A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008, AND THEREAFTER

Evil Concealed by Money

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another...

Dr. Williams just makes too much sense. Why people are so willing to put up with such crap is beyond me. This is clearly an erosion of our rights, but people are seemingly blind to this.

Amazingly Sad!!!

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

And these are the people that just voted to put the most unqualified person to ever run for the Presidency in the oval office!!! This is why I say that I don't like voter turn out efforts, because I don't want the stupid and uninformed to be making such important decisions. Don't get me wrong, I want people to vote, but I want them to be properly informed before doing so!

You can find more info about this at howobamagotelected.com

UPDATE: You can see detailed info on the survey at Zogby.com

Of Course the Networks are Libs with an Agenda!

Got this from an e-mail I received.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fwd: FW: Texas Coach Speaks Out Against ABC (UNREAL!)]

Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress , Texas .

Jim writes:
My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called 'THE PRACTICE.' In last night's episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so she could marr y her ' partner. ' I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.


My original message was:

ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. ' THE PRACTICE ' can be a fairly good show , but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who w as against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a 'gay basher.' Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all ' gay bashers ' . What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
--Jim Neugent


Here is ABC ' s reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:


How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says 'All Men are Created equal,' and try treating them that way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of statement.

Jim Neugent ' s second response ! to ABC: Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you.
- -Jim Neugent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible for a crutch?



Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.

-- Thanks, Jim Neugent

My Thoughts Being Verified!

November 14, 2008
GOP senator: McCain betrayed Republican principles
Posted: 10:46 AM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) – South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint on Friday became one of the first high-profile Republicans to publicly criticize John McCain following his electoral defeat, blaming the Arizona senator for betraying conservative principles in his quest for the White House.

The conservative senator, speaking to a group of GOP officials gathered in Myrtle Beach at a conference on the future of the Republican Party, described how the party had strayed from its own "brand," which, according to DeMint, should represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government.

"We have to be honest, and there's a lot of blame to go around, but I have to mention George Bush, and I have to mention Ted Stevens, and I'm afraid I even have to mention John McCain," he said...

The truth is slowly being put forth by others besides myself. Others in power and who will get the attention of people. Some may not like this, but this is how it must be!

Click on the article title to view the entire thing.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2008, AND THEREAFTER

Capitalism and the Financial Crisis

There has always been contempt for economic liberty. Historically, our nation was an important, not complete, exception. It took the calamity of the Great Depression to bring about today's level of restrictions on economic liberty. Now we have another government-created calamity that has the prospect of moving us even further away from economic liberty with the news media and pundits creating the perception that the current crisis can be blamed on capitalism. We see comments such as those in the New York Times: "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal. Or, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Another says, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown (the British Prime Minister) has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation."

First, let's establish what laissez-faire capitalism is. Broadly defined, it is an economic system based on private ownership and control over of the means of production. Under laissez-faire capitalism, government activity is restricted to the protection of the individual's rights against fraud, theft and the initiation of physical force.

Professor George Reisman has written a very insightful article on his blog titled "The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis." (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html) You can decide whether we have in an unregulated laissez-faire economy. There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.

Here's my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy? Better yet, tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed. You say, "Williams, there's a reason for this government control." Yes, there's a reason for everything but that does not change the fact that there is massive government control over our economy.

It is incorrect to say that laissez-faire or free markets are unregulated. There is ruthless regulation, but it's not by government. Take the mortgage industry. In the absence of government interference, it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government's Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will.

When businesses make unwise decisions that lead to bankruptcy, their assets are sold off to someone else who might be able to put them to wiser use. Government bailouts give businesses a reprieve that the market wouldn't give them. Bailouts have at least two effects. They permit continued unwise use of resources and it creates what economists call moral hazard, the expectation of future bailouts and others hopping on the bailout wagon.

The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low and the congressional and White House market interference in the name of more home ownership. In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they're doing?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

I normally don't post entire articles from someone else, but I felt an exception to that rule needed to be made in this case. Too many people are blaming capitalism for the financial crisis. This is a totally erroneous accretion! Professor Williams makes that point quite clear. The problem can be laid squarely at the feet of the government. This goes especially for Freddy and Fannie, which are the responsibility of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd because of their not allowing proper oversight of these GSA's!

Milton Friedman on Limited Government

The man was brilliant! His ideas, ideology and well thought out positions still are applicable today. Another thing, it's too bad that today, higher education coming out of Chicago is represented by William Ayers and, yes, Barack Obama rather than a man of TRUE intellect like Milton Friedman.

One Last Look at McCain/Palin

It is somewhat stunning, though not unexpected, but still disappointing what has happened since the election regarding the McCain/Palin campaign. In case you've been living in a box and not seen what has happened, people within the campaign have taken to dumping on Mrs. Palin and trying to put the blame for the loss on her. Most notably, an "anonymous" source has come out and made the claim that Mrs. Palin thought "Africa was a country, not a continent and that S. Africa was a "state/province" of it." This same "anonymous" source also claimed that she didn't know the countries involved in NAFTA. These go with the claims about her shopping habits during the campaign.

Let me first say succinctly say that this is the biggest crock of horse crap that I have seen in quite some time! For a person to come out "anonymously" and make these claims and not have the testicular fortitude or personal integrity to publicly make these claims is both obnoxious and abhorrent! The credibility of this person is SERIOUSLY in question! If you have paid any attention to Mrs. Palin, aside from the hack jobs done by The Perky One and Gibson and the one sided reporting of the liberal mainstream media, you get a clear indication that this is an intelligent, well thought out, and informed lady. She couldn't be anything other to be able to deal with the oil companies regarding Alaskan infrastructure or dealing with the corruption she had to deal with in cleaning up the state government there the way she has. Having heard directly from her and it being verified by the interviewer, I have to take her word over that of a coward who had to use anonymity to make their claims.

As for the campaign itself, I must say that it was the most poorly run campaign that I've seen in my life time! The campaign itself, and much has to be laid squarely at the feet of Sen. McCain, left so much material unused, either due to unwillingness or ineptness that winning was improbable if not impossible. One such example, Bill O'Reilly offered Sen. McCain the entire 2nd half hour of his show to answer, rebut, and make his own pitch following the Obama infomercial. Either McCain or his personnel didn't even answer the offer! McCain and his people let Obama and his people set the rules and when they got punched would not counter punch or when an opening came to land a blow(ie., Pastor Wright or Tony Rezko) wouldn't take the shot. His was a passive campaign with little other than Mrs. Palin to offer, until the end when he was handed the "spread the wealth" opening thanks to "Joe The Plumber." This turned out to be too little, too late and not really believable due to Sen. McCain's support for the $700b bailout and his desire to "buy up" bad mortgages. Senator McCain and his staff were out maneuvered at every turn.

The only reason that Senator McCain had any chance at all was because of his selection of Mrs. Palin as his VP choice. She was an energizing force for the campaign. As I have said before, she energized conservatives like no one has since Ronald Reagan. She was/is dynamic! She's energetic and as I said, she knows what she's talking about. She's sure of herself and her convictions. Her faith is strong, as is she.

John McCain, on the other hand, was not supported by the core of the Republican party. He was not an energizing candidate. If not for the "open" primaries in several states he would not have been the Republican candidate. He was probably the worst candidate that the Republican party put forth since Gerald Ford. Bob Dole could probably be tossed in there as well. His propensity to turn his back on his party, especially conservatives was a huge turn off. His willingness to attack his own party while letting the Democrats off the hook was just plain aggravating to many people. In all honesty, the majority of people who voted for him were voting more for Mrs. Palin than they were for him. If not for Mrs. Palin he may have come close to being beat on a Reagan v. Mondale scale. I can assure you that I would not have voted for him had it not been for Mrs. Palin. The Libertarian, Bob Barr would have received my vote.

All that said, it's now time to move on! To the Blue-blood Rockefeller country club Republicans I say, we will not be going back to the days when you controlled the party and were just happy to be there and occupy a seat and not ruffle feathers so that you could ensure your invite to all the "IN" parties and functions in DC and other NE lib areas. I remind you of a quote from Ronald Reagan again, "Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?" and "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers..." He also said none of this is "...contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way." This goes for today as well. If there are people within the Republican Party that cannot subscribe to these principles, then, to borrow another less polite way to say it, "don't let the door nob hit ya where The Good Lord split ya on the way out!!!"

Classic Dennis Miller

This is easily the best appearance by Miller on The Factor that I've seen. You've got to pay attention, but it is hilarious!

Sara on Fox Pt.2

Sara On Fox

Sarah Palin Defends Herself Against Criticism in FOX News Interview
FOX News' Greta Van Susteren went to Alaska to get Gov. Sarah Palin's reflections on the presidential election.

After a whirlwind campaign alongside Sen. John McCain, Sarah Palin is defending herself against criticism stemming from the tens of thousands of dollars spent on her wardrobe as well as several reported foreign affairs missteps.

"When I arrived at the convention, there were clothes waiting for me, and clothes being ordered for me and the family, for eight of us," the Alaska governor told FOX News' Greta Van Susteren, in an interview that aired Monday night. "And ever since then, those clothes, knowing that they didn't belong to me ... we boxed them all up, sent them back to the rightful owners, the Republican National Committee, and that's the story on the clothes..."

"...It just seems like such an irrelevant issue when you consider what is going on in the world today and how a new administration is being ushered in and people being concerned about the direction of the nation and policies that will be adopted," Palin said. "Clothes just seem irrelevant..."










This is an excellent interview. Sara is clearly more comfortable and at ease. She's clearly an intelligent and classy woman who knows what she's doing.

Wow!!!

All you have to do is update the names of people and countries and the numbers he gives and this speech is equally applicable today as it was the day it was given!

Who Do We Look To Now?

It is now time to look to a new set of leaders. Those who are currently in the position of leadership within the party clearly have no desire to show true conservative values. The current Congressional leadership is weak and has demonstrated no desire to stand up for the principles on which they were elected to begin with. Clearly George W. Bush, John Boehner, Roy Blount, and the rest in leadership positions in Congress were not interested in pursuing the policies of smaller more efficient government. They were not interested in restraining spending. They were not interested in limited government as established by our Founding Fathers. As a matter of fact, some even appeared hostile to it. Whether they want to admit it or not, this is the main reason for Republican losses during the last elections.

So, who do we look to? Who are the voices of conservatism that can lead us back to where we want to be and where we should be? The most prominent one is, of course, Sara Palin. She has come on the scene and given voice to the conservative ideology like only Reagan and Newt have in recent history. There are those like Bobby Jindal(LA - Gov.), Rob Portman(former Rep. from OH), Ken Blackwell(former OH Sec of St.), JC Watt(former Rep from OK), Paul Ryan(Rep - WI) and many others that come from the principled conservative mold that so many of us desire. These are the people that can and should be the leaders of the conservative movement.

Clearly, the focus should be on the state level. That is where the vast majority of top leaders are located. Many of the best and brightest and most liked are currently residing in the state houses and governors mansion of this great country. As tired as people may be, having just come out of a long grueling election cycle, next year there are going to be many state legislature seats and governorships up for election. Our focus must be on bringing out and promoting those who are going to be the best and strongest supporters of conservative ideology. Yes, we need to get good people back in to Congress, but our main focus should be at the state and local level again. That is where we can make the most immediate impact. History also tells us that this is where our best leaders come from.

Only by getting back to the grassroots foundations of conservative ideology can we once again be the true defenders of the Constitution and frame work for this nation that our Founding Fathers gave us that we were not that long ago. As Ronald Reagan said, "Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?" He also said, "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." When we have people who earnestly believe this as our leaders we will once again have the backing of the majority of the electorate. I earnestly believe this and I believe the results of the election and the actions of the conservative electorate bear this out!

The Palin Hope

The American Conservative Union Foundation

by Donald Devine
Issue 116 - September 24, 2008

The selection of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee can only be compared to Ronald Reagan’s speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964, only she was already a governor when she first entered the nation’s consciousness. Both revived faltering presidential campaigns but much more importantly they offered hope for a very battered philosophy of limited government that seemed to have run its course in the days of reckless spending and regulation that preceded their dramatic arrival on the national scene.

Let us be very frank. National government non-defense spending has hemorrhaged to historic highs during the last seven years under George W. Bush and Republican Congresses. Spending increased by an all-time modern high of 25 percent over his first term and an additional 14 percent so far the second, vastly exceeding any period since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society – plus adding the largest new entitlement since Goldwater’s opponent, in the form of Medicare prescription drugs. As far as regulation is concerned, the last year of the Carter Administration produced 73,258 pages of regulation, which Reagan cut back to 50,616 pages. By the end of the Clinton years, the number of pages was back up to 64,438. But the Bush Administration ended 2007 with 72,090 pages – almost back to where Reagan began...

...Along came Governor Palin. There she was in Dayton being announced by Sen. John McCain, setting her philosophy and credentials simply and concisely. She introduced herself as “your average hockey mom” but in presenting her family proved she walked the walk of traditional values. She was “elected to the City Council and then elected mayor of my hometown, where my agenda was to stop wasteful spending and cut property taxes and put the people first.” Could Reagan been more simply eloquent? “As governor, I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the Big Oil companies and the good-old-boy network.” Conservatives did not need more, but she was just as eloquent and committed to principle in her speech to the Republican Convention.

Maybe there was some future for limited government conservatism after all...

From The Gipper

Let Them Go Their Way

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

Conservative Political Action Conference

Washington, DC

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I mean when I say return to the ideas and principles of Ronald Reagan. As you can see this speech was given 33 years ago, yet it still resounds LOUDLY today!

An Interesting Tidbit

2004: George W. Bush - 62,028,285 John F. Kerry - 59,028,109 Total - 121,053,394

2008: Barack H. Obama - 63,042,806 John S. McCain - 55,821,650 Total - 118,864,456

That's a difference of 2,191,938. The turn out was greater in '04. This years turn out was terrific, but not on the scale that the media makes it out to be! Make of it what you want, but I think my supposition about conservatism is verified.

Conservatism DID NOT Lose!

Conservatism was not even on the ballot! Too many Republicans abandoned the ideas of Ronald Reagan. Though I supported President Bush in '00 and '04 I was clearly able to see that he was NOT a true conservative. There were many things that he did that I completely disagree with. The medicare prescription drug program, the expansion of the federal education department, the $700B bailout are just a few of the things. The Republicans in Congress also abandoned Reagan. They were put there to be fiscally responsible, limit spending and the size of government. They did just the opposite! The tax cuts passed early in the Bush administration did exactly what they were supposed to do. They greatly increased the amount of revenue coming into the federal coffers. Instead of showing restraint with spending and using the money to pay for the war on terror and pay down the national debt they increased spending across the board and instead of using his veto powers, President Bush signed off on all of it. That is why the Republicans lost, plain and simple!

It is now time to get back on track espousing and teaching true Reagan ideas. Too many people in this country have come to believe that it's the governments responsibility to take care of them instead of their own responsibility to take care of themselves. This has been clearly displayed by the fact that a man who wants to "spread the wealth" has been elected President of this nation. The amazing part of this is that so many "educated" people and people who fall into his definition of wealthy voted for him. In actuality, though these may be "educated" people, but they clearly are not SMART. There is a difference between the two. I have a family member who falls into this category. My brother completely bought into the nonsense that the President Elect was preaching and he is an "educated" individual. There is a bit of a caveat to that though. He lives in Chicago and has the mind set that all things Chicago are better than anywhere else. That is for another time and place though. It's time to teach people, once again, that, as the saying goes, it's better to give a helping hand up than a hand out. It's also time to once again teach people that working hard, making something better of themselves and attaining wealth is NOT a bad thing. They also need to be taught that improving your lot in life and CREATING YOUR OWN WEALTH is NOT something to be ashamed of. That these people feel guilty about what they EARNED and WORKED HARD for is astounding and idiotic! Here's a little clue, IT'S YOUR MONEY! It's not for the government to determine who has made enough or too much. If you want to help others out then be charitable with it, but don't allow the government to dictate to you what you have to do with YOUR money. When this happens liberty has been lost and once it's been lost it's VERY difficult, if not impossible, to regain.

It's also time to remember what Ronald Reagan said about government being too large and too over reaching. Smaller, leaner, and more efficient government is what is needed and it is what was intended by the Founding Fathers. Don't believe me?! Then simply read the quotes from them that I placed on this site recently. Our government was meant to be LIMITED in scope and power. It's powers were specifically enumerated and, as stated in the 10th Amendment of The Bill of Rights, anything not so listed was to be left to the individual states to decide how to handle. Once we start espousing and teaching TRUE conservatism and get back to the ideas of Ronald Reagan then, and only then will we be successful again! If it takes abandoning the Republican party and going to the Libertarians, then so be it, but Liberty and Freedom MUST be taught and defended. I still believe in that Shining City on a Hill and I always will. It's time to remind others about that city and not the one that President Reagan described as a city surrounded by a sea of reality. I WILL fight for it and will do so until the day I die!!! Once again I say, conservatism DID NOT LOSE because it had few people in power espousing it. Now it's time for that to change!

Dear Lord Help Us!!!

It is my earnest prayer that the good Lord restrain Pelosi, Reed, and Obama and those following them and not allow them to destroy this great nation that He has so richly blessed! If, however, we must be brought low so that a revival can occur, then so be it. I just pray that he would put a hedge around his people and protect us from what is to come! Above all else, I pray that His will be done and that His NAME and His house would be honored and glorified! I pray this in the name of MY Lord, MY Savior and MY God, Jesus Christ

True Voter Intimidation

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:46 AM

GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could NOT be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground...

Update: Fox News just did a report about the controversy(see video above). The Democrats are saying that the polling station is crowded and election board members need to cycle through the areas intermittently.

Update 10:53am: Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes says this matter is already being heard in court and should be resolved soon. He says there was a dispute of the names of the poll watchers on record. This is a different story than the Democratic officials told Fox News earlier this morning.


Please, tell me again, who is it that is responsible for vote fraud!!!

Gov. Palin Cleared!

Report clears Palin in Alaska's Troopergate probe

Nov 4, 3:14 AM (ET)

By RACHEL D'ORO

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - This time, Gov. Sarah Palin can claim vindication against allegations that she abused her power in office by firing her public safety commissioner.

Palin - running mate of Republican presidential candidate John McCain - violated no ethics laws, according to a report released by the state personnel board on the eve of Election Day. An earlier, separate investigation by the Legislature found that Palin had abused her office.

"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the personnel board's report said...

Did you see this prominently presented on any of the News broadcasts in any of the "major" news papers or on any of the news services? That's right, the answer is NO!!!

This Is Just Scary!!!

The ignorance and lack of intelligence speak for themselves!