What do you think? Well the answer is a resounding no.

I could go into the many things the republicans led the charge in to bring not only freedom to the blacks, but to also give them equality, but we all know what those things are. I could list for a day and a half all the things the democrats did to hold the blacks in servitude and deny them equal rights, but we also know all of those as well. So why do blacks support a party that since its inception has been the party that hated the blacks. I know it ponders the mind, but the answer is easy. They vote democrat for two reasons and two reasons only, dependency and ignorance. If they were to vote for tough conservative republicans, they would eventually lose the free ride and they think that the dems look our for them, period.

Well along comes Bullcrappy Obama. The black community gets all teary eyed and starts proclaiming how for the first time a black man has a chance to be president. Problem is, that is wrong. The first black  to run for the office of president was Shirley Chisholm (D) in 1972, yet she only managed to garner about 2% of the black vote. Here was there chance to stick it to the white man, yet they rejected one of their own. Then came the  joker, and I refuse to call him reverend, Jesse Jackson. This idiot ran for president in both 1984 and 1988 yet he failed to even come close to getting to the nomination to run as the democratic contender either time. Now we are quite thankful he failed to win, but where was the black support for one of their own? Now the first black to have the tools and intelligence to be president ran in 2004, Alan Keyes. Yet once again he failed to get a significant portion of the black vote. But he did get their insults constantly. Guess you are only a real black person if you are a democrat in their own minds.  The others to run, who also failed to garner much black support were Al Sharpton, 2004, and Julian Bond, 1968.

Now lets move up to today in South Carolina. As I stated above, SC has the chance to send the first energetic, conservative, qualified, black congressman from this state to congress, yet will he get the black vote. What an opportunity to “show us whites” that blacks count as well, yet once again the black community will reject a viable and great candidate. Experts believe that Tim will only receive about 10% of the black vote when he runs for office. This speaks volumes to the mindset of the black community. Already black leaders across the country are coming down on Tim Scott based solely on the “R” beside his name. They are calling him the token black guy for the republican party. And they say we are racist.

The mainstream media portrays Paul Thurmond as the loser in last night’s Republican primary for South Carolina’s first congressional district, but that’s all wrong. The real losers are African Americans.

[Rest redacted: we respect other people's intellectual property here.  Even when it's the property of an idiot. - ML]

Link to the article in full.

http://www.theloop21.com/politics/Tim-Scotts-South-Carolina-win-is-a-loss-for-African-Americans

What is amazing about this article is that this guy is quick to call the republicans racist in a round about way, yet the racist stares at him in the mirror each and every day. The guy who wrote this abomination is:

Marvin King is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Mississippi and writes the blog King Politics . And since he published his email with the article, lets write him and let him know he is way off base and displaying ignorant racism himself!

Email Marvin at marvin@theloop21.com

The time has come for us to embrace the black conservatives within our party. It is time to quit trying to make friends with the black community as it is a wasted effort. The black community will have to wake up on its own, and some are. But as long as the Democrats are able to keep the black community in servitude with their social programs, no way they will ever see the light. The democrats are not their friends, they are not the friends of this country, the conservatives are. But we can not force them to see the truth, they have to come to it all on their own. But while they are in darkness, we have to keep fighting the good fight, quit caring about who likes or who does not like us, quit caring about the calls that we are racist, and just move on. We have some strong passionate black conservatives among us and they are the ones we need to be behind supporting with all we have. We need to do this not to make friends or prove a point, we need to do this as these great blacks will be the ones who help shape our party in the next years to come and will be the ones who can wake the black community.

Tim Scott is a great example of this, but he is not the only one. Lets find the others and help them rise to the top. It will help our party become better and move in a positive direction!

I do not support gay marriage in the least nor do I approve of the gay lifestyle. With that being said, where must conservatives and religious folk draw the line on where to stop opposing gay marriage or unions? For many years now, voters have spoken, in a vast majority, that traditional marriage must and will be protected. Millions upon millions of dollars have gone into the fight. Reason after reason has been made to show why gay marriage must be stopped, some valid and some not so valid. But the bottom line is a majority of this country want traditional marriage protected, and I am one of those.

But one of the things we have stated is that while we will protect marriage, we have no issues with civil unions. Those in favor of allowing gays to join together in civil union feel this way for many different reasons. But the fact is, for whatever reason a person supports civil unions, again a majority support allowing gays to have civil unions. Most of us have looked to the republican party to support us in these fights.

Problem is, some are going to far in their effort to protect marriage. And it will backfire on us all.

I get tired of hearing about gays and their issues, feelings, complaints, etc just as much as so many others. But when it comes down to it, I really do not care if they want to join together in civil unions as long as I do not get an invite. If they want the always around partner, the loss of freedom, the nagging, the costly divorce, etc just like us straight folk, have at it. The problem is, that until we as a nation allow them the same access to the same headaches all married folks have, they will never stop the whining, adds, marches, propositions, etc and we have to see this issue in our faces day after day after day! So why is a republican stopping the very thing we promised we would not fight if they left marriage alone?

It makes no sense and we have to send a strong message to our elected officials to not do it again, period! Protect marriage and I will be there ready for a good fight. But we promised to not fight civil unions, so just as much as I would stand my ground for marriage, I must stand my ground that the gov of Hawaii was wrong. We all must stand against her veto or it will come back to bite our party in the rear. We are already viewed as America’s social police, and many times we need to be even tougher on these matters, but this time the leftist rhetoric will be right. I do not like the lifestyle and assume many on here feel the same way. But we must not cross the line from protection of one thing to persecution of a person. And we are close to the line now. Lets not cross over. If we do, we are no better than those who force Sharia law on others.

HONOLULU — Hawaii’s governor on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending months of speculation on how she would weigh in on the contentious, emotional debate.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle’s action came on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, which the Hawaii Legislature approved in late April.

“There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage,” Lingle said at a news conference. “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially marriage by another name.”

Had Lingle not vetoed it, the measure would have granted gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits that the state provides to married couples. It also would have made Hawaii one of six states that essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself. Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage.

Lingle’s decision is expected to be the last say on the proposal this year, because state House leaders have said they won’t override any of Lingle’s vetoes.

Civil unions are not the same as traditional marriage. We must be able to recognize the difference.

“What she did was very just, and I’m very happy about it,” said Jay Amina, 50, of Waianae. “It sends a good message throughout the state of Hawaii — that our people here on the islands are standing for traditional marriage.”

Supporters then shouted, “We’ll keep fighting!” and “Let’s go!” The group of about 100 joined in singing “We Shall Overcome.”

Yep according to 288 scholars, Obama is the 15th best president we have ever had. Lets forget his consistent lying, trashing of the constitution, shoving our country towards a socialist welfare state, spending more in one year that bush did in six years, and so on. Lets just forget all he has not done and shove him up to the 15th spot. Now with Obama being that high, it puts him as a "better" president than Ronald Reagan and even higher than John Quincy Adams.

What one must ask is who are these "scholars" that participated in the poll and how strong is the crack they are smoking. Granted, much of this poll is complete opinion but it is obvious that there is some strong liberal bias when our last president, George W Bush was voted nearly last in just about every category. Like him or not, to rate him as being nearly last in all of the areas shows idiots were polled, not true scholars. And to place Obama in the top 15, when he has been a dismal failure, proves that contention even further. At best, Obama should be tied with Jimmy Carter in a dead last position or nearly last.

By the way, I know you need a good laugh so read this!

President Obama received high marks for imagination, intelligence and communication, but he scored poorly on family background.

In order to wrap my head around this, I have deduced that they gave him high ranks for imagination because he is always imagining that he is a great leader, gave him high marks for intelligence because they compared it to a weasel, and high marks for communication because they realized his great skill at reading a teleprompter where the words were fed into it by high paid writers. I mean it does take a certain level of skill to read the words on a screen that were written by others. But to give the man low marks due to his family past, I call hogwash. Dislike him as much as I do, it still should not matter that he did not come from a golden spoon family. What pompous asses these "scholars" must be.

Here is the link to the list of Presidents:

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%202010%20Rank%20by%20Category.pdf

Here we go again folks, Mexico gets to come to our soil, our institutions, and tell us what racist pigs we are. We have a president damned determined to destroy our country, who refuses to enforce federal laws, refuses to secure our borders unless the republicans agree to his terms, refuses to allow the National Guard to help keep the trash out, and so on and so on!

We have a congress that has decided to destroy the constitution as it only gets in the way of their agenda. They flaunt their dislike of our way of life all while ramming this great country into socialism. They worry more about ending DADT than cleaning up the oil mess, worry more about taxing carbon then making sure their citizens are safe from invading illegals, so why would we expect them to care that a foreign country is going to stand in our courts and proclaim how racist we are.

First, why does it matter what Mexico thinks of us. It is not like they are a country we want to pattern our way of life after.

Second, why is the Mexican administration taking the time to come here and preach at us when they are having an internal war going on as we speak. In the time it took to write this, most likely either a cop or citizen just got killed as a result of the rampant drug war going on inside Mexico.

Third, why is our court allowing a foreign country to speak in a matter that is none of their business. Even if the law was blatantly racist, it still has nothing to do with Mexico.

This entire episode would be laughable if it was not so serious. We are a sovereign country that owes no apologies to any foreign country. We do not need to have their opinion and biased view spewed in our courtrooms on matters that have nothing to do with their way of life. But yet once again our country is being put in a subservient role and being forced to buckle to the will of a foreign country. When will we as citizens say enough is enough and stand against this embarrassment.

Mexico gets its a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico’s request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens’ rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued last week, Brewer said she was “very disappointed” to learn of Mexico’s filing and reiterated that “Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional.”

“I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional,” Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

The law’s provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense — anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

Arizona’s policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as “discriminatory,” states police can’t randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials “to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”

Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico — typically from Central America — face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.

But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens’ rights and that Arizona’s law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries’ work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.

Lets look at the Mexican law on immigration shall we:

Arizona’s new law forcing local police to take a greater role in enforcing immigration law has caused a lot of criticism from Mexico, the largest single source of illegal immigrants in the United States.

But in Mexico, illegal immigrants receive terrible treatment from corrupt Mexican authorities, say people involved in the system.

And Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona’s that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally.

“There (in the United States), they’ll deport you,” Hector Vázquez, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, said as he rested in a makeshift camp with other migrants under a highway bridge in Tultitlán. “In Mexico they’ll probably let you go, but they’ll beat you up and steal everything you’ve got first.”

Mexican authorities have harshly criticized Arizona’s SB1070, a law that requires local police to check the status of persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. The law provides that a check be done in connection with another law enforcement event, such as a traffic stop, and also permits Arizona citizens to file lawsuits against local authorities for not fully enforcing immigration laws.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said the law “violates inalienable human rights” and Democrats in Congress applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s criticisms of the law in a speech he gave on Capitol Hill last week.

Yet Mexico’s Arizona-style law requires local police to check IDs. And Mexican police freely engage in racial profiling and routinely harass Central American migrants, say immigration activists.

“The Mexican government should probably clean up its own house before looking at someone else’s,” said Melissa Vertíz, spokeswoman for the Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center in Tapachula, Mexico.

In one six-month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico — 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said.

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”

Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.”

The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.”

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number.

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be Imprisoned. Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.

Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different is subject to fine and imprisonment.

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as Felons. Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison . Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population States… “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.”

Now it is amazing that not only is the Mexican law similar to Arizona’s law in allowing for Police to demand proof that the person is legal in this country, but in that its treatment and punishments of illegals is much much worse.

Well enough is enough. We as Americans need to demand that Mexico keep out of our business and worry more about the issues inside of their own country. We need to let them know that if they are so worried about our “racist” law, they need to then set the example and fix their even more “racist” law. We need to tell them to keep their people out of our country and then there will be no more issues. But more importantly, we need to tell our leaders to respect our sovereignty and keep our business between us, not other countries. We need to tell our courts that Mexico has no business speaking in our courts unless we are suing them for all the money we have wasted on their escapees!

You may have already seen this video, but watch again and look at the party that applauds a foreign leader insulting our people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YobJc5cnk68&feature=related

Now watch Rep Tim McClintock’s response to the Mexican presidents speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs

And I mean who cares about the poor when the rubber hits the road? Liberals will tell you they do. Almost every day you hear that catch phrase or see another liberal tard trying to pass a bill that will steal more money from those who work, in order to maybe never give it to the poor. But when it comes to their own pockets, you know when they can not use our money to give out, how often do the liberals give and compared to conservatives, who gives the bigger percentage.

Most will not be surprised by the answer, it is the conservative that gives much more to those in need than the liberal does.

A study by Authur C Brooks, a professor from Syracuse, found that it is “surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.”

He found that although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

He also discovered that

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

What an amazing find. Could it be that the liberal who display slogans such as “Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All,” “Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty,” “The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion,” “Arms Are For Hugging,” “Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India),” “Jesus Is a Liberal,” “God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts,” “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans,” “Republicans Are People Too — Mean, Selfish, Greedy People” and so on only give when the cameras are watching and when it is our money, not theirs, that they are giving away? Well lets look at our last president and the current one. I mean, by golly gee and all that is holy, Bush was such a POS and Obama is the new Jesus, there will be no comparison, right? Obama has preached about how we must care for those who have been lazy, his wife spoke about taking our pie, so they must be setting the example for us all….right?

WRONG! According to published tax returns, Obama and Biden were dismal in the charitable givings and gave much less than the two “war mongering assholes who used their position to enrich themselves before leaving office!” Liberal have name called these two and screamed that they despised the poor and those in need, so lets look to see if they were right shall we.

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this “giving back” stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn’t see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama’s tax plan won’t affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591,$212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236,$31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million — more than twice President Bush’s 2005 income of $735,180 — but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. 77 Percent and yes that is the right number! The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s. Maybe when Obama talks about “change” he’s referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That’s for other people to do with what’s left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut. What a tremendous difference between the four. But maybe, just maybe, there is yet hope for a Democrat leader. Now Al Gore stated that homelessness has caused more to damage the environment than planes although I am not sure how he came to that reasoning. But for giggles sake, lets overlook the lies of global warming and his own lies and stretched truth and buy into that statement for a sec. One would assume that with his “passion” for fixing the economy, Gore would be a leader in the giving to the poor so that the environment ceases to be harmed, but we would be wrong.

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore’s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore “gave at the office.” By using public office to give other peoples’ money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word. Oh wow, a whopping 0.2 percent in charitable givings.

Now lets be honest, no one is required to give and if they give anything from their own money, good for them. I am also not saying that no liberals give or out give the conservatives, nor am I saying that all conservatives give and or give more than liberals. But I will say that most liberals on average give less to the needy unless of course they are giving our money to them. The only thing they care about when it comes to the poor, is using them for slogans and deceitful attacks not based in reality against the conservatives.

Most liberal rich and politicians take the Gore mentality when it comes to giving which is, “I gave at the office” which interpreted means I gave your money!

On an interesting and side not, Mr Brooks also found that The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

**some of this diary is directly taken from the writings of George Will @ the Washington Post and from the research of Authur C Brooks** Article Link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Authur C Brooks writings are titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”

I never rejoice in ones demise even when the person has spent their life purposely destroying this country. But at the same time, I will not shed a tear. We will soon be fighting for a seat that would take retirement or death to take, and that time is upon us. Sen Byrd from West Virginia has been a solid democrat seat for ages. Once a hero from his days spent on the lines of war, he has become one of the most powerful liberals and a staunch anti military man. But West Virginians named roads after him and continued to elect him even after his notorious racist gaff. It was such a secure seat, most republicans just looked past it knowing Byrd would win it again.

But God, karma, old age or whatever else you call it has maybe put the seat up for grabs. Now I know many will say that I am calling this way too soon as all major news sources are only saying he is seriously ill. But I have a leg up on them or at least the ability to say what is really going on. Thanks to a long time friend who lives in Craigsville WVA, who served in the Pentagon for 23 years, served the West Virginia state police for another 15 years, and now is finishing his work life as security for state elected officials, I have been told that Sen Byrd is on deaths door. While we all know miracles can happen, it is not expected this time around. Sen Byrd’s longtime abuse of this country will soon come to an end and his eternal reckoning will soon begin.

Again, while not taking pleasure in his pain, as well as his families and friends, this is an important seat that republicans may be able to take. What a coup it will be when our "esteemed" leader looks out upon the Congress only too see his enemy in the seat once held by his staunchest supporter. We can and must take this seat if and when, more likely when, Sen Byrd takes that long ride into eternity. And it is a seat we can take and hold for a long time to come!

Here is the story as put out by the AP and distributed by Fox News.

Washington

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who holds the record as the longest-serving member of Congress, is seriously ill in a Washington-area hospital.

The West Virginia Democrat’s office says the 92-year-old lawmaker has been in the hospital since late last week.

At first he was believed to be suffering from heat exhaustion and severe dehydration. But his office says in a statement doctors have examined Byrd and other medical conditions have developed. His condition is described as serious.

The statement does not name the hospital.

In November, Byrd broke the record for congressional service that had been set by Democrat Carl Hayden of Arizona, who served in the House and Senate from 1912 to 1969.

Byrd began his career in Washington in 1952 with his election to the House. His elevation to the Senate came six years later.

Byrd has been in frail health in recent years and was hospitalized three times in 2009. He has been confined to a wheelchair , but was present and voted "yes" for final Senate passage of the health care reform bill in March.

Byrd has been the longest-serving senator since June 2006 and was elected to an unprecedented ninth term in November 2006. His colleagues have elected him to more leadership positions than any senator in history. He has cast more than 18,000 votes and has a nearly 98 percent attendance record over the course of his career.

His wife, Erma, died in 2006.

Growing up, on days such as July 4th, TV stations would play non stop patriot themed shows, churches would hold services in order to remember what we have and to pray to God that we not only remember our freedoms but that they continue on for our children, and cities across the nation would hold parades, BBq’s, and of course the obligatory fireworks show. Today, we are lucky if our favorite station plays one patriotic show, churches doors remain locked, and we have to google map our way to a halfway decent  July 4th show. It seems that the day is not as important to American citizens as it used to be.

But what makes it even worse is that along with the seemingly lower interest in celebrating our independence, we are faced with constant attacks by our elected leaders on the very freedoms we use to celebrate. We have people being elected to lead our country that are openly against our way of life. We have "Code Pink" and other similar type groups verbally and physically attacking the young men and women who lay their life on the line to protect our freedoms. Never did I think that openly communist and socialist people would be able to be elected and even celebrated by American citizens, yet that is what happens in our country today. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that we as a people are forgetting what it took to gain the freedoms we enjoy today, but also what it take to keep them. Well I have not forgotten and I know everyone on here has not forgotten!

Some interesting facts about our war for independence:

The American Revolutionary war occurred between 1775-1783

Only about 15-20% of colonist supported the British Cause and after the war around 70,000 loyalist were "helped" to move out of this country, most going to Canada.

40-45% of this country supported our move for independence. The rest remained neutral.

The British Army at that time only consisted of about 36,000 troops worldwide. But wartime recruitment and the hiring of mercenaries increased that number tremendously. But overall, the British only had about 60,000 troops on our soil during the war and around 30,000 of those were German troops known as Hessians.

Loyalist supplied the British war effort with around 50,000 troops throughout the war.

It is believed that throughout the war, around 250,000 Americans served their country, although many were not full time soldiers. There was never more than 90,000 American troops in the field at any given time.

The largest contingent of men General Washington ever commanded at one time was 17,000.

After an American victory at Saratoga in 1777, France, Spain, and the Netherlands entered the war on behalf of the Americans. It was France’s naval victory at the Chesapeake that led to the surrender of the British Army at Yorktown in 1781.

About 5000 black troops served the revolutionary cause and about 10,000 escaped to the British side although it is believed that only about 1000 of these actually fought against the Americans. The rest served the British army behind the lines.

Most Native Americans served with the British and it is believed the number who fought against the Americans was about 13,000.

About 25,000 Americans died during the war. Only about 8,000 of these deaths were from battlefield wounds. The other 17,000 died from disease including 8,000 who died while prisoners of war. Those who were disabled or seriously wounded by the war was between 8000 and 25,000 bringing the total war casualty number for the Americans as high as 50,000.

The American War took place during the North American smallpox epidemic. This epidemic claimed around  130,000 American lives. Many historians believe that Washington’s decision to inoculate his troops may have been his most important strategic decision.

In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed bringing an end to the war and gave American independence recognition.

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War.

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

To date, 2,757,196 Americans have died fighting for our freedom. This is a lot of blood that must be remembered.

We must never forget what it has taken for us to be free. We must never allow this tremendous sacrifice to be wasted. We can not allow those who despise our way of life to alter it. Way to much has been sacrificed to gain our freedom and it must be cherished.

Yep you heard me right. Wilder publications is now including a warning anytime they print the Constitution of this country. What has this country come to when American citizens need  a warning prior to reading the very article this country was founded on? And this was not done by a foreign company, it was an American company filled with Americans who now seem to be embarrassed by our proudest document. I would write more, but this pissed me off so I will leave you to state your own opinion after reading the warning and the story.

Warning

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Story

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don’t pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you’re wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."

The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.

Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher , sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."

And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.

"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."

As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.

"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.

Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don’t buy from this publisher.

Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

This is such a sticky question as the answer varies person to person. And it also depends based on each situation. But to get to the point, does a business have the right to refuse to hire a person who is not inline with their beliefs or fire a person based solely on violation of those beliefs. Well lets look at that for just a second.

Not to toot a horn, but as I have stated before, I own God’s Way Counseling. It is a christian business licensed to care for people who have numerous mental disorders, counsel those who are married or planning on getting married, counsel those addicted to substances, etc. Our foundation is based on self help through biblical principles and we advertise as a christian company. While we believe medicine is needed in many situations, and do prescribe when it is needed, our main belief is that many of todays conditions are self induced and that medicine is too easily given out today for just about anything. In order for us to stick to our beliefs and care for those who trust us and believe the same way, it would be impossible for me to hire an atheist, new age practitioner, muslim, etc as they would not believe the same way we do nor would they attend to the client in the same way. I have that right. It is my business hence I can decide who works for me. I am not refusing to hire someone based on their skin color or their sex, I base my hiring on a belief system.

I have never had to fire anyone, knock on wood, but it is an understood rule that there are certain expectations when it comes to my employees and their actions and behavior outside of work. This is not negotiable and there are no second chances. How can one of my employees counsel a person with a drug addiction if they themselves are smoking crack? Or how could one counsel another on the attributes of a loving and faithful marriage if they themselves are slipping it to another outside of their own marriage. It is not me, as the business owner, demanding control of their lives, it is me demanding that those who choose to work for me live to a certain Godly standard so as not to be seen as hypocritical and to remain effective when it comes to patient rehabilitation. It is me as a christian business owner understanding that my employees and myself may disagree on some theology, but that all who are a part of the business live in accordance to Gods law so that my business keeps the respect it has earned over the last six years. I have that right.

Well a lady in Florida feels business does not have that right. She knew when she took the job she was teaching at a christian school, she knew the standards they demanded from both teacher and pupil, she knew what they believed, yet she chose to break those rules. Now this is a lady that is trusted by parents, who have made the decision to place their children in a school that both teaches and represents the beliefs they want their children to be taught, to teach their children not only academics, but also Godly principles. Yet she chose to lay with a man and become pregnant prior to marriage. Does this make her a horrible person, no. But it does mean that she has violated the rules of the school and should no longer be teaching at the school. What part of hypocrite does she not understand? How can she expect to keep the respect the children had in her and continue to teach these young children to follow the law of God, when she herself is breaking the very same rules?

Well the school fired her and did so well within their rights. She broke school policy and was fired for doing so. Not because she was a woman, just simply because she failed to keep the rules of the school. She has decided to sue. While the suit will most likely be thrown out, this is an important case to watch. No more does a christian have a right to force themselves into a muslim school, she has no right to force herself on this school. But if an activist judge ignores what is right and what is reasonable, we will all pay. I will have to hire anyone qualified even if they despise my faith and the beliefs the business was built on, christian schools will have to hire those who do not believe or live the way the school requires, and so on and so on. RedState will have to hire a KOS type writer but that same rule with not apply to them.

This case may seem to some to be irrelevant, but it is not. If this woman is able to force the school to accept her choices that are not in accordance with the schools belief, we will all see the affects in our own lives. We must stay vigilant and involved in this case and others like it if we expect to keep the rights we are so blessed to have at this moment!

A former Florida teacher said the administrators of a Christian school where she was employed fired her because she became pregnant just before her wedding, MyFoxOrlando.com reported.

Now, she has filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the private school in St. Cloud, Fla.

Jarrestta Hamilton said April of 2009 was the happiest month of her life. She was a newlywed and newly pregnant and teaching fourth graders at Southland Christian School. She said it was about that time when she approached by the administration to talk about "maternity leave ."

She said when asked, she admitted that the baby was conceived three weeks before the wedding. A week later, she said the school fired her. Attorney Ed Gay is helping Hamilton sue the school, claiming that her termination amounts to discrimination based on her pregnancy and marital status.

"If they’re going to single her out because she conceived prior to marriage, but allow people to remain employed who conceived during a marriage, isn’t that discriminating against her based on her marital status?" asked Gay, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.

School administrator Rob Ennis said the school had not seen the lawsuit. "At this time, we’re going to seek legal counsel, and I really don’t feel comfortable making any comment to be honest with you."

MyFoxOrlando obtained a letter sent to Hamilton from the school which asked not to return because of "fornication," sex outside of marriage. It also claims that Hamilton knew about the school’s moral stance through the employment application

process.

"Just a vague reference to upholding standards and purposes of the school," said Gay. "That’s what they’re going on as a ‘morals’ clause."

Ultimately, it could be the federal courts that decide who is right and who is wrong. Hamilton also claims that the school violated her privacy by telling parents and students why she was fired.

Yep that is what CA congresswoman, Linda Sanchez, has told us. She has shed the light on who is really behind the “god awful racist” Arizona bill. It is the White Supremacy groups. They have played puppet master and coerced all the Arizona legislature members to write a bill to expel all illegals. Oh what a shame!

Rather, oh what a sham! This lady has got to be off her rocker! First she neglects to mention they are called illegal immigrants for a reason, they are here illegally. She also fails to mention that over 70% of the state favor the bill and were demanding something be done about the issue. Are these the “white supremacist” she is referring to? It is amazing that these idiots are able to be elected, even in CA, but what is more surprising is that they continue to be elected. Their only ability is to start a racist problem by calling everything racist. In their opinions, screw the law, and if you enforce it, you are a damned racist.

But what is even funnier about her ignorant rant is she claims that,

“There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups,” said the lawmaker, who is of Mexican descent. “It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics.”

Its documented? Where?  So now you want us to believe that you have some documentation, that no one else knows about, that shows White Supremacist are behind this law and the push to write laws like this in other states. Amazing how similar this sounds to the Sic Willie crap in SC.

Its not mainstream politics? Since when? Lady, over 70% in the state and over 60% in the country agree with the law! How is that not mainstream? Or is the majority of this country racist white supremacist? How about the massive coalition of minorities, including hispanics, that also favor the law?

After this comment, so many others like it, and the many actions we have seen from the left, if people continue to vote these turds into office, they deserve everything coming to them!

A California congresswoman is pointing the finger at white supremacist groups, who she says have inspired Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., told a Democratic Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups are influencing lawmakers to adopt laws that will lead to discrimination.

“There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups,” said the lawmaker, who is of Mexican descent. “It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics.”

Sanchez said front organizations for white supremacist groups are approaching lawmakers to propose the language to the bills and urging them to push them through state legislatures in an effort to legalize discrimination.

“It creates a Jim Crow system where based on the color of your skin you could be treated as a second-class citizen or harassed based on how you look,” she said.

The Arizona law, which makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, requires police enforcing any other law to question people about their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally.

Supporters of the law say it will save taxpayer money and reduce crime by pressuring illegal immigrants to self-deport. But critics say the law is unconstitutional and promotes racial profiling.

Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., told the Whittier Daily News, which first reported the story, that Sanchez’s comments are “an outrageous accusation.”

“It’s trying to find somebody somewhere you can accuse of something,” Miller told the newspaper. “It’s red herring. (She’s) trying to change the debate from what the law says.”

A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who will meet with President Obama Thursday to discuss immigration and border security, also criticized Sanchez’s comments.

“Gov. Brewer signed S.B. 1070 because it mirrors what is already federal law and because our federal government has failed to secure our international border, leading to Arizona become a super highway of illegal drug and human trafficking,” Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said in an e-mail to the newspaper.

Sanchez told the newspaper after her speech that she based her accusation on online stories, particularly a blog written by Andrea Nill, an immigration researcher for ThinkProgress, an offshoot of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Nill wrote that the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), helped write the law. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled FAIR a hate group, a designation that the organization disputes.