Monday, January 31, 2011


"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace." George Washington - Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796

That wisdom from George Washington was written before the creation of Marxist ideology and the (League of Nations) now United Nations.  

I have on two occasions been asked if I would be an "isolationist."  That question implies an extreme position, as if one who would not want to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries would be an "isolationist."  This is the how the left construes its arguments, i.e. if you disagree with Barack Obama you must be a racist.  If you disagree that our government should mind its own business and should deal with other countries as individual entities with obvious opposite agendas from our own, you are an "isolationist?"  No, you would be a realist.  But I digress.

The rise of the Muslim revolutions occurring in the Middle East, the rise of China's economic power, and the orchestrated weakness of the United States are mixing up a potent brew of antipathies that cannot be resolved peaceably.  The leadership of the United States has been meddling in the internal political affairs of other nations for decades.  The fall of the Shah of Iran did not happen in a vacuum.  And the fall of Mubarak in Egypt is not happening in a vacuum.  The United States has now, and for years, been orchestrating revolutions in other countries, and, in my opinion, supporting the side of Islamic and Marxist radicals depending on the location.  You would ask, "Why would we do such things?"  Indeed, why would we embolden the strength of those who hate the United States??

Some years ago when I heard George Bush start talking about spreading democracy around the world, I ask myself, "When did that become the aim of the United States?"  Well, as it turns out, the word democracy is being used as a ruse for global Marxism.  If you think I am wrong about this, ask yourself if you think any of these revolutions have worked in the favor of the United States.  Ask yourself if the internal affairs of the United States are becoming more and more Marxist.  Do you think this is an accident?

In our ongoing conversation about the State of our Union, I wish our eyes to be open and truth to spread like wildfire across our land.  On my sidebar to the right there is a link called Mat Rodina.  It takes you to a blog of a Russian Orthodox Christian who really hates the United States and the "West."  Every now and then I take a look at his blog to see if I can understand his views.  Yesterday he posted a video describing the interference of the United States into the governments of other nations.  In case you think we are innocent bystanders in world events, you might take a moment to watch the video at the link below.  I think it is worth your time to see what our government has been doing with our tax dollars to undermine world stability and, at the same time, knock the legs right out from under our own foundations.  Using our own money to create Marxist and Muslim revolutions in the Middle East and in South America, our government leadership has deliberately used the United States citizens in an unwitting plot to "creatively destroy" the order of nations......why, exactly?  To give the United Nations ultimate control of the world, for one thing.  To create a global cabal of control over natural resources, for another.  To "redistribute" our wealth, for another.  You and I were not consulted.  What does that tell you about this "new" democracy?

I've tried to capture the embed for the video at Mat Rodina, but could not do it.   So you'll have to go to the link to see it.  It's around 12+ minutes, but worth your time.  It describes the "National Endowment for Democracy" and USAID, that your tax dollars are funding to foment revolutions in other countries.

Just as an aside, it seems a bad joke that it really didn't matter who you voted for..Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, etc.  They are all in the same cocktail when it comes to creating the one world government.   Drink it at your own risk.

Sunday, January 30, 2011


I was thinking this morning about government money and wondering why the American people are suddenly so enraptured with using taxes for inventions. Yes, this is another article telling you that, as Reagan said so eloquently, "Government is the problem."

Obama gets out there for the SOTUS and says we need inventions, technological innovations, all funded guessed it, your money. Which made me ask the question: "Who funded Edison?" That may sound simplistic, but the truth is that most (I'm guessing more than 99% of all) innovations and inventions have come from entrepreneurs who put their own livelihoods on the line in order to create great things. The answer on Edison came from Here  And Here Mr. Thomas Alva Edison funded his own research and development. His early years were not wealthy. He made his way through life with his wits and his moral courage and eventually found success for creating devices that benefited our entire society. The Federal government had nothing to do with it. Neither did State or local governments. The governments stayed out of his way and allowed Edison to pursue his dreams. If those dreams had failed, it was Edison who would have lost his investments, not the taxpayers. Since those dreams succeeded, through the freedoms he was afforded, our lives have been enriched in immeasurable ways.

The rewards for freedom are too many to count here, but one of them is surely the open ended ability to go after a dream in moral ways and succeed or fail on your own. The punishments for tyranny are also too many to count here, but one of them is surely the trampling of dreams and the failure to inspire people to create and invent.

Evidently Mr. Obama does not grasp the origins of either freedom or creativity / innovations. Have you ever heard the concept of, "Nothing good can come of ill gotten gains?" Proverbs   Mr. Obama and the recent crop of politicians prevalent in all levels of our government at this moment seem to have no knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, Biblical lessons, or even a smattering of English proverbs. ("ill gotten gains shall not prosper")

In case you are wondering where these government elitists are getting their twisted and infernally ignorant information, there is a Harvard professor of economics named Edward L. Glaeser who wrote recently in an op-ed in the New York Times,

"Economists’ fondness for freedom rarely implies any particular policy program. A fondness for freedom is perfectly compatible with favoring redistribution, which can be seen as increasing one person’s choices at the expense of the choices of another, or with Keynesianism and its emphasis on anticyclical public spending.
Many regulations can even be seen as force for freedom, like financial rules that help give all investors the freedom to invest in stocks by trying to level the playing field."
 Fortunately, a rebuttal to this is printed below:

"In fact, a presumption in favor of freedom rules out virtually everything that modern governments do, certainly nearly everything they do in interfering in economic affairs. Redistribution of income, for example, requires that the government rob Peter in order to benefit Paul (and its own functionaries, who serve as middlemen in this transfer). This action is not freedom; it is a crime against Peter, a raw violation of his right to his own legitimate property. Keynesian countercyclical spending requires the government to spend borrowed money whose acquisition is premised on future taxation (that is, robbery) of taxpayers in order to service the debt and repay the principal. Again, innocent persons have their rights violated. How can anyone fail to see that robbery is incompatible with freedom? Finally, the financial rules that Glaeser finds compatible with freedom entail threats of violence against financial transactors who do not follow arbitrary government rules—often extremely foolish and even destructive rules—in making their transactions, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the transaction may be perfectly willing to proceed without such regulatory compliance. Such regulation is the very opposite of freedom; it is instead the sheer imposition of outside force, intruding on willing transactors, and thereby discouraging them to some extent, if not entirely, with consequent loss of the wealth that such transactions would have created, in addition to the loss of liberty."

Mr. Obama and all of the other wannabees in our government can wish all they want for great new technological innovations, but they cannot force creativity through government corruption, government regulations, and stolen money.  It doesn't work that way.  Creativity comes from the heart and not from stealing someone else's money to make it happen.  Creativity is a gift from God, not from the government.  And the more the government tries to meddle in the affairs of God, the more punishments we will have to endure.

( I wasn't intending a Sunday sermon when I started this post, but I guess it looks like it ended up that way.  Hat tips to God the Father (no accessible link other than prayer) and thanks for reading!

Thursday, January 27, 2011


One of the main themes of Obama's SOTUS speech was his ad nauseum support for "green" energy (supposed) solutions to getting America out of buying foreign oil. If you honestly believe that "green" energies are going to fuel our country by any reliable or cost efficient manner, you might want to go soak your head. The best thing you can do is research the subject on your own and realize the POTUS is lying straight through his teeth.

If you are one of those who think if we stop buying foreign oil we will put all of the bad guys out of business, you might want to rethink that. China is the Middle East's Favorite Customer

"China is the largest importer of Middle Eastern oil, buying just over a tenth of the crude oil exported by Gulf states. It's also Iran's top customer, taking 23 percent of Tehran's oil."

If you are one of those who think "green" energy will create jobs in the United States, you might want to rethink that one, too.
Obama's Green Energy Proposals Will Bankrupt America
"The 11 US-based wind farms that received cash grants from the US Treasury have imported 695 of the 982 wind turbines that are to be installed. Since the manufacture of turbines is by far the largest employment generator in wind energy, it is estimated to have created 4,500 jobs overseas – far in excess of the jobs created in the US from these grants. And in Spain, $30 billion has been spent using taxpayer monies on “green” jobs… those positions ended up costing $855,000.00 each."

If you are one of those who think we need to be so cool like the Europeans and take on their oh so enlightened view on saving the planet with "green" energy, you might want to check out just how that worked out for Spain.

"Spain is a country President Obama says the U.S. should replicate when it comes to energy policy, saying, “they’re making real investments in renewable energy.” But real investments aren’t necessarily good investments. Another IER-commissioned study coming out of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4%."

If you are one of those who think windfarms are just so "ducky" and will save our wildlife through our use of "green" energy, you might want to take a flyer into the real consequences by reading the article below.
Effects Of Windfarms On Wildlife - Avian Cuisinarts
"The avian mortality problem of wind power is different from bird mortality from stationary objects. As explained by the CEED Study, p. 2-15: 'Wind farms have been documented to act as both bait and executioner -- rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn their greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm."
"In one week the Sekano and Barracuda found 19 tawny vultures dead under a wind farm of 11 wind turbines in the Landmark Wheel area (Zaragoza, Spain). The Department of Environment was notified and the immediate closure of the park and a moratorium on the installation of wind farms has been requested ."

There is no "green" pie in the sky. There is zero truth to Obama's assertions that "green" energy will save America from anything. There is nothing but dead birds, higher unemployment, higher energy costs, and an even more bankrupt America at the end of this rainbow.

Pass the word along and wake up the zombies!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


As I watched the Obama SOTUS speech last night, I was relieved. Strange reaction maybe, but the over-all feeling for me was that he hit all the wrong notes. His speech was flat. He tried to throw a few crumbs at the Constitutionalists, but all in all, he just reiterated the only thing he knows how to do....that is steal other people's money to spend on idiotic programs that will only further destroy America. I can't help but think the American people are able to see through Obama's obfuscations at this point. His accomplishments are destruction, hardly something to celebrate. His attachments to Socialist ideology are apparent to all by now.

But to give you something to celebrate after all, here are two videos of honest, truthful, energetic, enthusiastic supporters of our Constitution. If you didn't catch them last night, you may watch them here. Enjoy!

Paul Ryan is a gifted speaker who conveys the heart of the Republic. As the left tries their best to take him down, those of us who are looking for a bright light at the end of this horrid 4 year dark tunnel, Representative Ryan is that bright light.

And to put the exclamation point on the evening, Rep. Michele Bachmann nails the coffin shut. (oops, was that uncivil? Excuse me if that offended anyone.) She was more specific in showing the path off the cliff with Obama driving the car.

I thank God for both of these patriots who have put their energies into saving the country from the Marxists who have infiltrated our government. We need more like them. And notice that both of these great Americans are in the House of Representatives where the voices of the people are heard above the aristocracy of the corrupt executive branch.

No, we will not sit down and shut up.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011


It's 45 minutes to show time at the SOTUS. I'm hardly sitting on pins and needles with anticipation. Frankly, I'm already sick of the hype drummed up by lame Democrats who think sitting next to Republicans will subjugate the will of the freedom loving American public. Do they honestly think changing the seating arrangements will placate some irrational lunatic assassin who is not likely watching the SOTUS anyway? Really. What is the point. Does the seating arrangement change the ideology of the committed? Or, as I can easily see, the seating arrangement ploy is conjured up to create high comedic, patronizing relief for those participating in the charade. It is, after all, pretty much a joke to see anyone with a spine sitting next to a progressive Democrat...assuming there are Republicans there who have spines.

The one thing I look forward to this evening is Paul Ryan's rebuttal speech. There are reasons for the differences between the Marxist view and the Constitutional view of our country. The Constitution is morally correct. The Marxist is corrupt, immoral, and completely anti-American. Paul Ryan is what I would call a great American.

Paul Ryan is a Constitutionalist. He loves the principles of America. Unlike Obama, who lives to destroy (transform) America into his Marxist father's dream.

American Thinker Article Re: Paul Ryan Written by K. E. Campbell

"The more I learn about Rep. Ryan, the more apparent it becomes why he is the Democrats' new whipping boy: he's a bright, formidable foe and a strident critic of crony capitalism, which, as Timothy Carney wrote, is the "unhealthy collusion of Big Business and Big Government that has always been the essence of Obamanomics."

"According to Carney, author of Obamanomics, this president and Democrat leaders have been advancing crony capitalism by disguising it as progressive reform. In a May 2010 article, Rep. Ryan expressed similar sentiments:
"From an ideological perspective, big government can combine with big business to advance a more progressivist society. For self-described "progressives," the agenda is straightforward: expand government; co-opt big business; direct the capital markets from Washington to pursue "social justice." Think Fannie and Freddie by much higher orders of magnitude." Paul Ryan

So on with the show! Some of us know grease paint from reality.
Paul Ryan has the courage to state the obvious, that Obama is a cronie capitalist, Marxist using Facsist methods to get to his final destruction of the country.

Saturday, January 22, 2011


My mother used to tell me a story about villagers who were unhappy with their lives. She said they each put their own troubles in a bag with their name on it and then carried the bags to a hilltop. When all of the bags were presented, they each had the opportunity to go to the hilltop and pick up someone else's bag to take home. But when the time came for them to do this, they each picked up their own bag to bring home.

Moral of the story: We only can deal with our own troubles and we would not want to take on someone else's troubles. I think she was trying to tell me to be grateful for what I was given, troubles and all. I think the story also means not to envy someone else's life, for they each own have troubles. It's about envy. She was telling me not to envy someone else's life. And to this day, I thank my mother for that lesson. I learned to admire people for their gifts, and not to envy them for what they have....for under the surface, we each have our own troubles.

Now below we have Van Jones speaking to the Guilford College students telling them we should all take on someone else's life with the idea that all lives should have equal outcomes. I don't know who raised Van Jones, but his premise is so Marxist and fictional that it denies anyone's individuality. What was his mother smoking? To Van Jones, life is about creating a society where no one has more than another, no one is more or less talented, more or less advantaged, more or less anything. All the same, like carbon copies of pablum. I think Van Jones would be very happy living among identical robots.

He sounds so tame, so benign, so confident of his view. Yet, his tame, benign, confidence would take everything you worked for and give it to someone else. And he would pick who would receive the fruits of your labor. His view is of a collective population, not a population of individual achievements. He envisions Social Justice as not Legal Justice? So, to him, his law reflects the collective, not the individual. He couches his words carefully. Do not miss the soft revolution he recommends. He is influencing college students to adhere to his collectivist view, notice he talks about people as a group of interchangeable persons, where one would live just the same as the other. Watch it and learn!

And by the way, here is his biography

Friday, January 21, 2011


We've been here before. We watched a left-wing President swing merrily to the center after his socialist policies were repudiated in a mid-term election. The charming and clever Bill Clinton realized that to save his skin for a second term he was going to have to play the game with Republicans, whether he liked it or not. He theatrically moved to the center. Hilary's health care take-over was rejected and the Clinton's discovered that their political aspirations were down the tubes unless the public perceived them as centrists, rather than the far left socialists that they are. I say this with the caveat that, while the Clintons are socialists, they are pragmatists. And so is Obama.

Obama has learned his lesson well. He is both Marxist and pragmatist. While he was out there greasing the skids with speeches which were supposed to mask the true nature of his take-over of health care, he worked behind the scenes with a, near communist, democrat congress to destroy the health care system in America. But nevermind that. Now we see the polls returning to more approval of the Obama presidency. One speech in Tucson and the whole nation goes gaga?

Two Democrat presidencies. Both carrying the methods of Saul Alinsky to maintain power. Both saying whatever it takes to fool the American public.

Hillary took on health care. While Barack has temporarily destroyed the health care system, Michelle takes on food. While her husband is telling everyone to chill out and relax, that he will work with Republicans and get those jobs back, Michelle is announcing a deal with Walmart to reduce salt and sugar in the foods they put on the shelves for public consumption. What is the quid pro quo? Call me skeptical, but I have no doubt that Michelle promised Walmart something in return for that cute little PR moment. Would it be that Walmart will remain exempt from the health care mandates? Would it be that Michelle will call off the union dogs from Walmart's front door? You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

All outrageous abuses of power. How best to control a population of people? Medical care and food, among others. Michelle Obama went to Walmart and made a deal on the content of food. This is no different than the federal government / Obama going to the car manufacturers and telling them how to produce what kind of cars. Just as some leftists in the legislature decided what light bulbs you will use. Our federal government, with a huge boost from this leftist president, has decided to get in bed with corporations and manipulate our choices on everything we do. Is there anything you are doing or purchasing that is now not controlled in some measure by the long arm of the federal government?

Obama cannot continue the Global Socialist transformation of America if he is voted out in 2012. So he'll make some speeches and pretend in public that he is moving to the center until then. He has already figured out that he can make rhetorical orations full of innuendo and vague meanings that the public responds to favorably. That is probably his sharpest tool in his tool chest. His rhetoric does not match his actions. Is the public smart enough to notice that? Are we willing to sit back and watch as the Obama marxist machine, complete with unconstitutional czars, marches forward on the basis of some flowery speeches that seem to turn the heads of a fickle public? Once re-elected in 2012, do you honestly think Obama will be content to allow Americans to return to their rightful Constitutional government? He has already advised us all that he doesn't adhere to the United States Constitution.

Watch the Kabuki theatre and hope people are smart enough to realize it is just that, Kabuki theatre.

Will Obama Move to the Center

"The president wants a monument for achievement in office. He doesn’t want that to come by taking the torch and carrying it in the war on terror. Who on the left would? It won’t come from righting our free economy. Mr. Obama is proving he doesn’t give a fig about free enterprise."

"The president expects his monument to be built on comprehensive systemic change. Change that wins the plaudits of the left elite in academia, the media, and the arts."

"Given his track record so far, it is clear that Mr. Obama sees himself as a change agent of the profoundest sort. Aside from a little nod to the nation’s values and traditions, he intends to re-chart its course, recasting the United States in a corporatist/socialist mold."

The Overton Window Explained

Tuesday, January 18, 2011


I actually know this woman. Do you?



"We're from the government and we're here to help." Sure, and the fleas on rats didn't spread the bubonic plague.

You know how hard it is to keep up with all those passwords to all of the internet sites you visit. You know it's a pain. You can't remember all of them. In fact, I keep a cheat-sheet in a book next to my computer where I've written them all down in case my "remember me" app fails or I have to erase my cookies. (uh oh, I probably shouldn't have divulged that information to those who might possibly want to break into my cyber sphere.)

Ta da! Bring on the ruffles and flourishes! Never fear! Obama is here!!! What a great bunch of Czars he has assembled......armies of men and women who spend each day and night figuring out ways to make your life....uh, more beholden to "The One." We are to be saved from our internet password hell by none other than those sweet, technologically savvy, folks at the White House. You know those compassionate people, who could not stop Wikileaks and want to tell your doctor how to practice medicine, now want to control your passwords. The same people who are shutting down the coal industry and forbidding drilling for oil want to keep a database of your password(s) to your information on the internet. Make a political contribution online? The White House will know about it. Pick the opposite political party? The White House will have the information. Buy a pocket Constitution? Hmmmmm....well Obama might not approve of that one.

In case you missed it, while the media and the administration was deriding political dissent all last week and telling people they'd better be nicey nice, the Internet Czar has put forth a "proposal" for a federal data base assigning each citizen a government approved internet password. They just want to make your life know. The mob just wants to protect your neighborhood. Sure, Hansel and Gretel didn't meet a cannabalistic old witch in the woods either.

“Sometimes, the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated…”

–Obama Regulatory Czar, Cass Susstein

You think it can't happen here?
"Efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding apace in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging Internet filter modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government."

From there to here
"The Obama administration is planning on handing over power to the U.S. Commerce department in a new effort to increase security on the Internet. The idea is to create an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, while the government says this is not a "National ID Card" it does appear to be very similar but restricted only to Internet activities."

From American Thinker, "The dangerous internet proposal" by Lee DeCovnick

"Since this Administration never lets a crisis go to waste I thought it would be useful to dig out at least one significant announcement that the White House purposefully buried in the wake of the Tucson shootings. From the Washington Times editorial page
, we find this evil spawn, courtesy of those delightful jackanapes at the White House. Note the use of the term "White House cybersecurity advisor." That's media speak for one of the more than three dozen unconfirmed Marxist -leaning czars appointed by Obama, his hand picked shadow government in-waiting.

The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one's bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an "identity ecosystem" that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual's identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting "anonymous" blog entries or even logging onto one's own home computer, according to administration documents.

Officials insist this would be a voluntary program and deliver significant benefits to the public.

Centralizing access to personal information only makes it easier for the bad guys because it means they only need to steal one key to unlock a vast wealth of financial and personal information. It's likely that the real motivation for this is to ensure the feds always have backdoor access into what people are doing in the online realm.

Good Lord! If we allow these "internet passports" to become law, we will surely end up with health care passports, carbon credit passports and, of course, food and nutrition passports.

We know with 100% certainty that the government cannot keep these programs secure. We know with 100% certainty the government will gleefully track every web site you visit, every keystroke you send, every purchase you make, every deposit and withdrawal, every blog comment, and every Facebook and Twitter post. A simple algorithm will create lists of your acquaintances and friends and inform the government of your political affiliations, political donations, clubs, interests and hobbies.

This would not only be the end of personal privacy; we would have good running start at an authoritarian American gulag. Thanks to the socialist thugs appointed by Obama, American's must now focus Congress's attention on rejecting this cynical evisceration of our Constitutional protections of privacy, speech, press and association."

Those on the left, who are Obama's fan base, are the same people who had an apoplectic fit over George Bush's wire tapping to defend us against terrorists. I guess one man's oppression is another man's cyber security? And, by the way, did you know we needed an "ecosystem" for the internet? Are you laughing yet? OMG! I'd prefer my own password hell, thank you very much. My little cheat-sheet book, at least, is mine and the government can't have its hands on it.

Saturday, January 15, 2011


Now we hear the leftists want seating at the State of the Union address to be mingled. Mingled as in, let's put the Republicans and Democrats all mixed up together so the American people won't be able to tell the difference between them and the respective sides of Congress won't be able to express their objections or support en masse, as a block if you will.

Isn't that just ducky? Let's all sing Kumbayah and Hail to the Chief as the media and the left want to shut everyone else in the country up. Since Republicans won the 2010 mid-term election, there seems to be quite a backlash from the left. First, they want you to believe that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement is responsible for a mass murder. Next we hear about some silly "no labels" idea, where elections should take place with no party labels so the public won't be able to have any inkling what the candidate may represent. Now we have this ridiculous idea that if we just make the Congresspersons all mixed up at the State of the Union speech, the little children will behave better. It's sort of like separating the two friends who sit together in class. "Now children, you mustn't let partisanship ruin the President's speech." What grade are we in?

Notice how loud and pronounced the left has gotten since Nov. last year. They have discovered that they truly are a minority and they don't like it one bit. Their response to this revelation is: "Shut up and sit down."

There is a reason we have two parties. It is because we do not all agree that Socialism is a good form of government. And the RINOs who have shown themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing, are on notice that they will not be tolerated as well.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 78% of Republicans want the Health Care Bill repealed. According to the same poll 64% of Democrats want to let it stand. Ahem, I believe there lies a divide. Even so, 24% of Democrats want the monstrosity repealed. The margins show that a majority of Americans want the bill repealed. BUT, we must look like we support the President in his State of the Union Speech. And we must not look like we are divided. So we must hold hands and sing a cheerful little tune so the country thinks we are all so happy and together.

If image is everything, the leftists are kings of knowing how to create false images to fool people. I'm sure the Socialists in our Congress would like nothing more than to put forth the false image that we are all getting along just swell. Hiding the truth is one of their best plays.

No, we are not all on the same page with the President. No, we do not think his spending spree should be allowed to stand. No, we should not sing Kumbayah, holding hands and sitting next to those with whom we completely disagree. We should sit with like-minded people and show the leftists and the President that we do not approve of his Czars, his Socialism, his redistribution, his drilling moratorium, his federal take-over of private lands, his take-over of car manufacturers, his vision for a Statist controlled America.

Congressional Republicans need to get a spine. This business of trying to look like we are all going to play sweetie pies when the entire country is going straight down the tubes with unfunded liabilities and massive debts that will destroy our children's futures is just absurd.

United? No we are not.

Friday, January 14, 2011


I was thinking today about this debt ceiling issue. How and where to cut government spending is a topic being discussed as we approach a deadline on the debt ceiling. Pundits and politicians are throwing out there several ideas, most of which involve entitlements and defense.

First, I would take defense off the table, except for the basic methods of cutting waste. Defense is one of the few legitimate duties of the federal government, so cutting it to the bone, especially in the era of terrorism in which we live, is just dumber than dumb.

Entitlements will have to be reformed, no doubt. And if you look at the debt clock, the liabilities for entitlements will pop your eyes right out of your head.

When you assess your fiscal budget, what are the items you first choose to cut? Usually, if you are reasonable, you go after the superfluous. You are not going to cut your basic necessities. You are going to cut out the entertainment, the frills, the extravagances in which you allow yourself to indulge.

Nationally, there is a spending issue, a huge one, that no one is even remotely focused on, that being federal grants. Grants are government sanctioned subsidies for the politically favored. Grants from non-profits or directly from the government are approved and implemented by people who have an agenda. Usually that agenda has nothing to do with mainstream Americans, but mainstream Americans end up paying for it. These are unnecessary frills and extravagances in areas government has no legitimate place. What would those be? Let's try Anti-American propaganda for starters.

What you don't know is that grant money is going to organizations which are deliberately undermining America. Propaganda is a big part of the picture. Read below:

Today, over at Big Hollywood we find out that George Soros and our federal government are funneling our own money into the Sundance Film Festival to promote movies that denegrate America's conservatives and Constitution.

"Soros is also bankrolling a documentary that celebrates left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. Even worse, you too are bankrolling the film through your taxes."

"HBO gave a grant to the filmmakers to produce their pro-terrorist propaganda. So did the Soros-funded Sundance Institute. After Soros’s foundation, the Open Society Institute (OSI), gave Sundance’s Documentary Film Program $4.6 million in 2002, it gave the institute another $5 million in 2009."

"Taxpayers also underwrite Sundance’s adventures in social justice indoctrination. According to nonprofit tax returns (known as IRS Form 990s), the Sundance Institute has taken in $11,240,081 in government grants since 1997. It is unclear which governments made the grants because the 990 forms lump all the grant-making governments together."

"The federal government has given $1,350,000 to the institute since 2000, according to All but $5,000 of the money was from the National Endowment for the Arts. (The $5,000 grant was from the State Department.) It’s not clear if the $1,350,000 is part of the $11 million-plus figure for all government grants."

When HBO gives grant money for the arts, that money is a tax deductible contribution coming off the bottom line for HBO.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. That one instance, which involves political distortions and propaganda, does not begin to address the multitudes of grants for art shows devoted to the "green" environmentalist industry. I can't possibly devote enough research and words to the federal money going into Climate Change and the propaganda attached to it. It's so huge and convoluted that I've chosen not to drive myself mad trying to locate the millions of tentacles. Suffice it to say you can google "environmental grants" and watch 26,400,000 referenced sites come up before your very eyes.

Just one small bit of that on the basis of "environmental justice" is described below:
From Judicial Watch .com "A few months after launching a multi million-dollar campaign to help minorities get green, the Obama Administration is dedicating an additional $7 million to study how pollution, stress and social factors affect “poor and underserved communities.”

On the subject of Climate Change / Global Warming, I've said it before and I will say it again; RICO charges need to be brought against those using lies and fraud to extort money from the taxpayers. In that statement, I include those in our government who are perpetrating lies in order to solidify power against our freedoms. But I digress.

The money being spent on grants from the federal government is BORROWED money which the taxpayers are not only having to pay back the principal amount, but .40 cents on the dollar in interest. This is the larger picture. If you want to say earmarks are hardly noticeable in the big scheme of things, fine. But I am not talking about earmarks here. I am talking about government largesse directed to various voting blocs for the sake of putting the rest of us in debtors prison for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. If you want to talk about national security, imagine how insecure our nation is by virtue of crushing debt to other nations.

An interesting aspect of grants is that grants are composed of money from one person paid to another person who may have a completely diametrically opposed need. For instance, locally, federal stimulus tax money is being taken from one business owner to pay a grant to another competing business owner. In this case, let's say you are successful tax paying restaurant owner, but your tax money is going to subsidize another competing restaurant owner. Why? Usually the subterfuge is on the basis of downtown development or propping up some historic district, or even possibly a "green" initiative or "social justice."

We can lower the debt ceiling really fast by getting rid of federal grants. Wealth redistribution is a tool of Socialists and Fascists. Grants are wealth redistribution.

Examples :
You paid for a National Endowment for the Humanities Conference used to teach revisionist history of American principles and events.

USA TODAY article:
Deadlines loom for stimulus' green grants
"Imagine billions of federal dollars at your fingertips if you can just come up with a plan to go green.

States and cities across the nation are scrambling to meet a series of deadlines to tap into economic stimulus money available for energy-saving programs.

A looming deadline: June 25, when local governments apply for a share of the $3.2 billion in block grants for energy efficiency and conservation.

"It's coming up quickly," says Cathy Polasky, Minneapolis director of economic development.

More deadlines will follow for a slew of programs, including:

• At least $500 million for green jobs training.

• $9.75 billion to renovate schools.

• $5 billion to weatherize low-income homes.

• $300 million to replace old appliances with "Energy Star" products."

Below are some cute teasers you can find to access stolen money from taxpayers to prop yourself up.

If our politicians are serious about fiscal restraint and getting this country back on its feet without this albatross of debt, they will get rid of federal grants.

Thursday, January 13, 2011


What WAS that?  I know everybody and their brother is chiming in on that event last night, the event that was supposed to be some kind of memorial service for the dead.  But as I reflect on what I saw and heard last evening, I want to give my own perspective on it.

Today the word "surreal" keeps coming into my mind.  Maybe because I am an artist, "surrealism" is the word that seems to me to describe the incongruous juxtoposition between anything real and the fantasy experience the Obama administration put on in Tucson.  Surreal is how I felt while watching the president speak as the crowd kept erupting in cheers and applause.  

Someone needs to call Miss Manners.  Someone needs to clue the Democrats in on the dignity and respect required in response to death.  This was not supposed to be a raucous Irish wake.   It was a memorial service.  And I ask you, have you ever seen people behave so disrespectfully in the face of loss of life? It was unreal, inappropriate, and anything but solemn.  

I guess there are some people who think Obama gives a good speech.  Tom Brokaw, being a good sheeple of the media, launched into kudos, even going so far as to compare Obama's speech with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  If Brokaw ever had any credibility, it just went straight down the toilet.  Makes you wonder what would make someone like Brokaw sell out....but that's another story.  Once again, we see media personalities gushing over a speech that was just not that great.  What made it worse was the crowd.  The rock star, cult-like, response to Obama had nothing whatsoever to do with the tragic events that were supposed to be the focus of the event. 

Have the standards become so low that people don't even recognize a good speech anymore?  Or is it that people are so hungry for some smattering of any kind of leadership that they will ooh and aah over a crumb thrown at them?  And handing out t-shirts emblazoned with a brand at a memorial service was supposed to do what?  Make the teenagers swoon?

Again, the disconnect.  People are disconnected from reality.  Irrational.  The rational response to a nine year old little girl being murdered is deep sadness.  The loss is horrendous. The normal human reaction to this very tragic murder and wounding of so many at the hands of a lunatic is concern and empathy for the pain of it.  Instead we got a Democrat cheerleading practice.  Instead, the president turned a tragedy into a party.  A party with all eyes on him.  Which is where he wants everyone's attention.  On him.  Disturbing.  Distorted.  Bizarre. Not unlike the Wellstone funeral in tone, but more pointed toward the ego of one person, Obama.  It's sophomoric, adolescent, ego massaging surrealism. Has the entire country gone mad?  Are so many people just so blinded by a fictional version of an empty suit that they can't see what he is turning them into?  How humiliating.  How juvenile.  How inappropriate.   

As I look over the past two plus years since Obama's election, I have to admit a lot of life seems surreal, distorted, bizarre, and very disturbing.  So the choreography of Obama's appearance at the Tucson event is just par for the course at this point.  The maturity level of the majority of Americans must have come to a grinding halt at the teenage stage.  That is the only excuse I can come up with for such a response to a truly tragic event.

Frankly, Obama did not have to show up in Tucson.  If he had any sense of decorum regarding a tragedy of this proportion, he would have given a speech to the American people from the Oval Office. Instead we got Cirque de Soleil.  A Salvadore Dali painting.  A surreal event that had nothing to do with the reality of painful loss.

Back to my easel.....channeling reality.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011


I can't wait for Obama's European socialist vision to take complete hold here in the colonies.  It's going to be so much fun.
 "Office for National Statistics figures show that 28,160 deaths were related to the cold weather over four months last winter, and charities – which point out that the UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe – fear the figure will rise this year. Earlier this month, two pensioners in Cumbria – Lillian Jenkinson, 80, and William Wilson, 84 – were believed to have frozen to death at home. Office for National Statistics figures show that 28,160 deaths were related to the cold weather over four months last winter."

And Obama's predictions that under his policies, "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket," will be so helpful to the cause of ridding the planet of  those unnecessary people.

Same site as above:
"With many of the big energy providers having already hiked up their prices, the immediate future looks bleak, with forecasters predicting that December temperatures will be as vicious as November, Europe's coldest on record."

Yessiree folks....The Europeans have all the answers to global warming and the unwanted masses of elderly crushing the economic well being of a nation.   You can kill them off without the death panels.  Just freeze them to death.  Great idea.


What are you afraid of?  Rejection?  Spiders?  Armed robbers?  Starving to death?  Being poisoned?  Tripping over a dead body?  Losing your Social Security?  How about losing your medical care?  Roving bands of feral foxes in the neighborhood?  Someone who says, "boo!"  Freezing to death?  Dying of heat prostration?  Getting hit by lightening?  Going broke?  Getting smacked by an authority figure?  The IRS?   

Really.  Bear with me...this may be a little hard to follow, but it may make you think about how we got here. 

There are people who love to make other people jump out of their skin with fear.  They are the Freddie Krugers of the world.  If life is going along just fine, they are not happy.  They just have to do something to get a reaction out of someone.  It's how they get attention.  Sadly, it is usually the only trick they or say something outrageous or horrible and, voilá, they are center stage and on everyone's front page.  This group loves to scare other people because it makes them feel in control.  By scaring people, they have elicited a response to their own core need for attention and thereby, rule over masses of hysteria.  They will scare you with your deepest fears, such as feelings of being rejected, feelings of insecurity, feelings of guilt, feelings of inadequacy, etc.  Whatever feeling they use to scare you with, you play right into their hands by letting yourself feel the desired response. 

President Obama is continually telling us we have to do one thing or another or all hell will break loose, and then we will be very very sorry if we don't do what he says....i.e. he attempts to scare the bejeezus out of folks to make them do his bidding.  If "we" don't spend billions of dollars on lowering carbon emissions, "we" will kill the planet.  If "we" don't raise the debt ceiling, the country will collapse.  If "we" don't pass the health care bill, your medical care will go in the tank.  If "we" don't borrow trillions more dollars, everyone will be out of work.  If "we" don't take over the car companies, thousands and thousands of people will lose their jobs.  If "we" don't do whatever he says, America is doomed.  I want to ask, in the immortal words of Tonto, "Who is this "we" kemosabe?"

Evidently, Al Gore is good at scaring people to death.  In his baritone voice, he warns everyone that humans are killing everything on the planet.  What does he want?  Money.  He set up an entire business based on terrifying people.  So what that he is lying, that his premise is completely a fraud.  That is no matter to him.  If he scares enough people, he is successful in creating the fear he needs to get them to buy his lies and make him rich.  You just don't want to believe old Al Gore, that nerdy rich politician, would lie to you to enrich himself?  Ah, yes, it's much easier to think the best of the fellow and then swallow the poison he serves you through the surrogate news media airwaves every night over dinner.  You might get acid indigestion if you actually realize leaders are lying to you.  Which is harder; believing Al Gore would lie?  Or, believing you are killing the planet?   If you realize the fact that you are not killing the planet, then you have to face up the fact that Al Gore is lying, that government officials are lying, and that the media is lying right along with them.  Faith and trust in leadership is gone.  Get out the Rolaids. 

The interesting thing about such people is that they have figured out how to scare people to death in order to get their own way.  There must be a psychological name for this dysfunctional personality, but I'm not sure what it is.  (Psycopathic liar, comes to mind.) Today it seems to me that such fear-mongers are gaining an audience in huge proportions.  Chicken Little is alive and well.  On street corners, for years, folks have stood with signs that say, "The End Is Near."  Traditionally, those folks have been laughed at and scorned for being loony.  Today we have Chicken Littles everywhere. We seem to have a political class that is operating on the same premise as Chicken Little.   They are telling you the country is going to collapse unless you divvy up your money, counting on you to be afraid of everything except themselves, distracting you from facts and historical truths.  Fear is epidemic. It's a national shake down based on fear.

This is not to say we don't have problems.  We do.  But reacting out of fear to those who are manipulating emotions is not the solution.  I wish everyone would step back, take a deep breath, do some serious critical thinking, and then proceed on the basis of facts. 

Some people are afraid of truth.  Some people are afraid of history.  "Oh, no, don't bring up the Holomodor or the Holocaust again!"  "Don't tell me again about Jews thrown into ovens or Mao killing off millions of dissenters!" Don't remind me of Lenin and Stalin starving people to death!" "I can't stand to can't be true!"  "Please shut up!"  "That will never happen again!" 

We are all afraid of something.  For instance, I'm afraid of not knowing the truth.  You might be afraid of the truth.  And that, to me, describes at least some part of the great disconnect we are experiencing in our nation today.  A nation gripped with fear.  Some of us fear the liars.  Some of us fear the content of the lies. What are you afraid of?

Seems to me that a great number of people in this country want to believe lies because some lies make them feel less afraid than the truth.  The irony in this is that the lies are just reinforcing a different kind of fear.  We are caught between two categories of lies.  One is that our leadership will not lie.  The other is the boatload of lies our leaders are telling us. For instance, if you know the truth that there is no such thing as global warming, then you have to face the fear that your leaders are corrupt and are lying to you.  Which do you fear most?  The leadership lying?  Or global warming?   The leaders are relying on the theory that you will go for the global warming lie.  They know that it is easier to get you to fear some unfounded theory which plays into your fear of rejection or guilt, than to tell you the truth.  The truth being that they don't have a clue about what in the hell they are doing regarding the false premise of climate change, but they are going to make themselves very rich and powerful by lying to you.

Is it easier to believe that $14 trillion in debt is managable?  Or is it harder to face the fact that $14 trillion in debt is likely to ruin the futures of your grandchildren?  Is it easier to believe that getting groped at the airport makes you feel more secure?  Or, does it scare you that getting groped at the airport is not doing one damn thing to make the country safer?  Is it easier to believe that we can just fund millions of Mexicans coming across the border?  Or, does it scare you to believe our government just won't secure that border?  Is it easier to buy the lies or harder to face the truth that we are being lied to?    That we are being lied to is very disturbing and hard to face.  It gets you way out of your comfort zone.  

So ends my 50 cent psychoanalysis for today.   I am afraid that too many Americans are believing lies in order to escape the hard truths.   I am afraid of people who ignore history for the sake of corrupt and convenient gratification.  The American premise is; we are supposed to be allowed to lead ourselves without the tyranny of a heavy handed federal government.  Leadership that will tell lies in order to gain power and money is, indeed, something to fear. Americans who choose to believe those lies are a huge part of the problem.

In the current age of Progressive liars, we should be afraid.  Very afraid. 

Hat Tip: Diane Rello on the Psychology of Barack Obama
Hat Tip: Are Barack's Followers Mindless Fanatics?