and middle class., Laiding off people by the millions!



"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you.

Hey dude, I hope you remember something about foriegn policy, unless you copy it from Secetary Rice or Henry Kissenger.



This guy (Obama) has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

Oh really, so after the bombings begin and the terrorism increases in this country and the unemployment rate raises we suppose to be faithful? Oh my this guy will become one of the most disastrous presidents in history!



"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place. We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."


Well One God awful place? I was thinking of that as what a President Obama would do to thi world and this country if elected! By the way JOey, God didn’t make this country awful, the democrats certainly help! Biden has told us why we shouldn't elect Obama as President!

Unchecked Liberalism

This election is one we need to pay attention too. In the past on this blog we have warn you that this unchek liberalism could make our time one angerous times of nearly any generation. Don't take my word for it.
The Wall Street Journal laid it all out. Liberals are bent on handing Barack Obama a filibuster-proof Senate majority to rubberstamp his radical agenda.

"Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on." (Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2008)

The liberal Senate leadership already has the bills drafted to force its radical agenda on American families:

• Crippling new taxes: Obama oplanned mean new taxes on the rich and corporations, who will simpley laid off people. cutting back on products and services

• Staggering new government spending! New taxes for Democrats mean new spending by the government. Problem is there wil be less revenue, not more. which would mean Obama have to tax omre to supposely make up for the so-called lost of revenue.

• Outrageous paybacks to labor bosses; Increa labor cost mean companies will cut back, and vicous cycle.

• Liberal censorship of talk radio. Censorship of Rush LImbaugh, Sean Hannity and others, alternative voices to the democrat dictatory rule would become hard to find.

Now, with only a few weeks to go, liberals can taste it -- they believe that they will seize control of the Senate and guarantee a liberal agenda straight out of the 1970s.
Can we afford this type of Liberal Government?

Worst Recession in 25 years, Brought to You by Your Local Democrat Party

Looking down of the capitalist system is a favorite wipping boy of most Democrats. Well receently the finacial times said:

Many experts expect unemployment will soar from its current level of 6.1 per cent and worry it could go above 8 per cent. The Fed now thinks that unemployment will rise above 7 per cent and is likely to peak at about 7.5 per cent – a level last seen in 1992.


Further the Times writes:

Many economists think the savings rate – which was 0.2 per cent this year before being temporarily lifted by a tax rebate – will rise to between 3 per cent and 4.5 per cent. The fall in the price of oil will accommodate part of this.
But if it happens over a few quarters – as seems increasingly likely, given the shock to wealth and extreme denial of credit – it would produce a deep, if not necessarily long-lasting, recession.
Rising unemployment threatens to deepen the housing slump, further depress mortgage debt and increase delinquencies on car loans, credit cards and other consumer loans.
Meanwhile economic weakness is likely to multiply corporate defaults, including private equity deals. This second wave of losses for banks might prolong the credit crisis.


What a wonderful world the Democrats started and lets see if they can make it worst of make it better. Wonder what the odds in Vegas will be?

This Very Perilous Period

A friend of mine pointed out rightly, that not only his job, many many others in the defense industry is in jeopardy if the American people give power to the Democrats in office and this very perilous period or time we live in. The history of this period of time sways any sort of understanding of American history we live in, and time we find ourselves could hing on our very survival of our independence of our country.

We find our leaders faint in their abilities to lead in a time when we needed strong leadership. Sadly, President Bush has advocated his responsibility to lead and in some ways, who couldn't blame him with the attacks on his character. With his character under assault by the mass media he has lost his will to fight.


We could in many ways learn something from the emeries of this country. A constant reminder is that we are facing the very same reality that exist in the modern Islamic world today. We see the governments of those countries making sure the poor stay poor, the weak stay weak. We are seeing this in the lack of education, by not teaching them the true meaning of freedom. Keeping them in the same state is to the very leaders interest and advancement..

Do we see any parallels with the current modern Democrat Party. The poor will remain poor, the middle class will become poor as well. The rich will create less jobs and the classes will become wider and wider apart. Just as the Democrat party become more align with modern Islam then the Constitution principles of our Founding Fathers. We see our Democrat Party leaders becoming drunk with power as they plan a pre election party, expecting to win and planning a post election take over of the Government.

They will rule in the same matter as Islamic dictators and woe is the average American if he talks back to the so called majority. We are on the verge of a all powerful, weak minded, delusional government who with the media will slap any American down as they did with Joe the Plumber.

Free expression is something they do not tolerate, Free will is something they hate! We are on the verge of one of the most dangerous times in history.


Obama is not the right man for the right time for the country, His appearance on the scene, Hawkins back to Neville Chamberlain and the pre WWII days of peace at any cost and the social and Military disasters that ravage Europe.


We are to looking for a true leader, one that can only be found though great disaster and a willingness to lead. Nations like people, need sometimes to suffer in order to come out stronger.

Obama’s willingness to sit with Dictators will back fire on him. He will learn the hard way that sitting with the likes of Ahmadinejad, or Chavez is a prelude to disaster, just as Chamberlain found out with Hitler. Our willingness to sit down with people like Pelosi, Reid and Obama will to become a disaster. These are not honest men and women!

History is not for the faint of heart.