So…..do they suck WORSE than Obama?

All of the candidates are politicians.  ALL of them think that government has answers….YES, even Ron Paul.  THAT’S WHY THEY ARE IN POLITICS.

Let’s see….

Romney is a front runner because he’s electable….except when he’s not.  He’s conservative….except when he’s not.  He’s a businessman….except when he’s not.  He’s been running for office since the Last election.  Desire for public office like this raises the hackles of many Americans.  He’s a liberal Republican.  Either we vote for him or Obama is elected and runs the nation into the ground like a meteor hitting the earth.

Gingrich is a front runner because he’s fighting back.  He’s not electable….except he seems to have A LOT of support in many states.  Is he a conservative?  Depends on how you define conservative and to whom you compare it to……like the 1994 Democrats.   Does he think government has the answers?  Yep.  If elected….he will use government power to enact “conservative” ideas, by HIS definition.  This isn’t a secret and was, until recently, a point of attraction to many Republicans.  Is he an insider? Yep.  Is he a former philanderer? Yep.  All of his scandals are common knowledge.   Is that a point in favor or against his nomination?  No one knows.  Either we vote for him or Obama is elected and runs the nation into the ground like a meteor hitting the earth.

Perry is a front runner…or was.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to do well in the format that was chosen for this primary Charlie Foxtrot.  His ideas, when presented, are huge applause lines.  He’s consistent on message about downsizing the federal government.  He’s pro-defense, pro-border enforcement, has executive experience, and has a record of improving business climates.  According to some, he too, has grown government and his former “Democratness” is a liability, as his immigration stance.   Either we vote for him or Obama is elected and runs the nation into the ground like a meteor hitting the earth.

Paul…..what can you say about Paul that hasn’t been said, refuted, argued about, refuted again, and repeated.  His message about limited government is music to the Tea Party.  His foreign policy, when more closely examined, is horrible.  And his belief that America is the cause of all of our problems, his white washing of the fact that SOME governments across the world ARE evil…..is just the deal killer. Except he’s still better than another four years of Obama.  Either we vote for him or Obama is elected and runs the nation into the ground like a meteor hitting the earth.

Bachmann should be the front runner.  Face it…she would be historical….the first woman president. Of course we all know that’s only valid for liberal women.  She’s the ideal of the Tea Party, seeking smaller government with libertarian overtones.  She’s pro-defense and pro-border defense.  She’s socially conservative.  So…what’s holding her back?  In my experience, something about her personality on TV grates on me.  I’m sure that she is a wonderful person, but her TV personality seems shrill.   And tactically, I think she’s weak. She continually emphasizes attacks on small points of her opponents, as “gotcha moments.”  People are tired of “gotcha.”   Either we vote for him or Obama ….you get the idea.

Huntsman should never have entered the race.  What made him think that he could gain any traction?

Santorum has tried.  Tried mightily to gain traction.  And failed.  If he gets any delegates, I’ll applaud.  His conservative bonafides seem valid.  But he does not connect with the voters.

So, since having a perfect candidate is completely ludicrous….do we stay home?  Would McCain really have been worse that Obama?  I don’t know.  But is Obama BETTER THAN ANY OF THE ABOVE?

Some libertarians think so. Some are planning on voting for him as the lesser of two evils.  They are hoping that a GOP dominated Congress  will gridlock a President Obama that would not be checked by the need to get reelected.  Or that Obama will get the blame for the upcoming disaster.  Really?  When has the GOP EVER stood up to the Democrat media and political machine?  But I repeat myself.  And Obama and the Democrats aren’t getting the blame NOW!  The GOP ALWAYS gets the blame.

So, who of the above, if you plan to vote for a Republican candidate, will be able to withstand the liberal press and Obama?

Picture a President Obama without the need to get reelected and an establishment GOP in Congress.  You didn’t think that the GOP is going to give the Tea Party any authority yet, did you?

Because it seems that we’ve already decided that our candidate will beat Obama.  And we’re terrified what the assorted candidates might do. Or that we might get the blame if things go south.  Have you thought that we might deserve the blame if we don’t even try and stay home?

Remember that old saying….”Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”  First we have to beat Obama and its NOT going to be easy.

So go pick a freaking candidate. Don’t stay home. And then vote for the nominee.

You go to war with the army that you have.  And this IS war.

edit: Cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia

Today, the Arabs of the Palestinian territories demand a state, something that they rejected twice before. They demand a “right of return to settle within ISRAELI borders, though they and their ancestors can be considered enemies of Israel. They left to allow attacking armies to kill Israelis. They are treated as refugees in ARABIC countries and are not allowed to assimilate and yet they blame the Jews for their situation. The current situation is of THEIR making.

In 1949, Israel signed an Armistice, almost derailed by the Muslim Brotherhood, with the warring Arab states, delineating the lines of control of the various participating countries. Lebanon withdrew behind its recognized border. Egypt withdrew, but kept control of Gaza. Jordan kept control of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949. This, however, was rejected by all nations, except Great Britain. The US State Department also recognized the extension of Jordanian sovereignty.

So, how was Jordan’s stewardship of East Jerusalem?

Jordan, although mandated by the UN to let Israeli Jews visit their holy sites, refused access to them. They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues. Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites. The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with gravestones used to build latrines for Jordanian army barracks, and almost every synagogue was demolished in the period from 1948 to 1967.

Palestinian Arabs continued to cause trouble during this “peaceful” period, including the assassination of King Abdullah I of Jordan because they believed he was seeking a formal peace treaty with Israel.

And thus matters stood until the Six Day War in 1967, caused by Egypt’s hostile blockades and the removal of peacekeepers. Jordan, instead of remaining neutral, attacked through the West Bank, and was pushed back. The Arab nations lost again. Israel occupied the West Bank as a protective buffer. Jordan ceded all claims to the West Bank in 1988, handing it to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, recognizing them as the sole representatives of the “Palestinian” people.

The PLO has conducted thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Israel. They have rejected any peace treaties and walked out on a treaty formalizing a state in 2000. Do you think that they would be any better at allowing access to East Jerusalem than the Jordanians? Today, Christians and Christian holy sites are in danger in the West Bank. The Christians in Bethlehem have been terrorized into fleeing the town. Churches have been desecrated.

To the north is Syria and Lebanon. The KEY location on the border of Syria is the Golan Heights. From there, Syria was able to shell villages inside Israel with impunity. Seized in the Six Day War, the Heights provide a defensive buffer against further Syrian aggression.

The situation in Lebanon is complex. The terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is a major political and military power in the country. Repeated terrorist and military strikes by Hezbollah continue. Inside Lebanon, those that oppose Hezbollah politically are killed. Christians inside Lebanon are continually persecuted or attacked.

And then we come to the terrorist organization known as HAMAS.

Based largely on the principles of Islamic fundamentalism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Remember them?). Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s Syrian-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with “a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders,” provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation’s capital.

These are the principle of HAMAS. This and their charter have NEVER been changed.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. “

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

And so, now we have a president of the United States agreeing with terrorist organizations that want to wipe the nation of Israel from the map. President Obama states,

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

What “core issues” can be negotiated with the PLO and HAMAS? How does one negotiate with someone whose stated purpose is your death? ITS IN THEIR CHARTER! What “mutually agreed swaps” can be negotiated when Israel is supposed to unilaterally retreat to the pre-1967 borders? When Israel gave up control of the Gaza, the world was told that there would be “peace in our time.” HAMAS uses that land to launch rockets. They celebrate the murder of children.

Israel withdrew from “contested” territory to appease Hezbollah. The rockets still rain down.

FATAH, the political arm of the PLO controls the West Bank. It is only the conflict with HAMAS that has driven FATAH to peace talks.

FATAH and HAMAS are now agreeing to cooperate.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by a Nazi sympathizer, is poised to greatly influence Egypt, if not gain control. They wish to cancel the peace treaty with Israel and declare war. President Obama wants to cancel $1 billion dollars in debt and give them billions more. President Obama cheers peaceful coexistence and yet wants to finance an organization known for killing Christians and burning churches. They are infamous for terror attacks throughout Egypt. Offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood include Al Quaeda.

And he wants to give them billions.

Furthermore, either President Obama is delusional or incompetent. Or he’s just talking for election cameras:

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

“Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security.” Is he serious? Israel cannot do this NOW. If they agree to his terms, security will be impossible. Obama is essentially relying on the “good will” of terror organizations that have never wavered from their stated intent to destroy Israel. And why did he insert and emphasize “by itself” into the speech?

Of course, all of this is just theater. Obama will say anything to get elected. Proof? Here’s his speech in 2008 when he was seeking the support of AIPAC. Some telling excerpts:

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

Its a shame that they didn’t heed those emails.

But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

And he wants to hand Israel’s security to those people that draw those maps.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.

Except, of course, when there is.

And then, he lied. If we had only known then, what, “Let me be clear….” meant.

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Undivided.

Still believe him? Maybe those emails were right.

Remember, if peace was truly desired, all it would take would be for the enemies of Israel to lay down their arms. Peace would ensue. If Israel lays down THEIR arms, another holocaust would result.

Shalom.

For Immediate Release: 5/10/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District’s handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

“This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence.”

“Americans don’t check their constitutional rights at the state line,” said Gura. “And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled that District residents have an individual right, protected by the Constitution, to have a handgun in their home,” Gottlieb noted. “The high court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Existing state and federal statutes violate both the spirit and letter of recent court rulings and the Constitution, and our lawsuit seeks to remedy that situation.”

Washington, DC is a federal district. It is part of NO state. The supreme authority over the district is the Congress of the United States. Congress is bound by the Constitution of the United States. Our rights are enumerated and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is expressed in the 2nd Amendment. And that right was recognized by the Supreme Court to apply to individuals.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and determined that the right to keep and bear arms did apply to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

All of this background is important because, at one time, Washington, D.C. banned the private ownership of handguns by its residents and placed onerous restrictions on ownership of any other firearm. According to Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, portions of which were declared unconstitutional, DC required all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” and restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.”

The results of the Heller case were not popular within the halls of power in Washington, D.C. and the authorities were quick to exert any and every power to stymie firearm ownership in the capitol. How hard is it to purchase a firearm in DC? Well….its impossible. There are no firearms stores in Washington, DC. The procedure for acquiring a firearm in DC is convoluted.

One must purchase a firearm in another state and have that firearm transferred to a FFL in DC. FFL is short for Federal Firearms License. The irony is that the SOLE FFL in Washington, DC is Josh Sugarmann, of the Violence Policy Center, an extreme gun control organization. He has advocated BANNING handguns.

FFL Ez Check

FFL # is 1-54-000-01-8C-00725

Its strange that he is allowed to have an FFL. He does not seem to be in the business of selling or transferring firearms as stated in the US code.

The Gun Control Act, as amended by The Firearms Owners` Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-308), requires that persons engaged in the business of dealing in, manufacturing, or importing firearms, or manufacturing or importing ammunition, obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The federal firearms licensing system is administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Under the Gun Control Act, a “dealer” is defined as any person who is “engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail,” “repairing firearms,” or “making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms,” or who is a pawnbroker.

You see, Mr. Charles Sykes was the only FFL in DC that actually operated a business, transferring firearms from out of state to DC purchasers. However, he recently lost his lease through rezoning. Now, understand, he had no inventory. All he did was facilitate the movement of legal private property from out of state to the citizens of Washington, DC.

Indirect bans on ownership have been placed on citizens in Washington, DC through the restrictions of FFL’s and in Chicago by onerous and contradictory requirements for a firearm permit. Citizens, especially in DC, are prevented from exercising their rights by the laws preventing purchase of firearms by out of state residents, without a subsequent transfer through an FFL.

So, let’s see what a national common denominator of FFL assisted purchases exist:

The right to keep and bear arms has been recognized to be an individual right under the Constitution of the United States.
Every purchaser of a firearm through an FFL has a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Some areas have further restrictions on ownership, such as registration, background checks for ALL purchases, etc. But a right to own a firearm is recognized throughout the nation.

Why shouldn’t American citizens be allowed to exercise their rights equally throughout the nation? Are our rights to free expression and religious observation constrained differently from state to state? Why should the 2nd Amendment rights be treated differently from our 1st Amendment rights? Why can rights be abridged through local manipulations?

The Country We Believe In

The George Washington University

Washington, DC

April 13, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially (POTENTIALLY? HE CAN’T EVEN COMMIT HERE?)profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government. (AND YET HE WANTS TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA.)

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. (TOO BAD HE DIDN’T REMEMBER THIS QUOTE: Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. –July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago) And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads(PRIVATE) and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers (WHO DID COLT, EDISON, AND WHITNEY WORK FOR?) whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to (TO CHARITY. WE ARE TAXED TO SUPPORT) programs like Medicare (WHICH DROVE OUT PRIVATE INSURANCE) and Social Security (WHICH IS A PONZI SCHEME), which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work (EXCEPT THAT ITS BROKE OR YOU MAY DIE BEFORE YOU GET IT); unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens (AND MASSIVE BORROWING). As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally (BEEN FORCED TO BEAR SINCE 1913) born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money (THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN EVERY YEAR BESIDE THOSE) to pay for some of our priorities (WHEN HAS CONGRESS EVER PRIORITIZED?). And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary (TEMPORARY IS THE KEY WORD. WE’VE BEEN IN DEBT FOR HOW LONG?)

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation. (AND YET YOU CONGRESSMEN STILL DID NOTHING)

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future. (REALLY, WHAT AGREEMENTS. OUR DEBT CONTINUED TO GROW EVEN DURING THE SO-CALLED SURPLUS).

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade. (TAX CUTS DON’T NEED TO BE PAID FOR. IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEND WITHIN YOUR MEANS. AND CONSERVATIVES DIDN’T LIKE THAT LIBERAL DRUG PLAN EITHER. AND PAST CUTS DON’T FORCE FUTURE SPENDING.)

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years. (IF YOU HADN’T SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, WE’D ALSO BE IN GOOD SHAPE, STIMULUS BOY.)

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office (AS A SENATOR? OH WAIT, YOU VOTED PRESENT.), we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion (PROPOSED BY NANCY PELOSI AND NOT SUBMITTED TO BUSH SHE WAITED FOR YOU.). On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved (BUT DIDN’T CREATE?) millions of jobs (9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT. REALLY?), kept credit flowing (NO ONE CAN GET LOANS FOR BUSINESSES OR HOMES…OH,YOU MEANT FOR GOLDMAN SACHS.), and provided working families extra money in their pockets (THAT THEY HAD TO PAY TAXES ON). It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.(SHORT TERM? OUR DEFICITS ARE EXPECTED TO BE 1 TRILLION FOR YEARS TO COME.)

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here (OF COURSE, NONE OF IT WAS YOUR FAULT). And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength (PROVE IT. INFLATION IS UP, JOBS ARE GONE, AND HOUSING IS A BUST), Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s (YEAH, NOW THAT THE GOP IS IN CHARGE ITS ALL ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP. WHERE WAS THIS LAST YEAR WHEN YOU REFUSED TO SUBMIT A BUDGET?). We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt (YOU GO FIRST.). And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future. (SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU’RE JUST GOING TO CUT DEFENSE. AGAIN.)

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?” (NO, I’M WONDERING HOW YOU CAN LIE LIKE THIS WITHOUT LIGHTENING STRIKING YOU DEAD.)

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments. (I’M GLAD THAT YOU FINALLY READ THE TEA PARTY FLYERS WE LEFT ON YOUR CAR.)

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse (THAT WOULD BE MEDICARE). By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. (2025? YOU ARE LYING. WE BORROW 42%. HEALTHCARE/SS/ETC ARE 56%. WE ARE THERE NOW.) That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. (OR…YOU COULD CUT OUT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. WHAT AN IDEA!)

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. (HAS NO ONE TOLD YOU HOW STUPID THAT PHRASE IS? STOP SPENDING IF ITS THIS BAD.) We won’t be able to afford good schools (LOCAL TAXES OR PRIVATE), new research (PRIVATE OR NONPROFIT), or the repair of roads and bridges (WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STIMULUS?) – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America (WELL, EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES. THEY’LL STILL BE THERE.). Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books (STILL READING THAT TEA PARTY FLYER). And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit(SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START BEING HONEST?). You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys (THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE POLITICIANS DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO STOP THE FREE ICE CREAM.). Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense (COULD HAVE FOOLED ME. DIDN’T YOU SEE YOUR PARTY DURING THE LAST 20 YEARS?). Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research (AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE DOES QUITE WELL). Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare (MOST AMERICANS DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE THERE.). And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse (THAT WOULD BE YOUR PARTY) –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table (I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU.), and take on excess (THAT’S JUST IT. YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EXCESS. IT IS THE BUDGET) spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. (YEP. A BETTER ONE.)

A 70% cut to clean energy (THAT WOULD BE THE UNICORN FARM). A 25% cut in education(THAT WOULD BE THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). A 30% cut in transportation (AMTRAK). Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed (OH, YOU REMEMBER THAT, EVEN THOUGH YOU IGNORED IT.). These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic. (BUELLER? BUELLER? WE’VE BEEN PESSIMISTIC SINCE YOU SHOWED UP WITH PELOSI.)

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them (UH, NO. IT SAYS THAT YOU PRIORITIZE TO THE BASICS AND NECESSARY, IE, NO EDUCATION DEP’T). If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them (THEY CAN JOIN THE MILITARY,WORK, OR GET SCHOLARSHIPS.). Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels.(YEP BECAUSE THOSE COUNTRIES DON’T HAMSTRING THEIR BUSINESSES. AND BRAZIL HAS A FRACTION OF OUR CARS AND ALMOST ALL OF THE SUGAR CANE. BUT, YOU SURE ARE WILLING TO LOAN THEM MONEY TO DESPOIL THE EARTH FOR OIL AND BUY SOME, AREN’T YOU?) And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this. (UM, NOPE. 1.5 TRILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING ON YOUR CRAP MEANS THAT WE CAN’T.)

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it. (WELCOME TO MY WORLD. EVEN IF YOU DO KEEP IT, WE’LL BE BROKE. BY YOUR VERY WORDS ABOVE. DON’T YOU REMEMBER?)

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit (REALLY? THEIR INSURANCE. PAID FOR BY THEM.). And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy (ITS THEIR MONEY. HOW COME YOU STILL HAVE YOUR MILLIONS?). Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? (AND THAT TOP 1% PAYS 41% OF TAXES.) They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social(IST) compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future. (TELL ME AGAIN….YOU EXPECT TO HAVE A $1.5 TRILLION IN 2011 AND 2012 EACH, BUT YOU’RE CUTTING OUT $1 TRILLION?)

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years (ROUNDING ERROR. OBAMACARE IS 100 BILLION EVERY YEAR IF ENACTED.) We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. (GOV’T DOESN’T CREATE JOBS.) We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology (UNICORN FARTS AGAIN.). We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access (AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT STIMULUS MONEY?). We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future. (SO, MORE OF THE SAME….)

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget (TA-DAAA! YEP. KNEW IT.). As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. (RATIONING IS COMING.)

Already, the reforms we passed in the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion (LIE. IT DOUBLE COUNTS SUPPOSED MEDICARE SAVINGS. THAT’S RIGHT IT TAKES MONEY FROM MEDICARE.). My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need. (WHAT A LOAD OF BS. GOING TO PAY DOCTORS TO PREVENT INJURIES, STOP WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, ETC. YOU JUST SAID THAT THIS TYPE OF THING IS NOT ENOUGH.)

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023 (WE’RE SPENDING THAT MUCH EVERY SIX MONTHS.), and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that (RIIIIGHT….HOW DID THOSE MULTIYEAR PROJECTIONS WORK OUT WHEN WE HAD SURPLUSES FOREVER?). And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect (YA THNK?), this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare. (RATIONING MEDICARE…FIXED IT.)

But let me be absolutely clear (WHY START NOW?): I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit (OF COURSE IT IS, ITS PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE IT WAS RAIDED TO INVENT THE SURPLUS.), it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (IN OTHER WORDS, SAVE IT, FIX IT, BUT DON’T CHANGE A THING.)

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again. (OK. LET’S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND IF THE ECONOMY TANKS AGAIN, ITS ALL ON YOU.)

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize. (MILLIONAIRES, AGAIN. SO NO BUSINESS OWNERS ITEMIZE….YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT BUILD JOBS?)

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive. (GREAT! GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX. FAIR TAX! OR NATIONAL SALE TAX! IF WE MUST, A FLAT TAX!)

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future. (HOW DOES ONE ACHIEVE CUTS WHEN SPENDING IS NOT ACTUALLY REDUCED? HE’S PROJECTED $TRILLION DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME.)

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail safe. If, by 2014 (AFTER HE’S OUT OF OFFICE OR RE-ELECTED), our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code (SO…IF CONGRESS DOESN’T DO IT THE FIRST TIME, WE’LL ALL GET TOGETHER AGAIN AND LIE ABOUT IT…AGAIN.). That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road. (UM, YOU JUST DID.)

So this is (YOUR)our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means (YOU HAVEN’T STARTED YET?) while still investing in our future; where everyone (AS LONG AS THEY’RE “RICH”) makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut (HE WOULDN’T BE ELIGIBLE ANYWAY. HIS INCOME IS $100,000). Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without (DAMN. GET RID OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIPS IF IT PREVENTS ANOTHER OBMAMA.). That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me (IF THEY DO, NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM PAYING MORE. HAVE YOU?). They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic (BS)to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December (YOU WERE FORCED KICKING AND CRYING TO IT.). It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit (WHAT PART OF SPENDING 100 BILLION A MONTH DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?) – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective. (JUST AS LONG AS IT STILL DOESN’T SHRINK.)

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations (HOWEVER, YOU’RE NO RONALD REAGAN AND PELOSI WAS NOT TIP O’NEILL. WHERE WAS THIS CONCERN WHEN PELOSI LOCKED THE GOP OUT OF DISCUSSION OR DIDN’T COOPERATE WITH BUSH, SENATOR?). The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction. (AND YET, WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! INSANE SPENDING!)

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June. (THE VP? NOW WE KNOW HE’S NOT SERIOUS.)

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. (DAMN. I THOUGHT WE’D GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANOTHER FAKE LETTER.) He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive… (WELL, TELL YOUR MINIONS ON MSNBC TO STOP.)

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

First there was Michael Hastings. He took down General McChrystal. He violated the journalistic principle of “off the record” to get any dirt he could. Of course, General McChrystal was stupid enough to grant him access and trusted him to write an objective story. And stupid enough to talk freely where Rolling Stones reporters were present. Hey, General! Its freaking Rolling Stone Magazine, what did you expect?

This idiot actually, then, tried to embed with an Army unit in Afghanistan. The Army said, “Um…, NO.”

However, Hastings continued his hit pieces with an idiotic story on supposed psy-ops being conducted against American politicians that were visiting Afghanistan to manipulate them in supporting more spending. His only source was a disgruntled officer that had been reprimanded by the CO of that command. Those familiar with the Army and “psy-ops” called BS on the story and disproved it in detail. Shocking, isn’t it, that the story was fiction……

Now, Rolling Stone is again attempting to smear the US military. Another jackass is writing about the soldiers that allegedly committed murder. THOSE soldiers were apparently stupid enough to pose with their victims. Writing about such crimes is a valid enterprise. Unfortunately, Rolling Stone, and more specifically Mark Boal, who produced the movie Hurt Locker, has decided to juxtapose actual proper combat procedure and the crimes. Boal, whose only exposure to the military has been the movie business, intermixes crime reporting with operations that took place elsewhere, in an effort to smear our soldiers and create a bigger story. And that story has been picked up internationally.

Michael Totten, a preeminent war reporter, had been embedded with the the unit involved. He’s calling BULLSH#T! on the the entire story. He points outs one example.

The online edition of the Rolling Stone story contains a section with a video called “Motorcycle Kill,” which includes our Soldiers gunning down Taliban who were speeding on a motorcycle toward our guys. These Soldiers were also with 5/2 SBCT, far away from the “Kill Team” later accused of the murders. Rolling Stone commits a literary “crime” by deceptively entwining this normal combat video with the Kill Team story. The Taliban on the motorcycle were killed during an intense operation in the Arghandab near Kandahar City. People who have been to the Arghandab realize the extreme danger there. The Soviets got beaten horribly in the Arghandab, despite throwing everything including the Soviet kitchen sink into the battle that lasted over a month. Others fared little better. To my knowledge, 5/2 and supporting units were the first ever to take Arghandab, and these two dead Taliban were part of that process.

Michael Yon has some suggestions on how to pay Rolling Stone back for their “support” of the troops. (Emphasis mine.)

I’ve found in the past that boycotts work. I led a boycott against one magazine and it went bankrupt. It’s doubtful that Rolling Stone will go bankrupt for its sins, but you can cost them money not by boycotting their magazine, but by boycotting their advertisers. That hurts. Just pick an advertiser whose products you already buy, boycott it, and tell the advertiser why you are not buying their product.

Support our troops. Boycott those that advertise in Rolling Stone.

He quietly placed his op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star. It was very well written, very smooth, in fact. Unless you were familiar with the language of gun control you would miss his carefully worded phrases that changes gun-control groups into “gun safety” groups, mentions “reasonable” restrictions without giving details on what’s reasonable about his ideas, and implies that its those “unreasonable” gun owners that might be the problem.

First he scares you and reminds you of tragedy – the recent shooting in Tuscon. And, of course he outright lies. That’s par for the course…..

…Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people’s pain.

Apparently he was playing golf those days when a madman’s actions were blamed on “rightwing rhetoric” or Sarah Palin, or talk radio, or any number of conservative elements by the liberal media and political class. In other words, his side of the aisle.

He describes Loughner as “a man our Army rejected as unfit for service,” “unstable” and “bent on violence” and that he was able to easily buy a gun. Yet, he leaves out that the background check failed because the local law enforcement did not do THEIR job nor the Army theirs. The Sheriff’s department knew of his propensity for violence and the Army knew that Loughner admitted to using drugs. Neither passed that information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There was nothing to report. His panacea of background checks failed. In Virginia, we had a similar problem with Cho, the Virginia Tech killer. He was even sent before a judge but they were unwilling to commit him. And yet he wants more of them…..

President Obama, though trying to appear as a neutral participant, subtlety drives a point that gun owners are the obstructionists to preventing more killings.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They’re our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

He paints gun owners as either being ignorant or insensitive to the reality of gun violence immediately after stating that protection is a viable need to own weapons. That reality is, of course, why 2nd Amendment supporters advocate the easing of gun restrictions across the nation so that law abiding citizens are able to arm themselves.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

The only stalemate in regards to 2nd Amendment rights and true commonsense gun laws is in the minds of gun control groups. It is they that feel its “impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.” Freedom is expanding across the nation. Gun carry laws are easing everywhere. Citizens are again being treated as free people, not subjects. It is the gun control groups, defeated by the Heller case of their dream to ban firearms, that have turned to the shibboleth of “commonsense gun laws” without stating who determines the meaning of “commonsense.”

I’m willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few – dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example – from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I’m willing to bet they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas – that we should check someone’s criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to buy a gun so easily; that there’s room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

Again, he implies that its the gun owners that need to change OUR outlook, that WE might not agree that criminals and guns shouldn’t mix. He implies that HIS ideas are the “common sense” ideas. Neither Cho nor Loughner had a record of any sort. What does he propose to do to improve the background check to stop them from getting guns? Privacy laws restrict mental health records from being used. If law enforcement agencies and the judiciary don’t do what is necessary, dangerous people will not be put on the list. Remember, to deprive someone of a right, there must be due process.

The President seeks to drive a wedge between the 2nd Amendment advocates and the general populace that don’t get into the trenches fighting the gun control crowd. His statements are posed in such a way as to imply that only “unreasonable” people would disagree with his stated improvements on the background check.

Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Those “most gun owners” don’t follow 2nd Amendment politics. They don’t follow the propaganda put out by the Violence Policy Center, The Brady Campaign, etc. They ALL advocate “commonsense” gun laws. Yet they can’t define a commonsense gun in debate without losing the argument. The Brady Campaign’s idea of “commonsense” gun restrictions include licensing and registration of firearms, useless magazine size restrictions, etc. And where there is registration, there is ALWAYS confiscation. So, no President Obama, we do know that “commonsense” is a code word for confiscation. These comments at Common Gunsense, a blog run by Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, are the perfect example of the evasiveness of the gun control crowd and the attempts by 2nd Amendment supporters to shed light on the subject. Some quotes by Joan Peterson, who has stated that gun control groups don’t want to take our guns, just enact some common sense laws. There is, apparently, no 2nd Amendment restriction that she does not like.

In answer to this comment:

If I may point out, in the UK where handguns are banned, semi automatics are banned, private gun owners are licensed and registered, purchase of a firearm must require “proof of need” and permission from the govt, they are still calling for more restrictions. And they always call those restrictions “reasonable” and “common sense.” Are there any gun laws which some on your side wish for that you, personally, would find unreasonable?

she replied: (emphasis mine)

Good for the UK. I’m all for it. I find the gun laws passed allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrak unreasonable. I find Shall Issue CCW laws unreasonable. I find state laws that do not require background checks or training in order to get a permit unreasonable. I find the legal sale of guns to anyone without a background check unreasonable- that is a part of the Brady Law that is unreasonable.

And that’s just one reply to a comment on one post.

Sound familiar? This op-ed is just the ….opening shot……of President Obama’s attempt to appear a moderate on gun control and to advance his agenda without ruing his chances for 2012.

And then the TEA Party happened.

And the rest is history. However, there is a reason that the GOP is known as the Stupid Party. They have a talent for inserting the seeds of defeat into every electoral victory. Many of the Republican party are just as totalitarian as the Democratic party. And their motives are just as pure…….they are here to help you.

They are doing it again. This is my shocked face……

The NRA does an admirable job protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. Most Americans, and by far, most gun owners DO NOT want a gun registry. Even the records on the background check on purchases from dealers are not supposed to be saved.

But there is no NRA to protect our other freedoms. While the 2nd Amendment safeguards our firearms freedoms, there is no amendment to protect our rights in regards to our other weapons of freedom.

And the free, unfettered, un-tracked use of the internet is a major weapon in the arsenal of freedom. There IS a reason that the GOP is called the Stupid Party. Hey, Congressman, if I don’t want my guns registered, what makes you think I want the government to record my use of the internet!

The House Republicans’ first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing.

A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users’ activities for later review by police.

The idiots in Congress on both sides of the aisle want to do this to “catch criminals.” They want to do it for the children.

For now, the scope of any mandatory data retention law remains hazy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months).

Or it could be more intrusive, sweeping in online service providers, and involve keeping track of e-mail and instant-messaging correspondence and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have previously called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social-networking sites. The police chiefs’ proposal talks about storing information about “destinations” that Internet users visit.

Of course, the police love it. It makes their jobs easier. Then again, so would requiring mandatory internal passports and permission to move about…They are

“calling for a “uniform data retention mandate” for “customer subscriber information and source and destination information.”

And neither side can see or will admit the ramifications of this policy further down the line. The recent elections put GOP members into Congress to REDUCE the size and intrusiveness of government. We need to put those that vote for this bill on notice.

They say that this won’t be used against law abiding citizens.

And gun registration never leads to confiscation….

The war against jihad continues. Men and women are dying everyday in this war. Muslims, Christians, Pagans, Hindus, Jews are all dying in this war. Jihadists do not care whom they kill to advance their cause.

Nine years ago, the war that Islamists had been fighting was brought to our shores. Our first taste of it was in ’79, when the Ayatollah’s fanatics took our Embassy and spread his evil doctrines afar. We still did not understand the nature of our enemy even when the USS Cole was attacked. We refused to believe that the war being fought across the globe against Israel, non-radical Muslims, Christians, and Hindus could come here. To this day we STILL refuse to name the enemy officially. Today, Saudi Arabia finances mosques and madrassas across the world, including in the USA, to spread its poisonous Wahabbi doctrine.

Controversies such as the 9/11 Victory mosque, the shape of the Pennsylvania 9/11 memorial, the failure to rebuild at Ground Zero, the dismissal of experts that do not white wash Islam, the refusal to name Nidal Hissan a traitor or mention his motivation, and the continuing attempt to rename the war as something else and conduct it as a criminal investigation are all symptoms of unwillingness to acknowledge that this is a war. Congress, the administrations, and many of the people of America are scared to acknowledge that, while the majority of Muslims do not wish to commit terrorism, a great portion of them do support the actions of the jihadists, in spirit. It is only when Al Qaeda and its adherents abuse THEM that they begin to see the light.

Islam is not civilized. It has the trappings of civilization. Whole nations operate in a civilized manner. But, when its basic tenets are exposed, the basic philosophies are shown, the truth is illuminated. The 19 terrorists were not that different from the rest of Islam other than the fact that they were willing to take action. Are they that different from the suicide bombers seen throughout the Muslim world that are feted in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? They were only different on a matter of scale. The very fact that such acts are supported at all demonstrates that something is wrong with the philosophy of Islam and its world view.

The West is also to blame. Our refusal to understand that philosophy, our need to self-denigrate, our refusal to accept statements at face value and to follow up, all show weakness to an enemy that uses symbols to influence the audience of their cause. Our refusal to acknowledge a double standard within this country and the press endangers us.

Do you truly think that a tiny, unknown church’s desire to burn Korans would have made any impact without the need for the press to trumpet the evil of the act? Where is this press when anti-Semitic acts occur? Where is the press when churches do good? Where is the condemnation of Muslims when the advocate killing people in response to any offense? The West just shrugs and states, "Well, they’re Muslim. That’s how they are. Can’t change it. Its cultural." And so, violence and terrorism continues to succeed. Why SHOULD Islam change when violence has worked for 1400 years.

Remember, Christians may burn Korans, and be perceived as committing a wrong, even by fellow Christians.

Muslims will burn Christians and be applauded.

May God bless those that died by the actions of the terrorists.
May God grant that more heroes like those that ran into burning, collapsing buildings and those that run to the sounds of the gun, continue to be born to defend us.

God Bless America.

His premise is that if you support the war, you should support the draft.  He doesn’t support the war, but supports a draft, except that he doesn’t………..what  an idiot.  Just vote to defund the war and be honest about it.

Press Release

WASHINGTON – Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.

"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people’s children. (Rangel is lying.  Total Indifference?  This man is delusional and is using this perception as a way to justify his moral cowardice.  He doesn’t want to be seen de-funding the war, so he uses this premise.)

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America’s children should share the risk of being placed in harm’s way. (No CHILD shares the risk. If fact, there is NO risk of being placed in harm’s way.  Every ADULT CHOSE to enter the military. If no one chooses, then no one is at risk.)

"In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft," Congressman Rangel said.

The bill, which the Congressman first introduced in 2003 as the nation prepared for the invasion of Iraq, and offered again in 2004, 2006, and 2007, provides for:

• A national service obligation–either military or civilian–for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.

• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration. (Does Congress have to APPROVE or just be notified?  No responsibility here…)

• Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security. (Defined by whom?  Not a written criteria?  The President gets to decide?)

• Give the President the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection. (Currently, the quotas for enlistment are approved by Congress.  If the President dictates manning levels, Congress would have no input on funding to meet that level. More abrogation of responsibility.)

• Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years. (Since it may take two years just to train a military member, this seems a little low.)

• Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act. (Congress abrogating responsibility again. Where does it say in the Constitution that the Executive prescribes regulations.)

• Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20. (Apparently he doesn’t want to draft officers.)

• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector. (Or, now, they can just NOT ENLIST.  No need to be an objector.)

BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME

Rangel said that he was not challenging President Obama’s handling of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, conflicts with few options that the President had inherited from the previous Administration. (Unlike what he did to Bush under the SAME conflict.)

"I support the President’s intentions to withdraw our troops, but I’d like to see it happen sooner. In my view, no additional tax dollars should be appropriated for any reason except to bring home our brave and exhausted young men and women. The loss of 5,500 lives and 38,000 wounded is enough." (Hey Rangel! That’s YOUR job.  DO IT! IF YOU OBJECT, PUT YOUR DEFUNDING WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.)

A combined total of 160,000 Americans are currently deployed. More than 2 million men and women have served in the two conflicts, nearly half of them for more than one tour of duty. And because of a shortage of manpower, some of them have been deployed as many as six times.  (Of course, manning levels are the responsibility of Congress…….)

"The 3.3 million military households, representing only one percent of American families, have become a virtual military class who are unfairly carrying the burden of war," Congressman Rangel said. "If there were a draft, there would be no shortage of troops to fill the ranks without repeatedly deploying the same exhausted troops over and over."  (Of course there would be shortages.  Does he think that this would magically create millions of soldiers overnight?  Apparently he has no clue about the training of modern military members. An then we would have demoralized cannon fodder.)

So far, the numbers of casualties may not be as high, or as shocking, as those suffered in previous wars. But the physical and mental damage to individual soldiers is not only heartbreaking but is taking place at rates never before seen in modern warfare.

The reason is that advances in medical technology have allowed more wounded soldiers to survive the loss of limbs, and serious head and brain injuries. "The result is a practical epidemic of cases of post traumatic stress disorder, suicides, and family disruptions," Congressman Rangel said. (So what are you saying?  Better to be dead on the battlefield? And in MANY earlier wars, military members were deployed FOR THE DURATION.)

Again in this war, troops recruited from large urban centers (HIS CODE WORDs FOR BLACKS) with high unemployment and from economically depressed small towns (Southerners? How about economically depressed large cities like Pittsburgh?) , are carrying the heaviest burden of service. Enlistment bonuses are as high as $40,000. Incentives for reenlistment range from $1,000 for the lowest-skilled privates to $27,000 for staff sergeants with special skills. Combined with the economic recession these incentives have produced record-breaking recruiting results this year. (These bonuses seem low.  Spec warfare bonuses and Navy Nuke bonuses are higher than that.  Of course, these recruits also enlisted, knowing full well, that we are at war.  And they did the same thing during the good economic years.  This year may be record-breaking, but quotas were filled then, also. Record breaking? With a war on?  Amazing what happens when the press stop badmouthing the war every day)

"The question of whether we need a universal compulsory military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of its young men and women in harm’s way," Congressman Rangel said. (There’s no question. The military has stated repeatedly and loudly that a draft would HARM military readiness.)

"We make decisions about war without worry over who fights them. Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders," Congressman Rangel said. (Of course they have a choice. EVERY SINGLE MILITARY MEMBER SERVING TODAY CHOSE TO BE THERE DURING A COMBAT TOUR.  EVERY SINGLE ENLISTEE JOINED DURING WARTIME.)

Wellll………he’s lying again.  He’s using that same canard about poor people and urban (read: black) people being disproportionately represented in the military and at the front.

From the Heritage Foundation from 2007 : (I wish I had more recent info.  I don’t think its changed much.)

Household Income. Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/045130A94EE437E6D7284160BBAA2862.gif

His canard about poorly educated troops can also be seen to be false:

Education. Contrary to popular perceptions, America’s enlisted troops are not poorly educated. Previous Heritage Foundation studies found that enlisted troops were significantly more likely to have a high school education than their peers. This is still the case. Only 1.4 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, compared to 20.8 percent of men ages 18 to 24. America’s soldiers are less likely than civilians to be high school dropouts.

The military requires at least 90 percent of enlisted recruits to have high school diplomas.[6] Most enlisted recruits do not have a college degree because they enlist before they would attend college. However, many recruits use the educational benefits offered by the military to attend college after they leave the armed forces.

More evidence of the quality of America’s enlisted forces comes from the standardized Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) that the military administers to all recruits. Over two-thirds of enlisted recruits scored above the 50th percentile on the AFQT. The military tightly restricts how many recruits it accepts with scores below the 30th percentile, and only 2.3 percent of recruits in 2007 scored between the 21st and 30th percentiles (Category IVA; see Chart 3). The military does not accept any recruits in the bottom 20 percent. (My edit: Dumb soldiers DIE.)

As to his concern for all those enlistees from small towns, it seems that the military tradition is alive and well in the South, especially Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Its also strong in the Mountain West.  The MidWest makes a respectable showing, while the Pacific Coast is somewhat underrepresented.  But even the Left Coast beats out the North East, Rangel’s people, for representation.  Maybe we only need a draft in the North East.

For all of his alleged concern about the troops, its THOSE TROOPS that keep stating that they don’t want draftees as reinforcements.  Draftees would harm military readiness, and dull that sharp edge that we have now.

Even data from the 1990′s disproves Rangel.

Two leading military sociologists, Charles Moskos of Northwestern and John Sibley Butler of the University of Texas, researched this carefully for their 1996 book "All We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way."

In recent decades, blacks have tended to gravitate away from combat jobs. In arguing against Rangel’s bill, the Department of Defense noted, "Blacks today account for 21 percent of the enlisted force, but make up only 15 percent of combat arms (e.g., infantry, armor, artillery).

"In contrast, blacks account for 36 percent of Functional Support and Administration and 27 percent of Medical and Dental career fields. "

Interestingly, the military today seems to attract pugnacious whites and pragmatic blacks. Analysts have suggested that more young white men see the infantry as a way, in the words of one, to "play Rambo" from age 18 to 22, then go to college using military tuition benefits. In contrast, blacks often view the military as either a long-term career in itself, or as a way to get practical training for a civilian white-collar career.

Are soldiers the products of particularly poor families? In general, the enlisted ranks come from neither the top nor the bottom of society, but from working and middle class backgrounds. Very few enlistees appear to be the scions of the wealthy. (Some officers are from rich families, however; but a larger proportion of officers are the sons and daughters of officers.)

White enlistees tend to come from households somewhat lower in income than the general white population: $33,500 per year versus $44,400 for the average white, according to 1999 Defense Department statistics. Strikingly, black enlistees come from households above the black national average: $32,000 vs. $27,900

In fact, on a number of measures, African-American enlistees tend to stand well above the black average and very close to, or above, the mean for white enlistees.

s

As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from take advantage of? a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American to advance my agenda. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists with very restrictive ROE to prevent bad press. And tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast, where I walked aimlessly about and drank alcoholic girly drinks, to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens. But enough about our war on oil….
On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water. Of course, fixing something like this on land, like at ANWR, would be child’s play.

Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning an ass kicking physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice. Of course, I haven’t yet talked to the CEO OF THE OIL COMPANY INVOLVED, THAT’S JUST CRAZY TALK.
As a result of these efforts, we have directed Barack Petroleum to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years. I can use this crisis FOREVER! Bush had it easy. New Orleans is all fixed, uh, better now.

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long it takes, to pass Cap and Trade. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. Except keep their most important and vital industry alive. That..we’re going to shut down.

Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again. (Pssst, Rahm, what was the plan again?)

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been voting present in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 ass-kicking personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ass-kicking ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 ass-kicking National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims – and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible. However, if it fails, its all BP’s fault.

Because of our lack of leadership efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been needlessly spilled removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Millions more would have been removed if I had not blocked other countries from assisting the US. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. Miles more of boom sit in a warehouse, ignored by the federal gov’t, even though it was requested by Gov. Jindal back in May. But he’s a Republican…. you know how that goes. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines. I had to approve the construction of the barrier islands, Gov. Jindal went ahead without me.

As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need, as long as it doesn’t impact the unions, cost George Soros money, or prevents my agenda from advancing. Now, a mobilization of this speed(speed? Day 57!) and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them. (Um…..dude, suspend the Jones Act and get more damn booms, and remove the moratorium, and uh….cut the paper work…….OH. you meant about advancing Cap and Trade. Never mind.)

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts (That’s his BEST effort? We’re doomed.), oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That’s why the second thing we’re focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast. Except for the, you know, oil industry……

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. That’s right! I’ve completely gutted the oil drilling industry in Louisiana for years to come. Georgie Soros has to make money with Petrobras Oil. I’ve talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don’t know how they’re going to support their families this year. I’ve seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers – even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I’ve talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they’ve lost. It’s about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost, but the oil industry workers will just have to get new jobs……

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and kick his ass on pay per view, that should pay for the spill inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And the US will pay the oil workers that I have ruined..what? And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party. I’m sure the SEIU can do it.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short-term, it’s also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple (uh…one) economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation caused by the Federal Government’s Army Corps of Engineers that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats and some of the best hunting and fishing in America. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That’s why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment. So, here I go. I’m the man!

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, a former governor of Mississippi, and a son of the Gulf, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region. Anybody but the oil industry. Or me. I don’t want any responsibility, just credit. And Barack Petroleum will foot the bill for the whole thing. Or go broke. I don’t care.

The third part of our response plan is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe – that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. Absolutely, positively, guaranteed safe. This plan comes from the same place that the green jobs and free energy comes from. Someone said that if this had happened in ANWR, that it would have been fixed within days. And if we had kept drilling close inshore, it would have been fixed within a couple of weeks. I’m sure they’re wrong. They’re not me.

That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why.( Because you and yours took money from BP and gave them safety awards LAST YEAR!) The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion – these families deserve to know why. And so I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place so that no fault is placed on me. Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue. (Except we haven’t bothered to ask THEM and the industry experts stated that the moratorium is unnecessary and will set back the industry for YEARS.) And while I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially, and keep the blame off of me.

One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations. And then my administration continued where they left off, taking bribe, uh, campaign donations for as long as BP supported Cap and Trade.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency and he failed miserably. But he kept the money flowing. But it’s now clear that the problems there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. Cap and Trade still isn’t passed. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency – Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. This IG will be as independent as those I fired in the financial world. His charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog – not its partner.

One of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. (Because the environmentalists prevent us from drilling on land and in shallow water. ANWR anybody?)

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor. And that’s why I’m authorizing the building of 200 nuclear power pla…..wait. What? No way.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are drilling off our Florida coast in deep water because we won’t do it investing in clean energy jobs OH BS and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. Therefore, I’m destroying the American Oil industry and putting them on welfare. Coal is next. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that environmentalist wackos cause unintended consequences when they prevent shallow drilling that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny. Therefore, I’m authorizing the formation of the Agency for Federal Unicorn-Based Alimentary Resources.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries. So those dozens of people can look to a happy future. In China.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. Welcome your new position in the proletariat As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs – but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation – workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors. We have to hurry! Novemeber is coming and the GOP is going to Kick MY Ass.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. And no one listened! BWAHAHAHA! Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses, just like the Health Care bill makes health care cheaper and better, too.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development. I’m happy to look at all other ideas as long as they follow my restricted outlook. NO nukes!

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction, unless its me. Then its called………something….oh yes, pondering the complex problems of the day. The one answer I will not settle for  is that any of this is my fault. is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. The same thing was said about victory in Iraq, wait,…that was me….And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. And that’s why I cut the Space Program and I’m killing industries. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny – our determination to fight for the America we want for our children, unless it disagrees with MY vision for America. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there. We know we’ll get there. Even if I have to gut America like a trout.

It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now. That faith that clings bitterly to guns and the bible, that faith that knows that Presidential terms are only 4 years long….if we can only hang on….

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region’s fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It’s called “The Blessing of the Fleet,” and today it’s a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea – some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago – at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, “The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always,” a blessing that’s granted “…even in the midst of the storm.” Isn’t it nice that they’re thinking of me even in the worst of times?   What?

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. I will make sure of that. What sees us through – what has always seen us through – is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Even Rolling Stone knows whose ass needs to be kicked.

First, the President votes “present”, stating that he doesn’t have the authority to control the cleanup. Then,

“The buck,” he reiterated the next day on the sullied Louisiana coastline, “stops with me.”

By this, I’m sure, he meant that BP had paid him a lot of money.

Wait,……what? That’s not what he meant? So, even though he took responsibility for everything, he still has to find out whose ass has to be kicked? Um, dude…….if you don’t know by now, perhaps we need someone that has a clue. Even though, he says that his administration was in control of everything, HE STILL DOESN’T DO ANYTHING. He’s still trying to blame OTHERS.

Red tape keeps miles of booms in a warehouse in Maine.
Assistance from the Netherlands has been delayed.
State governments have been tied up by red tape for weeks.
Possible private solutions ignored.
The Government is making things worse.

Obama is failing to lead.

Heck, he hasn’t even been good at “organizing” the response.

I don’t think he WANTS to actually be in charge, he just wants the credit for fixing it.

Brothers in Arms…..Even Against Each Other

Americans have always fought for freedom. Even against each other.
We were a family divided. And family fights are always bitter.
But, if the battle does not destroy the family,
It becomes stronger.

Even then, we knew that though we were Union and Confederate…..
We were still…….Americans.

Over There

Americans have fought for the freedom of others.
Americans have fought against tyranny and invaders.
Americans do not lay in Flanders Fields.
Americans rest elsewhere.
But, those that lay in Flanders Fields, recognize their own.

The Greatest Generation

War was forced on Americans not long ago.
Similarly to the way it was in ’41.
Then, Americans stepped forward to do a job.
A job as important as the world.
And they did such a fine job,
that they were dubbed, ‘The Greatest.’
They were the ones chosen to save the world.
Some victories are bittersweet,
Many did not make it home.

Thank you.

The Forgotten War

The 25th of June saw a new war
Not a world war, but, one involving the world
An international war
The Forgotten War

Korean war vets sometimes considered themselves brothers apart
forgotten
Remembered only by those that fought there
and the families that lost there

Vietnam

The Long Black Wall
Three Soldiers Stand Watch
The List of the Loved
Never Forget

God’s Music for the Unknown

Not All are Known
Not All are Returned
But All are Honored
Always

The War on Terror

Not All that Fight are Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen, Marines
The Men and Women Above Run towards the Fire Fight
These Men and Women
Ran INTO Fire

The First to Fight the War on Terror
Let’s Roll

The Sandbox and the ‘Stan

The Call had Gone Out
And Was Answered, Again
By the Young Men and Women of America
The Latest Greatest Generation

Thank God for Men and Women like These

To: The Fallen

To the Warriors That Gave All
And Fell
To the Brave Men and Women
That now watch over us
From the Golden Halls,
Forever Full of Grace

May we be worthy of your sacrifice

Thank you.

May God Have Mercy On Us All.

Day is Done

Not all wars or theaters have been mentioned
in my attempt to honor the fallen.

But all the Fallen are honored.

Remember

Speaking to 200 DePaul University students on Tuesday, Steele basically stated that there is no reason for blacks to vote for the Republican party.  "You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True."

For this, he was chosen as the Chairman of the RNC?  Isn’t he the man that’s supposed to articulate why people should be voting for Republicans or if they are not, why those people are missing out?

Blaming the "Southern Strategy" that has made the GOP competitive in the political battles, Steele said,  "We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans," Steele said. "This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People don’t walk away from parties, Their parties walk away from them."  Implying that the current attraction of the GOP to Southerners is based on race is sure to motivate the African American members of our great country to vote GOP.  I truly hope that he decided to keep his message simple, and does not believe this.  The south votes for the GOP because it claims to be the party of principle, honor, pro-life, small government, and pro-defense.  Our stated color-blindness matches the words of Dr. MLK.

"For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton."

Hmmmm,   I seem to remember that we "lost" the "black vote" somewhere around the mid 60′s  prior to the "southern strategy."  And Bill Clinton would have won even if he hadn’t gotten one single electoral vote from the South.  However, all that is history and irrelevant.

"Bubba."  So that’s what he thinks of the southern vote, the southern white male…..really.  Great.  "Bubba didn’t vote for Clinton.  Clinton got 4 southern states.  And 43% of the votes, about 28% of the voting population. Perhaps if the GOP hadn’t picked "Read My Lips" Bush as a candidate, we might have gotten a better turnout.  I will admit that our choices in the primaries were terrible and Bush was the best of a bad deal.  As it is, Steele conveniently forgets Perot.  A huge part of that 18.9% of the vote was conservatives turned off by the big government (precursor of "compassionate conservatism?) GOP.

Steele’s job is to make TODAY’S GOP attractive to voters, not to declare that we haven’t pandered enough to any group.  It is his job to present the message of the GOP, saying, "Here is our message and our principles.  If you like what you hear and see, join us.  If you don’t, why not?"

If a pro-life, color blind, equal opportunity, pro-liberty, pro-business, low tax, pro-defense message doesn’t attract you, then, why would we want you?  If he can’t articulate it then he needs to copy it:

As the great Ronald Reagan said,

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

This message was true then and its true today.  If this message is unattractive, then let them go their way.

I had forgotten this anniversary. No media celebrated it outside of Massachusetts. No school trumpets it. The country has forgotten about it.

But the 2nd Amendment supporters remembered. And they reminded me.

And so I went to the DC 2nd Amendment Rally to celebrate the “shot heard round the world.” I went to celebrate the right to keep and bear arms; the right of a free man to defend his liberty.

And what did I find? About 2000 supporters, out of the MILLIONS in America. 2000 supporters, out of the thousands in DC that are finally allowed to keep arms, if not bear them. That fight is not over.

About 2000 from across the nation. Out of an estimated 80 million gun owners.

I don’t know whether to celebrate this fact or to be ashamed. Either Americans are apathetic about the fight to retain the right to keep and bear arms or Americans are complacent because those that support the 2nd have been winning.

Since I am already familiar with the arguments and the culture of the 2nd Amendment, I decided that I would attend the rally as a “tourist” and attempt to look at the rally as a uninformed DC tourist. I traveled by bus along with the Richmond, Va. VCDL chapter. I was reunited with a long lost member of the UCV, Jesse. Go see his site at Insane Hippie.

First impressions are key. And my first impression was that the rally was small for such an important ideal. But, perhaps the rally would grow as the day went on……and it did. It was still smaller than I expected. But it was Monday and it was DC. I wouldn’t want to fight that traffic….

My other initial impression was that the rally goers were cheerful and inviting. Good music, friendly smiles, and laughter abounded. The yellow Gadsen flag and the Navy Jack flew proudly in the air. An enterprising fellow sold other smaller versions and a variation of the Texan Gonzales flag utilizing an image of the AR-15. Two small boys wandered the crowd, selling buttons, their pockets filled with cash. Think about that…….where else would you let your child wander, with or without cash, knowing that your child was safe and protected. Orange “Guns Saves Lives” stickers proliferated like dandelions. Passing tourists started to sprout them.

I met people from Michigan, Ohio, California, Georgia, and Virginia. Their reasons for attending can encapsulated in one statement. Love of country. They all were there, not because of imminent threat to the 2nd Amendment, but to support it, to spread the message that the Constitution matters and if you restrict one right, all rights are vulnerable. They even offered language lessons …….

So, as a tourist, I took pictures. Hope you like them.

Re-enactors provided needed instruction to the park police about their new-fangled firearms.

Actually, the Park Police were extremely professional and seemed to enjoy themselves.
For a crowd of such dangerous individuals, the presence was slight. Except for the two on the roof of the building across the street….


Smile and wave boys… smile and wave…. Remember, cute and cuddly……

Great personages graced the rally: Davy Crocket and his brother in arms, Button Gwinnett.
Great feats of arms resulted of from the meeting….

General Washington (Kevin Grantz) and Mr. Patrick Henry reminded us of the true nature of our Republic. It is our responsibility to ensure its survival.

Michael Bane spoke of the American gun culture and the wonderment of actually succeeding on TV with no previous experience.

Philip Van Cleve spoke as well, but, I can’t split his video to upload it. Sorry.

The rally went well. There will be more videos uploaded, including one by Lisa Mei who sang “Our Guns” and one from the end by Lucas Hogue. I was able to get part of the Patrick Henry speech.

Good rally.

crossposted at United Conservatives of Virginia

Today is BAG day.

Yep. Buy A Gun Day. Go out an buy a gun to celebrate the taking of your money. Or ammo, if you can’t afford a gun. Bear it proudly. Join with your fellow Virginians and exercise your rights.

It is also Tea BAG Day. I’m a proud TEABAGGER. Join with your fellow Americans. Embrace the word and make it your own. The liberals can only insult you if you let them. Go to a meeting or Rally near you. I’ll be in downtown Richmond today.

And since this is a family blog, I won’t go into all the jokes about what the Tea Party can do to the Progressives to make them shut up……..

Oh, yeah…..don’t forget to send in your taxes…..

With the signing into law, the recent historic health care reform act, Americans have come full circle, able to pass on to our children the same comfort many of our ancestors had in the arms of of their homelands. No more will our children and our children’s children have to worry; they will be taken care of as if in a nanny’s arms.

His leadership has led us into new and exciting territory! His leadership has inspired millions and brought new life to the political landscape. For THIS REASON , I throw my support to our fearless leader.

I find it very interesting that most commenters at Erick’s post, If King George Will Not Listen are decrying the INAPPROPRIATE use of violence, but, not the idea of violence itself.

Defense may be violent.  That is not an inappropriate type of violence.

Violence is only a tool.

Not all of the violence has been committed by leftists.  Google “Window War” and you will come to the 3 Percenters. Some of them have, allegedly, broken windows of Democratic offices.  However, they do not support the GOP either, seeing them as just as bad, but in a different way.  This is an example of inappropriate violence, as are threats and any types of physical assault.  Violence or advocating violence to overthrow our lawful government is also inappropriate.  Nor is any of this, speaking strategically or tactically, useful.  At all.

The big question is “when is violence appropriate or useful?”. THAT is the dangerous elephant in the room.  I do not know the answer except that those conditions have not  been met.

The Left knows how to set up false crises.  The Left knows EXACTLY what is going through the minds of those that are thinking about force.  THEY have been there.  They know what the Tea Parties are thinking. THEY have been there.  The Left is going to use any crisis, real or false, to discredit the Tea Parties and like minded.  They even have a play book in Saul Alinsky.  They have the lemming like press.  They are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to falsely accuse.  Ends justify the means.

If the Tea Party protests must escalate, we must be NON-Violent.  It is not a good idea to only WOUND a tiger.  And the progressive movement is a tiger, but one still constrained by the chains of public opinion, law, and yes, the threat of pushing certain elements so far that the left would regret it.  We must use their weapons against them.  Ghandi and MLK did it the right way.  We must turn public opinion against them. This is still a nation of decent people.  The anger needs to be banked, not stoked.  Stoked fires burn brilliantly and hotly, but are quick and are a threat.  Banked fires last a long time.  Anger should be used as a tool, not a weapon.  Use it to motivate, not harm. Every fighter knows that the first fighter to get angry tends to lose.

We must not allow the Left and their useful idiots to use our anger as a weapon against us.

cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia

Of all the things to do, I never thought that he would actually send a resolution of malfeasance to the floor of the House.  Amazing!

Text of the Resolution in pdf format

You Tube video

Blog entry

Of course, we won’t see this on CNN……

We know that BOTH the House and the Senate are engaged in criminal shenanigans. We know that both Pelosi and Reid are idiotic, corrupt boobs that care nothing for their constituents or their oaths of office. We know that, whatever bill released, none of the Representatives or Senators that vote for it will care what’s in it or read it.

In answer to a question about said lack of transparency, she included in her reply, "we will do what is necessary to pass this bill."

I think that’s just transparent as air…….

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Senator Mary Landrieu BRIBED with $300,000,000 in taxpayer money

Senator Ben Nelson BRIBED by a an amendment forcing 49 OTHER states to pay increased Medicaid costs to cover HIS state.
(If bills singling out one citizen for a law, how is this legal? In addition to the bribery?)

Senator Harry Reid BRIBES fellow Senators to the tune of $1.2 BILLION OF YOUR MONEY!

I am willing to bring charges and/or a lawsuit against Reid and the Democrats for corruption. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to do so properly.

AG Cuccinelli’s first act should be to bring suit to prove that this bill is unconstitutional.

Update: Michelle Malkin has the list of those being bribed

DemCare Bribe List #1

DemCare Bribe List #2

Rope. Tree. Democratic Senators. Assembly required.