Monday, June 29, 2009

Ricci Firefighter Ruling Overturned

Sotomayor rebuked by would-be colleagues

The Supreme Court Justices have just made a ruling in favor of the white firefighters in Bias Case. The Supreme Court ruled that in New Haven Conn. were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. This means that the Supreme Court reversed a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals coourt judge.

This was a case of racism pure and simple. There have been absolutely NO firefighters promoted since the firefighters having taken the exam, which was for consideration of promotion in the New Haven Fire Department. These white firefighters were not considered for promotion, after passing the exam with flying colors, because there were no African Americans that had good enough results on the exam to be eligible for promotion.This is an exam that was approved for ALL people coming from various ethnic backgrounds to take by the city of New Haven. Then, afterward New Haven wants to say that the exam showed favoritism towards whites, but only after the exam results were known-that no African Americans were eligible for promotion at the firehouse.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in this case that the white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on race, does that show some indication that Sotomayor is a racist? Or at least unjustly favors minorities over whites? Will this cause Sotomayor to have any problems with her upcoming Supreme Court hearings? Now it is the law of the land that the Ricci Case was a case of reverse racism.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Stop Flushing Our Money Away

The government is wasting our money everyday, at an alarming rate. I thought that you might like to see how the Chesapeake Virginia Tea Partiers are expressing their concerns about our money being flushed down the toilet. They were on a tight budget and needed a way to raise money for 30 portable toilets for the next Tea Party. Karen Minor Hurd had to think of an interesting way to ask for money for the portable toilets. Hurd, the Tea Party organizer, thought up the idea to ask taxpayers to sponsor commodes and name them with their least favorite politicians. Karen Miner Hurd said, "It started growing, and once people started seeing the list of people who were named, I got more and more requests," and "People started to love it."

A seat our politicians truly deserve, since they are flushing our money right down the toilet.

Here are some of the names of the 37 thrones claimed:

Global Warming Hoax John
Nancy Pelosi ’s Throne
McCain, John
A.C.L.U. john
Barney Frank & Chris Dodd’s Mortgage Banking John (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac)
Kerry, John
Universal Healthcare
ACORN john (Always Crappy, Offensive, Rotten, Noxious)
Eliminate the I.R.S. john
Royal Pain in the Tax
Janeane “Got-to-GO” Garofalo
Eric “toilet paper” Holder
Bawney Fwank’s Office

The other names can be seen at
I just absolutely loved seeing this video, especially the way that Politicians names were presented on their proper thrones along the highway.

Don't Flush U.S.! Tea Party - Potty Parade - For more of the funniest videos, click here

Friday, June 26, 2009

The Gang of Eight Who Abandoned Us

We have yet again, been let down by our Republican Representatives. If all of the Republicans in the House of Representatives had stuck together, and shown conviction in standing up to Pelosi, by voting against this Cap & Trade Bill, then this Bill would have been stopped in its tracks. But, no, that didn't happen. These eight Republicans caved in to Pelosi's and Waxman's pressure, and voted YES on the Cap & Trade Bill. These eight Republicans have absolutely NO backbones!!! This Bill has now passed a hurtle and is off to be debated in the Senate. We MUST stop this Bill from being passed in the Senate!!!! Please Call all your Senators, to stop this travesty from happening!!!!

I don't get it, these Republicans are supposed to stand up against higher taxes, but they didn't. They have abandoned us, as conservatives, and our belief in smaller government. This Cap & Trade Bill will cause massive taxes on American consumers. This Bill will cause an economic crisis to turn into a castatrophe. These eight Representatives MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!

Here are the names of the eight Republicans who voted Yes to the Cap & Trade Bill:

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Walpin Firing: Where There's Smoke There's B.O.

Last Wednesday Inspector General Gerald Walpin learned that he was being fired. Was his being fired due to his astute abilities in finding corruption and misuse of Americorp funds by Obama's friend Kevin Johnson? I smell a stench in the air. I can see the words cover up written on the graffiti-filled bathroom walls. I believe that the corruption from the streets of Chicago has been transplanted to the streets of Washington D.C.

Here is a little bit of background on the life of Gerald Walpin:

Walpin grew up in the Bronx. His parents went hungry so that he could eat dinner. Walpin, while growing up, was a hard worker and continued with the same tenacity during his adult life. With all of his efforts and hard work he made it into Harvard, even though he was unable to pay for it. He would not give up on his American dream. Walpin's dream was to be a litigator. He went to Yale law, took out massive college loans, eventually got a scholarship and graduated from Yale in 1955.

During Walpin's career he has been a 1st Lieutenant in JAG, a special U.S. prosecutor who took on the conservative Ray Cohn, the infamous counsel to an aid of Senator Joseph McCarthy. He also helped to indict Nixon's two cabinet members and represented Mia Farrow against Woody Allen.

In an article by Byron York of the Washington Examiner he stated:

"The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired."

Obama has consistently shown that he can't handle any sort of dissent or criticism at all. His huge ego gets shattered at the thought of someone actually disagreeing with him. Obama is proving that if any type of corruption comes to light, and it involves any of his cronies or monetary contributors, he makes sure that the corruption is covered up. In this case, he has decided to get rid of the ethical party. What happened to Obama standing up against corruption? Walpin was acting responsibly, by investigating and following up on a lead that involved corruption. If that lead happens to include Kevin Johnson, one of Obama's friends, so be it.

On Wednesday night when Walpin was contacted by Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President and "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" At that moment Walpin had just finished a report on the Sacramento probe. He had just also finished an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorp money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorp's biggest program. Because of his findings from the investigations of St Hope and City University of New York, top executives kept him out of corporation business that should normally include the Inspector General.

An article by Byron York stated:
"Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed "very interesting." According to Walpin, Eisen said it was "pure coincidence." When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. "Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response," Walpin recalls."

I don't think that it was any coincidence at all. This was planned. Obama wanted to stop Walpin before he found any more problems with the way the money was managed at AmeriCorp. Think about it, Obama wants to expand AmeriCorp and if it was proven that the money was mishandled that could have some effect on whether Obama's much wanted program expansion would happen or not. I am sure that Obama didn't want AmeriCorp to be put in a bad light. The fact that Walpin's firing was so sudden and immediate is a telling sign and I believe is much more than a coincidence. If Gerald Walpin wasn't an excellent investigator than why would he be an Inspector General? He was obviously an excellent investigator of corruption which was not affiliated with any political group. He must have been a great investigator for his own good, to find corruption with one of Obama's chummy old friends. Obama by firing Walpin in such an interesting and a sudden way has made this political when the Inspector General is suppose to be apolitical and do independent investigations and follow those investigations wherever that leads him without regard to any particular political party.

Last year, a dispute began, when Walpin recommended that Johnson and St. HOPE be barred from receiving and using federal grant money. This is known as "suspension and disbarment", which means that under the current arrangement Johnson would be suspended from receiving any federal funds and might be ultimately barred from receiving funds in the future. "The whole purpose of suspension and debarment," Walpin says, "is to say that somebody who was involved in the misuse of government funds in the past should not be trusted with federal funds in the future."

Walpin's finding included that Kevin Johnson and St.HOPE did in fact misuse the government funds under the guidelines that were specified in the grant. Johnson used federally-funded AmeriCorp staff for his own personal use, which included: "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."

Byron York stated:
"Walpin came to the conclusion that Johnson and St. HOPE should be subject to suspension and debarment. But it was not Walpin's decision to make; there is another official at the Corporation whose job it is to make that call. In September 2008, after reviewing Walpin's evidence, the official decided to order a suspension, with the distinct possibility that it would lead to a permanent debarment."

This shows that he was not the only person who came to the conclusion that Kevin Johnson misused federal grant funds and used federal AmeriCorp employees for his own personal gain, which was not apart of their responsibilities as AmeriCorp staff. Did the other official come to the wrong conclusion also? He obviously thought Walpin did a thorough job investigating the matter and that he had proven that Johnson did indeed misuse federal grant money.

In the meantime, Johnson was elected Mayor of Sacramento. After Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package the conflict became a far more pressing issue since Johnson and Sacramento were hoping to receive aid from the Stimulus package. But, because of Walpin's investigation and assessment of Kevin Johnson's misuse of prior federal funds their would be an insuperable obstacle for Johnson and Sacramento to getting all the funds.

"On March 21, the Sacramento Bee reported that, "The city of Sacramento likely is barred from getting federal money -- including tens of millions the city is expecting from the new stimulus package -- because Mayor Kevin Johnson is on a list of individuals forbidden from receiving federal funds, according to a leading attorney the city commissioned to look into the issue." The issue was explosive. What if there were all that federal money raining down and Sacramento couldn't get any because its mayor had been found to have misused federal money in the past?"

Obviously because of the massive debt California has been facing the past few months or so, Sacramento desperately needed their part of the Federal Stimulus money. Kevin Johnson is the one that had put Sacramento in jeopardy of not receiving any help from the Stimulus. It is not Walpin's problem that Sacramento elected a mayor that had misused federal funds before. I am sure that Obama felt some pressure from one of his top supporters to take care of this situation so that Sacramento could receive federal Stimulus Funds.

The White House claims that Inspector General Gerald Walpin is "confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions."

Glenn Beck said:
"Believe me, the only thing wrong with Gerald Walpin is that his heart hurts from being thrown under the bus by the system he served for so long."

According to the Associated Press, the FBI has opened up an investigation into allegations that an executive obstructed a federal inquiry by deleting emails written by Johnson. In order to settle the investigation St.HOPE Academy agreed to repay close to $424,000 in federal grants.

"I was fired because I did my job," Walpin told KCRA 3 from his home in New York City. "That's bad for our country. It's bad for taxpayers because it's the responsibility of an IG to make sure that taxpayers' money is not wasted."

In my assessment, Gerald Walpin is not disoriented or confused. I believe it is President Obama who is disoriented and confused. He is the one who is acting in a delusional state, trying to cover up and avoid reality, that his friend Kevin Johnson was involved in corruption. Obama is the one that has penalized an inspector general for doing his job extremely well. Walpin was fighting to reduce government waste and the misuse of federal funds. He was doing this by pinpointing where corruption was located, and acting accordingly to get rid of that corruption. Walpin has been wrongly fired for doing his job with precision. Could there be a lawsuit brewing? Obama has proven that he doesn't mind allowing corruption to exist, as long as it has to do with the Democrats. But, should the big, bad, ugly Republicans be involved in corruption, that must be weeded out. Corruption should not be advocated or accepted by any politician from any political party. It should not be a Democrat or Republican issue, in trying to make the other party look bad, but it should be a moral issue.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

ABC, Obama, and Health Care -- A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

In an article written by Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times on Friday June, 19, 2009, she writes about the 60-minute ABC program, to air live from the White House on Wednesday.
Is there a conflict of interest in ABC doing this hour long feature promoting Obama’s health care reform? YES
Here is one example:
“ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's. According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.”

ABC is not allowing any airing of opposing views or which offer a different viewpoint during ABC’s hour at the White House. ABC has become the propaganda machine for the White House. Does ABC have some stake in promoting the President’s health care plan? There is talk that if ABC helps Obama then ABC will get a bailout from Obama, if they need one. If that is true, then I believe that the relationship that ABC news and Obama has in ABC promoting his health care reform is a probably one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history. Obama has stated that he will consider all suggestions and all other health care reform proposals brought before him . By him not allowing any alternate views on health care reform during this ABC hour at the White House, and not allowing the American people to hear different options during this town hall question-and-answer session, the President is sending the opposite message. Both ABC and Obama are sending a clear message that it must be the Obama health care plan or else. What happened to giving the American people an opportunity to hear all the options regarding health care that are on the table? What happened to giving Americans choice? Or do the Democrats only promote that agenda when its in line with their agenda and when convenient for them, like in the case of abortion. Forevermore, since ABC news has become the propaganda machine for the White House, it shall be renamed the ALL Barack Channel. Under Obama, this is becoming the land of forcing stuff down your throat and not letting you get all the facts, only the positive facts that Obama wants to give you, but not the whole truth.

“Denied a chance to question Mr. Obama on his policy or buy advertising time on the program, Republicans said ABC denied them equal time for the town-hall-style event, accusing the network of turning "its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda," RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele said in the organization's second public letter to the network in 48 hours.”

According to Harper, “An informal online poll at the New York Daily News on Thursday found that 75 percent of the respondents did not "trust" ABC to provide even-handed coverage.”

"ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives," said Dan Gainor, BMI vice president of business and culture.

Ted Devine, a Democratic strategist, says that he detected the vast right-wing conspiracy from Republicans. I guess if you call wanting more than one option presented to the American people regarding health care reform a vast right-wing conspiracy, then the GOP and conservatives are guilty. The GOP actually wants to present more options to the American people other than the one option which would be clearly a government-run health care system. The government has underestimated costs and screwed up anything and everything to do with government from social security to welfare. What makes you think that the President’s projected costs for his health care proposal are correct? Do we really want a single-payer health care system? Does Obama want the U.S.’s health care to look like Canada or England? These countries have long lines and patients must even wait for much needed life saving medical procedures. I believe that Obama’s health care plan must be stopped!!!! If Obama’s health care reform proposal is passed through Congress I believe that this will be the death of the greatest health care in the world -American health care.

Yes, I do believe that the health care industry does need some kind of overhaul. I do not think that government-run health care is the answer. I do believe that the cost of health care services must be reduced. Health care professionals must stop being beholden to the private insurance companies. I believe that if the Democrats get their way, then physicians will be subservient to the government and whether the government will approve a medical procedure based on the cost effectiveness of the procedure., and not based on whether the patient actually needs the medical procedure or not.

Is this an example of the vast left-wing conspiracy?

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Instead Of TARP And Stimulus: What If The U.S. Had Paid Off Its Debt To China?

As a conservative, I am appalled at the way that our government has chosen to waste citizens tax dollars to bail out the car companies and the banks. I was also against the stimulus package passed by Congress in February. I believe that the government should not interfere in the free market. If a company makes bad decisions then that company should have to live with the consequences. Why should our tax dollars be used to help out a company that made bad decisions? If I made a bad decision and found myself in debt, would the government bail me out? I highly doubt it. Nor do I think that the government should. The stimulus money was meant to stimulate the economy and increase the number of jobs in the U.S. Most of the money in the stimulus package went to special interest groups and their projects and the money did not go toward shovel ready jobs. Some states didn’t even know how they were going to use their portion of stimulus dollars. The American people were told that shovel ready jobs were waiting to be completed and that the money was needed to hire workers, but that wasn't true. Are there more projects being completed in your area? I don’t see any big increases, if at all, with regard to shovel ready jobs in the Pittsburgh area.

In searching on the internet I found out on that as of April 6, 2008 the United States owes China $492 billion. Then, by coincidence today Stuart Varney from the Fox Business Network stated that China owns $763 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. That means that the United States owes at least that amount of money to China. The U.S. government has spent $787 billion on the Stimulus Bill and about $700 billion was on TARP. What if the U.S. had used the money we spent on both TARP and the Stimulus Bill and paid off our debt to China? Would that have been a good idea? Then the U.S. would not be beholden to China. Would that allow the U.S. to have more opportunities in the trading market? If the United States had paid off its debt to China then the U.S. could have started producing more made in the U.S.A. goods and exporting them. I believe that this could have created new jobs. I think that the U.S. should still trade with China but it seems to me that now the U.S. is mainly buying and importing cheap goods from China. It seems like the United States is not exporting nearly as many products as it was 40 or 50 years ago. Do you think that China would stop trading with the U.S. if we paid our debt to them? Would paying off the debt to China hurt the U.S. economy? I think it would benefit the U.S. if the United States paid off the debt that we owe China.

OLD T.V. Theme Songs

With the recession and all the craziness going on in America and across the World I thought that it would be interesting to devote a portion of my blog to old T.V. theme songs. I have decided to start out with one of my favorites.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Pelosi, Where's The Proof?

On May 14, 2009 Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying about the timeline of when she was informed on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Pelosi accused the CIA of deliberately misleading Congress over the use of techniques such as waterboarding.

Where's the Proof?

She called for a truth commision to investigate where the blame lay. The White House is against a truth commission since it would be looking backwards instead of forwards.
According to an article on Times Online on May 15, "."Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Ms Pelosi and other senior Democrats were told that waterboarding had been used as early as September 2002, but had made no attempt to protest against techniques they have since condemned as torture."
In a press conference she rebutted such charges, saying: "To the contrary, we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used." Asked if the CIA had lied, Ms Pelosi replied: "They misled us all the time."

Where's the Proof?

In earlier statements Pelosi stated that she had not been told that waterboarding was being used during those briefings. One one hand Pelosi accuses CIA of withholding information then on the other hand she accuses the CIA of lying about waterboarding regarding the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah.
As a former CIA director and former President of the United States George H.W. Bush is sticking up for the CIA amid the accusations manufactured by Nancy Pelosi.
In an interview that he had with the Washington Times, Bush takes a gentlemanly shot at the speaker for suggesting she was misled by the agency during a 2002 briefing on interrogations. Bush stated:
"I think she made most unfortunate comments, and I think she's paying a price for it, I think people see her as having been told — briefed on some things and then kind of acting like it didn't happen. So I'm a little disappointed in her."When asked directly whether the CIA lies "all the time," Mr. Bush said it does not.

It has been over a month since Pelosi's accusations against the CIA happened. Over the past month or so she has stated many different versions of what supposedly happened according to her. Yet, since then she has not provided any proof that the CIA has misled or lied to her regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques. The CIA has both consistently and repeatedly stuck to their same story. Pelosi's charge against the CIA, that they lied to Congress, is a very serious accusation which could also be considered a criminal offense. I believe that Pelosi needs to either provide proof that the CIA lied to her or she should make a statement apologizing to the CIA for making a false accusation against them. If these are classified documents and Pelosi wants to prove that she is not lying and making false accusations than I think she needs to request for the documents be declassified. I agree with her on one point that I would love a truth commision to happen in order to verify who exactly was lying and who was telling the truth. Let the American people find out the truth with reference to exactly which one, the CIA or Nancy Pelosi, was lying with regard to exactly when the information pertaining to enhanced interrogation techniques was released to the intelligence committee. I believe that the burden of proof lies with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi since she is the one making the outrageous accusations.

Pelosi, Show The Proof
or Apologize to the CIA!!!!

Monday, June 15, 2009

Bill Maher Takes On Obama

I probably disagree with most everything that Bill Maher believes in since he is a far left wing liberal. Even with disagreeing with Maher I can say that this video is funny!!! Enjoy!!! He even expresses anger at President Obama and calls him to task. I disagree with Maher on what he wants Obama to accomplish as President. But, Maher even says something that I wouldn't ever expect to come out of a far left wing comedians mouth who lives near Hollywood.

Obama needs to be more like George Bush

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Should The FBI Be Reading Suspected Terrorists Miranda Rights?

While on the ground at the U.S. base detention facilities in Bagram, Afghanistan Congressman Mike Rogers(R-MI) discovered that FBI agents are reading Miranda Rights to terror suspects.
The Department of Justice Dan Boyd has confirmed this.

Boyd stated:
"There has been no policy change and nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

This policy was started under the Bush administration.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

The FBI claim to only Mirandize very specific detainees for very specific reasons.

I don't understand why the FBI is reading Miranda Rights to terror suspects who are not United States citizens. I am against giving terrorists rights that only should be afforded to U.S. citizens regardless of which administration was/is having FBI agents do it. Are we constitutionally bound to do this? Or is the FBI using Miranda Rights as a tool in order to gain information? Is this setting a dangerous precedent? Why is the FBI only mirandizing a select few of the suspected terrorists? President Obama has just recently decided that the detainees at Guantanomo Bay are not going to come to U.S. for military tribunals. Bush never considered this to be an option either. So, then why are we essentially giving suspected terrorists rights that they are not required to have by law since they are not going to be coming to the United States?

Friday, June 12, 2009

Do Not Allow Obama To Serve a 3rd Term-Stop Resolution 5 From Being Passed

Some information has just been brought to my attention regarding a piece of congressional legislation. The House of Representatives has proposed a resolution called House Joint Resolution 5 that would repeal the 22nd Amendment which limits the President to two terms. This would allow President Obama to run for a third term. I don't think any President, neither Good nor Bad should be allowed to serve more than two terms. I believe that if this amendment is passed it would open the door to a wide variety of abuses by both our President and our government. The passing of this bill could open the door to even more government control. This could even open the door for the United States to no longer be a democratic country. The U.S could be ruled by a dictatorship instead of having free and open elections.

Rep. Jose Serrano of NYC is the person who introduced this House Joint Resolution 5. Here is his contact information in order to petition him to stop this resolution from moving forward.

Official website:

2227 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone: 202-225-4361
Fax: 202-225-6001

Contact José Serrano via web


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Call and E-Mail Pelosi-Save American Troops Lives!!!!

I am encouraging all people who visit my site to call Nancy Pelosi and make your voices be heard so that the Abu-Graib abuse photos are not released for the public to view them. These photos will do absolutely no good!!! These photos will incite violence against our troops and cause them grave harm. These abuse photos must be stopped from entering the publics viewing eyes. Let us do everything possible to keep our troops safe.Here is Pelosi's contact information:Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Thank You and God Bless!!!

Obama's Narrow Use of the Word Terrorist

Since the killing of both the abortionist George Tiller and Private Long I have been contemplating how both the President and the MSM responded to each tragedy. I have also been assessing when and how President Obama used the terms terrorism and terrorist.

I find it very troubling that the President was so willing to use the words terrorist and terrorism after the abortionist George Tiller was murdered. But when Private Long was gunned down by a Muslim convert he didn't respond for two days. And Obama does not refer to this Muslim as a terrorist who killed his enemy, who was a member of the United States military. He used the term Terrorist so loosely and immediately following the shooting of George Tiller. The MSM were so biased in their reporting of the George Tiller murder that they devoted five times the coverage to the murder of Tiller than to the murder of Private Long.

He seemed to blame the pro-life movement when Scott Roeder was a lone wolf who reacted solely on his own without the support of anyone in the pro-life movement.Pro-Life groups across the U.S. have denounced George Tiller's murder. Tiller performed the most extreme and heinous legal acts allowed in the U.S. The United States should be ashamed of allowing such a procedure to exist legally which is so Hitleresque. The U.S condemned Hitler and The Nazis for experimentation and extermination of the Jews who were not able to speak out and defend themselves. Yet Obama and pro-choicers are taking advantage of the most innocent precious life who cannot speak for themselves either. I do not think any killing is acceptable unless it is in war or in self-defense. The pro-life movement is not responsible for the murder of George Tiller.

Obama, when talking about the Muslim extremists during his overseas trip, did not mention the words terrorist or terrorism. I find it highly disturbing that Obama cannot speak the words terrorist or terrorism when referring to the extremists who killed 3000 Americans on September 11,2001. Instead Obama calls the terrorists jihadists like he is trying to sugarcoat exactly how violent and evil these terrorists really are. While overseas Obama referred to terrorists as jihadists and in my opinion it was for fear of offending Muslims in the Middle East.

Both the murders of Tiller and of Private Long were acts of terrorism. So was what happened on 9/11. But the fact that Obama can't use the word terrorism in reference to Muslims who used three planes for the destruction of buildings and the killing of 3000 American lives is unconscionable. Tiller was one person and Obama could think of that as terrorism and actually use the word but when referring to Muslim jihadists who killed 3000 times as many people as the person who killed Tiller he could not bring himself to use the word terrorist. This is appalling to me since there is quite a difference in the number of lives lost between September 11 and the George Tiller murder. Obama could not even refer to the incident of the Muslim who killed Private Long as an act of terrorism.

This week I found out that George Tiller's abortuary is remaining closed permanently. This is a happy ending for the pro-life movement. I am sure that it would have stayed open if they could have found an abortionist willing to perform third-trimester abortions. The abortions Tiller performed were not necessary at all. If it was because the life of the mother was in danger the women would not had to seek out Tiller to have a third trimester abortion and the closest hospital to the patient would have performed the abortion in order to save the mother's life. These controversial third trimester abortions Tiller performed were egregious and horrifying. It is a blessing from God that Tiller's abortion clinic is closed permanently.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Bringing an End to This False Prophet Obama! Jon Voight

Here is Jon Voight's Speech at the GOP fundraiser last night:

Jon Voight does an excellent job of challenging Obama on his many agendas!!!

FR. Frank Pavone's Pro-Life Column-Spread The Word

This is from Fr. Frank Pavone's column at Priests For Life
Fr. Frank Pavone received this letter:
Fr. Frank Pavone
Praise for our work: My testimony of conviction: I have written to your organization a few times. Usually, it was to sort of protest against your work. ... I've seen the graphic images on your website, but I guess something wasn't quite I always wanted to keep abortion legal for all those in extenuating situations. But, one night about a month ago, God brought things into perspective. I couldn't get the word "dismemberment" out of my head. I was under great conviction and couldn't sleep...How could I not see that one of the reasons abortion is wrong…besides that the baby is made in God's image, but that you are dismembering the baby and not treating the innocent baby as a human being... All I could say to God was that I was so sorry.
Forcing a Pro-Choice Crisis: What About Third Trimester Abortions?
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
What do LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, and George Tiller have in common? They are among an unknown number who perform abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy (the third trimester being the seventh, eighth, and ninth month!)
For two decades I have been proclaiming from the pulpits of America that abortions happen in the third trimester. Many Americans find it hard to believe. Now, in the aftermath of the death of George Tiller, this fact is getting a bit more attention.
The Associated Press reported on June 2 in an article by Eric Olson that physician LeRoy Carhart of Nebraska wants to continue performing abortions at this late stage, but he, as well as Warren Hern, also want to make sure enough physicians are trained in how to do so.
How many are we talking about? The AP story reported, "Carhart said 75 to 100 of the "several thousand" abortions he performs annually are in the third trimester."
Stanley K. Henshaw, a senior fellow at the Guttmacher Institute, the research division of Planned Parenthood, and the best source of these statistics, is quoted in a June 5 Washington Post article as saying, "The information just isn't available...This is an area that we just don't know much about."
The Guttmacher Institute does report in its official statistics, however, that some 13,310 abortions each year are at 21 weeks or more of pregnancy (that is, 1.1% of the 1.21 million abortions per year). Of the 40 states that reported in 2005 to the Centers for Disease Control, 32 states reported abortions of babies 21 weeks or older.
This means that every day, 37 babies the size of a large banana are dismembered and decapitated - and these include healthy babies of healthy mothers...and it's happening legally.
These are babies that the mother can already feel moving. According to MedlinePlus, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, these babies are storing fat on their bodies, their heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope, they can hear, they have eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails and toenails. Incidentally, MedlinePlus calls them "babies." (See ).
Many people wonder how they can get some traction in the seemingly intractable abortion debate. How can they get people to listen, or make pro-choice people believe that pro-life people have good reason to be against abortion?
My suggestion: start by discussing the facts I just mentioned.
It's morally legitimate to focus on late-term abortion; that doesn't deny that all abortion is wrong; it's simply a way to get the ball rolling, a pedagogical method of going from the most obvious to the less obvious, of starting with what people know and leading to what they don't know.
When people are astonished by these facts, as they will be, they are forced to re-evaluate just how much priority "privacy" and "choice" have over life. If they are "pro-choice," they are forced to figure out when in pregnancy the line is drawn - and why.
And now you're talking.
The text and audio of this column can be found online at
Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Fr. Frank Pavone wants his message to reach as many people as possible. So I encourage you to copy his message here and pass it along to as many people as possible in order to promote the Pro-Life movement. God Bless!!!

Monday, June 8, 2009

My Response to Obama's Cairo Speech

At Cairo, President Obama stated,"More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Obama is way off base when he refers to colonialism as denying rights to Muslims. If Obama is referring to Iraq, that is not colonialism. The United States went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people who were living under a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. American troops went into Iraq to assist the Iraqi people with starting a new life, which includes freedom, which they did not have under Hussein. The United States did not go into Iraq to set up a mini model of the United States. Iraq is still a Muslim nation. The United States did not force its Judeo-Christian roots onto the Iraqi people or its government. The American troops are and have been in Iraq fighting the terrorists and bringing peace to the Iraqi people.

Obama accuses the United States of ignoring Muslims aspirations during the Cold War. The United States primary goal during the Cold War was in its defense against Russia. President Ronald Reagan's main priority was defending the U.S. and making sure that Russia did not have the opportunity to create and launch a nuclear strike against the United States. Obama is not happy about how the Muslims were left alone during the Cold War. He again, is not happy with the U.S. in helping Muslims in Iraq. It seems to me that nothing makes him and other liberals happy. We stay out of the Muslims business during the Cold War and liberals are not happy. Then The United States tries to help Muslims in Iraq and Obama and other liberals aren't happy either. I am wondering if Obama is only happy when he has the power to decide what role the United States plays in Muslim affairs.

I find Obama's last statement appalling. For him to think that its his responsibility as the President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam is absurd. When a group of people takes it upon themselves to kill 3000 innocent American lives, they as Muslims have created their own labeling as being terrorists. The United States did not attack Muslims on Spetember 11, 2001. Muslims are the ones that committed this heinous act. Muslims are the ones that need to change the way people perceive them. Americans are not the ones that need to change. It is the President's respomsibility to defend us against the terrorists, who just happen to be of Muslim descent.It is not the President's responsiblity to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam or Muslims.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Playboy Writer Spews Vulgar Fantasy Rape List

While listening to the news this morning I heard something very sick and disturbing. A Playboy writer, by the name of Guy Cimbalo made a fantasy top 10 list of attractive female conservatives that he wanted to "hate f@#$". He claimed that as a liberal, he wanted to find common ground by raping them. That is not only unacceptable but outrageous. I am extremely disturbed that this individual found it acceptable to advocate raping conservative women. Guy Cimbalo was advocating a crime. I believe that he needs to be fired from Playboy. I also believe that the 10 women he was advocating violating and committing a crime against may have grounds for a civil lawsuit.

As citizens of the United States we need to denounce this kind of vulgar speech which advocates a criminal act. Women are not to be demonized as mere objects. Women are human beings who deserve respect and must be treated equally regardless of whether the person is liberal or conservative. We must fight against these types of threats against women.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Part I: Hannity's Interview With Rush Limbaugh

In this interview Rush Limbaugh discusses reasons why he wants Obama and the Obama policies to fail. I totally agree with Rush Limbaugh's sentiments. Obama is leading this country down a dark road and stripping away all that the founders paved the way for this country to be in regard to FREEDOM.

YOU GO RUSH!!!! And Help Lead This Country Back on the Right Track

I hope that you enjoy watching the first part of the interview.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor in Context by Thomas Sowell

Here is an article by Thomas Sowell wriitten on the website IBD Editorials. I thought my viewers would like to see this.
Sonia Sotomayor In Context
By THOMAS SOWELL Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:20 PM PT
In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said.
The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."
If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.
What could such statements possibly mean — in any context — other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.
Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.
The Supreme Court of the United States thought that case was important enough to hear it, even though the three-judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor served gave it short shrift in less than a page. Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.
The very idea that a judge's "life experiences" should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous.
It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance — and nobody can know in advance what the "life experiences" of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be.
It is absurd because it flies in the face of the facts. It was a fellow Puerto Rican judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals — Jose Cabranes — who rebuked his judicial colleagues for the cavalier way they dismissed the white firefighters' case.
On the Supreme Court, the justice whose life story is most like that of Sonia Sotomayor — Clarence Thomas — has a very different judicial philosophy from hers.
The clever people in the media and elsewhere are saying that "inevitably" one's background influences how one feels about issues. Even if that were true, judges are not supposed to decide cases based on their personal feelings.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he "loathed" many of the people in whose favor he voted on the Supreme Court. Obviously, he had feelings. But he also had the good sense and integrity to rule on the basis of the law, not his feelings.
Laws are made for the benefit of the citizens, not for the self-indulgences of judges. Making excuses for such self-indulgences and calling them "inevitable" is part of the cleverness that has eroded the rule of law and undermined respect for the law.
Something else is said to be "inevitable" by the clever people. That is the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But it was only a year and a half ago that Hillary Clinton's winning the Democratic Party's nomination for president was considered "inevitable."
The Republicans certainly do not have the votes to stop Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed — if all the Democrats vote for her. But that depends on what the people say. It looked like a done deal a couple of years ago when an amnesty bill for illegal aliens was sailing through the Senate with bipartisan support. But public outrage brought that political steamroller to a screeching halt.
Nothing is inevitable in a democracy unless the public lets the political spinmasters and media talking heads lead them around by the nose.
The real question is whether the Republican Senators have the guts to alert the public to the dangers of putting this kind of judge on the highest court in the land, so that they will at least have some chance of stopping the next one that comes along.
It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his "empathy" determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge.
* * *
As the mainstream media circles the wagons around Judge Sonia Sotomayor, to protect her from the consequences of her own words and deeds, its main arguments are distractions from the issue at hand. A CNN reporter, for example, got all worked up because Rush Limbaugh had used the word "racist" to describe the judge's words.
Since it has been repeated like a mantra that Judge Sotomayor's words have been "taken out of context," let us look at Rush Limbaugh in context. The cold fact is that Rush Limbaugh has not been nominated to sit on the highest court in the land, with a lifetime appointment, to have the lives and liberties of 300 million Americans in his hands.
Whatever you may think about his choice of words, those words and the ideas behind them do not change the law of the land. The words and actions of Supreme Court justices do. Anyone who doesn't like what Rush Limbaugh says can simply turn off the radio or change the station. But you cannot escape the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Nor will your children or grandchildren.
What does it say about a nominee to the Supreme Court that the most that her defenders can say in her defense is that her critics used words that her defenders don't like?
What does it say about her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters' biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?
Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds—Richard Nixon—had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.
Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.
Much in the past of Sonia Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. Both have a history of connections with people who promoted resentments against American society. La Raza ("the race") was Judge Sotomayor's Jeremiah Wright. If context is important, then look at that context.
Sonia Sotomayor has, in both her words and in her decision as a judge to dismiss out of hand the appeal of white firefighters who had been discriminated against, betrayed a racism that is no less racism because it is directed against different people than the old racism of the past.
The code word for the new racism is "diversity." The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.
What the Constitution says is "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans—and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all of that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word "diversity."
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have "empathy."
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.
It was not the law, but the judges, who changed equal rights into special rights and thereby set the stage for the new mantra of "diversity" that trumps equal rights. Diversity was Judge Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut.
When all else fails, supporters of Judge Sotomayor say that she is Hispanic and a woman, and that it would be politically dangerous to deny her a place on the Supreme Court. This is as much an insult to the intelligence of Hispanic and female voters as it is to the Constitution of the United States and to those who put their lives on the line for equal rights.
* * *
As part of the biographical preoccupation with Judge Sonia Sotomayor's past, the New York Times of May 31st had a feature story on the various New York housing projects in which she and other well-known people grew up—including Whoopi Goldberg, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Thelonious Monk and Mike Tyson.
There was a map of New York City and dots pin-pointing the location of the project in which each celebrity grew up. As an old New Yorker, I was struck by the fact that not one of the 20 celebrities shown grew up in a housing project in Harlem!
The housing projects in which they grew up were different in another and more fundamental way. As the New York Times put it: "These were not the projects of idle, stinky elevators, of gang-controlled stairwells where drug deals go down." In other words, these were public housing projects of an earlier era, when such places were very different from what we associate with the words "housing project" today.
Just the reference to unlocked doors on the apartments there, so that children could more easily visit playmates in nearby apartments on Saturday mornings to watch television, creates an image that must seem like something out of another world to those familiar only with the housing projects of today.
There were standards for getting into the projects of those days and, if you didn't live up to those standards, they put you out. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was quoted as saying, "When kids played on the grass, their parent would get a warning." That seems almost quaint when you think of what has gone on in the housing projects of a later era.
Since there has been so much talk of putting some of Sonia Sotomayor's inflammatory words "in context," perhaps we should put her personal life in context, if the media insist on making her personal life a factor in her nomination to the Supreme Court. While she grew up in a public housing project, the words "housing project" in that era did not mean anything like the housing projects of today.
A relative of mine lived in one of the housing projects back then—and we were proud of him, as well as glad for him, because such places were for upright citizens in those days—working class people with steady jobs and good behavior. Clever intellectuals had not yet taught us to be "non-judgmental" about misbehavior or to make excuses for vandalism and crime.
While Sonia Sotomayor was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth, let's not make her someone who rose from such depths as those conjured up by the words "housing projects" today. It is bad enough that biographical considerations carry such weight in considerations of nominees for the Supreme Court. But, if biography must be elaborated, let it at least be done "in context."
It has always made me a little uneasy when generous well-wishers have discussed my educational background as if it was something almost miraculous that I came out of the schools in Harlem and went on to Ivy League institutions. But any number of other people did exactly the same thing.
The Harlem schools of that era were no more like the Harlem schools of today than the housing projects of that era were like today's housing projects. They had classes grouped by ability and, if you were serious about getting a good education, you could get into one of the classes for kids who were serious and receive an education that would prepare you to go on in life.
There is a lot to ponder about why both the schools and the housing projects degenerated so much after the bright ideas of the 1960s intelligentsia spread throughout society, leaving social havoc in their wake.
Too many people who rose to where they are today because of a foundation of traditional values have become enthralled by the very different ideas prevalent in the elite intellectual circles to which they moved. Judge Sotomayor seems to be one of those, with her ideas about race and the policy-making role of judges.
It is bad enough that so many of those "advanced" ideas have undermined for others the foundation that Sonia Sotomayor had as she grew up, despite being raised in a home with a modest income. There is no need to let her use the Supreme Court to destroy more of those traditional American values.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Are the Families of Victims of 9/11 Getting Shafted by Obama Administration?

I gained my information from an article posted by Worldnet Daily on June 1, 2009:

"The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its Princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks which killed 3,000 Americans according to a report in Joseph Farah's Bulletin."

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act(FSIA) generally protects a sovereign state but there are exceptions that can be invoked. The Obama administration under FSIA have requested for the Saudis to be immune from prosecution even though there is ample evidence of complicity that both the Saudi Government and named Princes had knowledge that the charities they were funding funneled money in support for Al-Qaida's attack on 9/11.

In 2006, families of the 9/11 victims' filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia and four Saudi Princes that allege that they donated to charitable organizations with the knowledge that the charities diverted funds to Al-Qaida. The Saudi Government cited FSIA in their defense, and the court sided with the Saudis and the 2006 case was dismissed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 upheld this decision, citing FSIA and that the exceptions to immunity did not apply to Saudi Arabia since the U.S. had not designated a state sponsor of Terrorism.

Now the Obama administration has filed a court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to deny a petition for a higher court ruling by families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its Princes.

"The families of victims of 9/11 have expressed outrage at the Obama administration."

Do you think that Saudi Arabia and its four Princes should be able to use FSIA in order to gain immunity for their accused actions? Do you think that the Obama administration should be interfering in the Saudi court case? Or should the Obama administration have let the court case play itself out without trying to influence the court in any way? Do you think that exceptions to FSIA should only apply to nations that are denoted by U.S. government as state sponsors of terror? Does the Obama administration have an obligation to the families of victims of 9/11 to allow them to pursue justice against the Saudi government and its Princes for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks? Do you think that the families of victims of 9/11 have every right to be outraged at the Obama administration? Do the families of 9/11 victims have a right to pursue justice?

OPINION: One problem I have with these court rulings is that the court ruled that a country can only be held accountable for a terrorist attack against the United States if the country has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism. I also believe that the families of victims of 9/11 are due their justice and just compensation for grievances caused by the 9/11 attacks. I believe that FSIA should not apply to the Saudis and its four Princes since the prosecution had ample evidence of complicity that both Saudi government and its four Princes had knowledge that the money they were donating to charities was being funneled to Al-Qaida for the terrorist attacks. I don't think the Obama administration should be interfering with the court process in order to benefit the Saudis.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Sotomayor:"Physiological Differences" ?!? It Looks A Lot Like Racism

Sonia Sotomayor gave this speech at a University of California at Berkeley Law School Raising the Bar Symposium. The symposium was specifically called, "The Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

These are Judge Sotomayor‘s words in complete context. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Sotomayor’s words in context are clearly much worse than the one line that was being reported by news networks. According to this statement there are implications that Sotomayor thinks that whether a Latina woman had experience or not, because of the inherent physiological and cultural differences that a Latina woman has, that would automatically make her decisions better than a white male’s decisions. This statement presents major problems with how this judicial philosophy would effect her judicial decisions. Would her decisions always favor a Latina woman or a woman with inherent physiological and cultural characteristics? If a white man had the reverse of this statement than his nomination would have been dead in the water? Is there a double standard in our society? Does society today allow for reverse discrimination? Does society by allowing or accepting reverse discrimination think that two wrongs make a right? Citizens’ in the United States should not be advocating for any form of racism. Racism is inherently wrong no matter who it is directed toward.

Here are 3 links regarding Sotomayor's speech: