Violence on the border endangers Americans

During New Year's week, we were in El Paso, Texas, for the Brut Sun Bowl and frankly felt very safe because when you drive along the border there is a large fence and about every 50 yards a checkpoint with bright lighting at night to keep the thugs from bringing violence into El Paso. The news was filled with killings across the border in Juarez and warnings were everywhere for Americans not to cross the border. With the fence and other security measures the City of El Paso is keeping the violence across the border.

This violence comes from the Mexican Government not cleaning up these border towns years ago but then they were happy their gang thugs were taking the violence across into El Paso and other American cities that are located on the border. It is time the Mexican Government got its act together and took out these gang thugs who run drugs and will kill someone for no reason. Mexico is fast being turned into a lawless group of cities on the border.

It is time for Napolitano and Obama to step up and do something to prevent violence from spreading to the United States along with stopping illegals from entering the Country from Mexico instead of putting their heads in the sand. Why did Congress take funds from the fence building as it has shown to work in El Paso with the lower crime? A fence needs built along the entire stretch of border. If you are coming to the United States legally, then go through a checkpoint. If you do not come through a checkpoint, then you should be arrested and deported. That should have been going on for years, and we wouldn't have this problem.

Now we have a President and Secretary of Homeland Security ignoring the pleas of the border governors. What is it now in this Country -- you have to be a Democrat Governor to get any help?

Violence on the border endangers Americans
Examiner Editorial
April 8, 2010

A clash with police in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a border city overrun by drug gang violence. (Miguel Tovar/AP)

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, hears a lot of disturbing reports from Texas law enforcement officials working along the U.S. border with Mexico. Poe returned from his most recent trip to the Lone Star State claiming to have seen photographs taken by local sheriffs of Mexican military helicopters in action over U.S. territory. One copter was photographed hovering over a building; the other over a recreational vehicle park, according to the Examiner's Barbara Hollingsworth. "We don't know what their intention was," Poe told Hollingsworth, adding: "The Mexican military has no business coming into the United States."

As troubling as is the possibility that a foreign military force may have violated U.S. airspace on multiple occasions, what is even more disturbing is the escalating violence on the border. It's no exaggeration to say that the Mexican government is fighting a desperate battle with powerful drug cartels for control of the country. Americans who dismiss fears that this violence will spill over into this country should listen to Poe. He recently contacted sheriffs in the 14 Texas counties that share the border with Mexico and found that more than a third of the people in their jails are foreign nationals who have been charged with committing serious crimes in this country.

The apparent apathy of President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is inexplicable. Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently asked Napolitano to dispatch unmanned surveillance drones and 1,000 additional U.S. soldiers to boost federal Border Patrol agents and local sheriffs in the effort to protect the border. Instead of heeding Perry's warning, Napolitano instead canceled the "virtual" border surveillance project approved under the Bush administration. That decision virtually leaves Perry and the governors of Arizona, New Mexico and California to cope with the increasing flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, money and guns coming over the border from Mexico.

Excerpt: Read more at Washington Examiner

Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrats?

When we read Cong Paul Ryan's speech, Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? Cong Ryan talked about the term "Progressives" started out around the turn of 20th Century. Today we believe you could safely say that the term "Progressive" has done a 180 and has turned into a synonym for Socialist. Few Progressives at the turn of the 20th century were socialists but today the Progressive movement is made up of socialists across the Country including in our Congress who work under the umbrella of the Democrat Party.

That one word started us thinking about another topic that is along the same lines -- Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrat? Republicans are the ones who have supported the Civil Rights movement and equal treatment for all not just in words but with actions. What happened along the way to make blacks be so loyal to Democrats? Why the change?

After doing research, have come to the conclusion that liberal members of the media have had as much influence as anyone in keeping blacks voting Democrat at close to or over a 90% rate. Freedom of the Press doesn't seem to matter to them as long as they can push their agenda. Do members of the mainstream media write the stories about how blacks have had $7T, yes that is trillion, thrown at their poverty in the inner cities since the LBJ War on Poverty started? Have they ever bothered to ask why with $7T they still have such poor schools and deplorable living conditions in the inner cities and the poverty chain goes on generation after generation? Why do members of the media attack Black Conservatives who are successful? It all adds up to many members of the media recycling Democrat Talking Point papers for years.

These are all questions that need answers because for all their fawning over the 'first' black President, they have refused to acknowledge his background preferring to use his time as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago where he moved after he was an adult. They never bothered to look at he was raised in his formative years in Indonesia as Barry Sorento,the adopted son of Lolo Sorento who took him to a Muslim Church for worship. Only later did his Mother send him to Hawaii to live with her parents and his named changed back. In Hawaii he was mentored by the Communist Franklin Marshal Davis who introduced him into the Chicago community where Davis lived prior to moving to Hawaii. If the Mainstream Media cannot acknowledge and look into Obama's background why would anyone think they would provide a fair and honest background on how much money has been wasted in the cities with a many blacks no better off or worse today then they were before the War on Poverty.

It all fits together that no matter the background if the person is liberal, the media will give them a pass and if conservative, especially a black conservative, many members of the media will go after them with a vengeance. Look no further then in 1994 when Oklahoma's 4th District elected J. C. Watts to Congress. Cong Watts attempted to join the Black Caucus but the "Not Welcome" sign was put out because he was a Black Conservative Republican. Where was the outcry from the media about this discrimination?

The true liberal agenda of many members of the media was proven during the Presidential election when they expected 100% of blacks to vote for Obama and were extremely disgusted if any black Conservative spoke out against his agenda. Some of the more liberal media have never been able to separate the 'agenda' of a person versus a personal attack on the person. To them it is all the same as they follow the mantra of the Democrats -- use 'racist' to describe anyone disagreeing with Obama's policies/agenda because they are only against it because he is black.

That has never been the case in Republican opposition to the policies of Obama. Many Republicans have said they like Obama personally but they are 180 degrees opposed to his agenda and ideas. That doesn't make any difference to the media who goes right along spouting the Democrat Talking Points against Republican Conservatives who they declare are racist since they oppose Obama. Shame on Republicans for wanting to elect a Republican as President. By some Democrats and Media calculations we should have run no one in 2008 and anointed Obama as President.

How did we get here today where disagreeing with someones agenda is 'racist'? Time to look back at history to see what happened from the early days where Africans were brought to the colonies as slaves until today where conditions in the inner cities have improved little in last 30-40 years. Do we have all the answers, not even close but without the history, the lies of the media will continue against Republicans and especially Black Republican Conservatives.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana, Life of Reason, Volume I

By 1619, the use of indentured servants brought the first Africans to America at Jamestown, Virginia. Poor whites also worked alongside blacks during this period as indentured servants with a "contract" saying that this service would last from four to seven years. During the early years Africans and poor whites were able to work hard and complete the contract to become free tradesmen and own property in America. By 1770 there were about 40,000 free slaves throughout the colonies.

It wasn't long before the need for additional slaves grew not only in the south to work the plantations as more crops were planted, but also needed were the dock workers, factory workers of the north both skilled and unskilled and slaves to work smaller family farms in the north. By 1750 over 200,000 African slaves were in the colonies as their numbers increased rapidly. A short 50 years later after the Revolutionary War and Independence had been cleared there were 700,000 slaves at the turn of the new century.

For the next 60 years debate raged on in the new America about the ownership of slaves and the moral dilemma it created. Slavery was no longer viewed as as a state's rights but had become a national issue. Abraham Lincoln because the first Republican President and on January 1st, 1863, Lincoln freed the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation which declared: "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the entire nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom. Source: Archives

Following the Civil War, Reconstruction began and with that came the founding of the Ku Klux Klan throughout the South which eventually worked its way into the North.

The original Ku Klux Klan was organized by ex-Confederate elements to oppose the Reconstruction policies of the radical Republican Congress and to maintain "white supremacy." After the Civil War, when local government in the South was weak or nonexistent and there were fears of black outrages and even of an insurrection, informal vigilante organizations or armed patrols were formed in almost all communities. These were linked together in societies, such as the Men of Justice, the Pale Faces, the Constitutional Union Guards, the White Brotherhood, and the Order of the White Rose. The Ku Klux Klan was the best known of these, and in time it absorbed many of the smaller organizations.

The Klan was particularly effective in systematically keeping black men away from the polls, so that the ex-Confederates gained political control in many states. Congress in 1870 and 1871 passed legislation to combat the Klan (see force bill ). The Klan was especially strong in the mountain and Piedmont areas. In the Lower South the Knights of the White Camelia were dominant. That order, founded (1867) in Louisiana, is reputed to have had even more members than the Ku Klux Klan, but its membership was more conservative and its actions less spectacular. It had a similar divisional organization, with headquarters in New Orleans.

Source: "Ku Klux Klan." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Retrieved April 06, 2010 from Encyclopedia.com: Columbia Encyclopedia

Even though blacks were free and the 14th Amendment was passed on July 9, 1868, granting the slaves rights of citizenship in the United States they were still refused the right to vote in many areas as Democrats consolidated power. The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights, and procedural due process rights. Certain steps are required before depriving a person of their life, liberty, or property. This amendment also called the Equal Protection Clause eventually was used in the historic Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

For years the KKK remained small in mostly rural areas of the country as America moved into the the 20th Century. Following the disastrous election where William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt decided their egos were too big to get along and split the vote when Roosevelt ran as the nominee of the Bull Moose Party electing Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, as President who fired all the black Civil Service workers.

The second Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1915 by William J. Simmons, an ex-minister and promoter of fraternal orders; its first meeting was held on Stone Mt., Ga. The new Klan had a wider program than its forerunner, for it added to "white supremacy" an intense nativism and anti-Catholicism (it was also anti-Semitic) closely related to that of the Know-Nothing movement of the middle 19th cent. Consequently its appeal was not sectional, and, aided after 1920 by the activities of professional promoters Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Y. Clarke, it spread rapidly throughout the North as well as the South. It furnished an outlet for the militant patriotism aroused by World War I, and it stressed fundamentalism in religion.

Professing itself nonpolitical, the Klan nevertheless controlled politics in many communities and in 1922, 1924, and 1926 elected many state officials and a number of Congressmen. Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon, and Maine were particularly under its influence. Its power in the Midwest was broken during the late 1920s when David C. Stephenson, a major Klan leader there, was convicted of second-degree murder, and evidence of corruption came out that led to the indictment of the governor of Indiana and the mayor of Indianapolis, both supporters of the Klan. The Klan frequently took extralegal measures, especially against those whom it considered its enemies. As was the case with the earlier Klan, some of these measures, whether authorized by the central organization or not, were extreme.

Source: Columbia Encyclopedia

By 1930, the members of the KKK were estimated to be near 30,000 compared to the millions they claimed (never proven) in the mid-20's. With the depression the Klan shrunk to almost nothing but their beliefs stayed with Klan members ready to make a reappearance.

Before President Truman left office, he ordered the American military desegregated but never carried out his own order. That task was left to President Dwight David Eisenhower who was born in a small Texas town and raised in Kansas part of the Heartland of America. President Eisenhower enforced the desegregation of our military and he didn't stop there.

During the Eisenhower Administration on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled using the 14th amendment in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and ordered that U.S. public schools be desegregated "with all deliberate speed."

In 1957 an Executive Order September 23, 1957, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, sent Federal troops to maintain order and peace while the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, AR, took place. This happened after the Arkansas Governor, Orval Faubus called out the state's National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School and prevent any black students from entering. The AR Governor by his actions set off riots and for what? He didn't want blacks attending school with whites? He didn't have a choice because of the Supreme Court ruling not to mention it was fundamentally wrong to have very good white schools and very poor black schools.

President Eisenhower was also responsible for pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and another one in 1960 which a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats passed, and he signed into law with the help of the Republican Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson who wrote much of the legislation.

Once again the KKK tried to revive itself after WWII but didn't gain much traction until the 1960's when it reared its ugly head again.

The beginning of the media coverup on Presidential candidates we believe started in full force in 1960 with the Presidential Candidacy of John R. Kennedy. He was lauded as a proponent of civil rights but voted against the 1956 Civil Rights Act while he was a Senator along with Al Gore Sr. Yet the media had JFK as single handily taking up the plight of every black in the 1960 race. As President, JFK's tune changed from championing the equality of blacks. He thought he had bought off Martin Luther King but he hadn't. JFK was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Following the assassination of JFK, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became President and with him every 'feel good' bill you could think of to spend the American taxpayer dollars was passed at his request. Runway spending knew no end under Johnson when he not only spent huge sums on domestic programs but decided to escalate the Vietnam War micromanaging every move. The War on Poverty which has spent $7T to date may be one of the most unsuccessful programs ever as all it has managed to do is keep inner city residents in poverty still today. Shocking that $7T was spent and there is little to show for the expenditures except more of the same level of poverty in rundown conditions.

In 1964 when LBJ ran for his first full term, the Democrats were relentless in their attacks on Barry Goldwater distorting what he had to say and of course the willing liberal media went right along with the attacks.

Was the real reason for these attacks the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation? Goldwater successfully predicted that LBJ would escalate the war, but LBJ, Democrats, and the liberal media blamed Goldwater as the war monger. We can still remember that little girl picking the daisy ad which turned out to be a lie but very successful for LBJ.

After winning the election by an overwhelming number after painting Goldwater as a radical, Johnson, in his State of the Union Address on January 4, 1965, devoted only 35 words to civil rights. Only 35 words when he campaigned as the champions of the blacks in America and promised how he would take care of them. In 1967, LBJ showed his true colors over his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, as LBJ referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher." Following the LBJ decision not to run for reelection in 1968 because the Vietnam War was going so bad, Richard Nixon became President.

Republicans started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans

Excerpt: Read More at: ERR.com

For years Republicans have been putting up with how the racist "Dixiecrats" became Republicans throughout the South. That is blantantly false -- many of them stayed Democrat and became the "yellow dog" Democrats as they would rather die then vote for a member of the Republican Party who they considered the Party of blacks. How ironic that today 90% of blacks vote for Democrat including for "yellow dogs" which makes zero sense.

Anyone who was ever associated with the KKK should never be in Government but today we have a sitting Democrat Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia who is a 'former' Klan member. In March of 1968, Byrd commenting on Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Byrd wasn't finished with his 'racist' comments in public. Cannot fathom his comments in private. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." Note: Why have National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge for this 'former' member of the Klu Klux Klan or put pressure on him to resign. In fact why hasn't the mainstream media led the way?

Yet the Democrats have always praised Robert Byrd while trashing Strom Thurmond who left the Democrats to become Republican. Take a look at the two men and then ask yourself what was behind the trashing of Thurmond:

Senator Byrd rose to the rank of Exalted Cyclops in KKK while Senator Thurmond was NEVER in the Ku Klux Klan. Not only was Thurmond not a member of the KKK but he defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. There may be some truth in the statement we have heard before that if Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched. Once again we had the media not only tar and feathering Thurmond but also Trent Lott who was honoring Thurmond. Seems to us the MSM left out a few details about Thurmond at the request of their Democrat allies who wanted rid of Lott.

From PoliticalHotwire.com comes this timeline which we found extremely iinteresting and puts everything in perspective:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988.

What have blacks gotten over the years for loyally voting the Democrat ticket? For the past 30-40 years Democrats have been controlling the inner cities. Even before that Democrats have been throwing money at blacks in the inner cities since the days of LBJ and circumstances they find themselves in today have gotten worse not better after all the money. Some of the worst schools in America are in the inner cities. All you have to do is look at Chicago schools which we have discussed on here several times. They throw plenty of money at the Chicago Public Schools but the problem is a lot of the money ends up in contractor's pockets not in the schools where students can take advantage of good schools. Go into their libraries and see the lack of books for them to use as reference material. How are they supposed to get a good education with the tools? Would bet that the amount wasted in Chicago schools making others wealthy over the years is well into the billions and more.

Every election we get the same mantra that Republicans caused the problems in the inner cities because they want to cut taxes and government and thus give less money to states/cities for the 'poor.' The MSM willingly goes along printing the press releases of the Democrats as facts knowing full well they are lies. Where are the investigative journalists who are brave enough to look into what has been happening to our tax dollars in the inner cities in the last 30-40 years and why people cannot break out of the poverty cycle with all these money floating around. Republicans want accountability and know where their money is spent which doesn't fit the Democrat agenda.

Better schools require parents to be involved. Why don't some parents want their children to get a good education? Why are Democrats opposed to vouchers and charter schools as a way to educate children from the slums/poor schools and give them a chance at a real future? Are Democrats afraid if a new generation of blacks are educated, that maybe they will start to lose their hold on their largest voting block?

Democrats have tried it with Hispanics as well but the more properous Hispanics become and start their own business, the more they become Republican. We need to start making even more inroads in the black community not just ignore them. They need to understand that Republicans are not keeping them down but that in fact Republicans have been pushing 'equal' rights since the Civil War.

Republicans do not believe in quotas but in giving every person the opportunity to be successful so they can compete on their own merits. Democrats, on the other hand, prefer to have bad schools and place minorities in jobs they are not qualified to have just because they are a minoritiy and they want their vote. That is a fundamental difference in the two parties and why Republicans need to make voters understand that we are not elitists -- we are people from all walks of life who believe that everyone has a right to fundamental freedoms. We believe that education forms the backbone of America as students complete their educations and become participants in The American Dream. We believe good, honest work is the key to success and that handouts over a period of years will harm not help people. People are going to need a hand from time to time as illustrated now with the lack of jobs but that doesn't mean for the next 15-20 years that person should be on unemployment.

Every child in this Country has the "RIGHT" to expect a good education and it is up to each State and local School District to see they get that education. It is up to the parents to make sure their elected school board who hire the administrators and teachers are providing their child a first rate education they need to be successful. When that isn't happening, they need to make their voices heard. Politicians are not going to fix inner city schools because it is not in their best interest to keep their job by keeping blacks tied to the Democrat Party. That is why Democrats routinely vote against vouchers and charter schools.

With an education the sky is the limit on what anyone can do. That doesn't mean everyone should go to college but it does mean that every last student should know how to read, do math, and understand the history of this Country. Knowledge is a precious gift that we need to bestow on every student in this Country so they can make informed decisions and not be led around or told what to do.

Frances Rice, Chairwoman of the Black Republicans, said it best in her essay about Martin Luther King was a Republican:

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

This is the message Republicans need to take into 2010 and 2012 and in the years beyond that. We need to show the youth of America there is a better way and that way is through Education. No matter if you come from the inner city, suburbia, or rural America, you have the right to expect a first class education from your local community whether big or small.

Maybe in ten years, we will no longer be asking "Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrat?" but will be welcoming more Black Conservatives into the Republican Party to join the ones we have today who are so welcome and can give us such an insight on how we grow as Conservative Republicans.

We can become a mighty force for capitalism and democracy once again as we look to Ronald Reagan's 'Shining City on the Hill.' It is going to be tough at times along the way as we are fighting Democrat Socialists and their handouts for votes along with their lapdog media members who cover for them every day. It is too important to the future of America to quit. We have to keep pushing forward and win one battle at a time until we have driven the socialists and their corrupt allies from power.

_________

Would like to thank Frances Rice for her writings which inspired me to explore this question along with Walter Williams, Dr. Alveda King, Rev Jesse Lee Peterson, and others who have become Republican Conservatives and have taken the shots the liberal Democrats give them and they are still standing tall today.

Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom

On March 31, 2010, Cong Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in Oklahoma City. From accounts, Cong Ryan's speech was excellent.

Cong Paul Ryan has put forth "A Roadmap for America's Future" which we will be spotlighting in the days ahead on this website as well as on Voices from the Heartland, our companion site. Ryan's plan has already been scored by the CBO who confirms "this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run - while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth."

Reading Cong Ryan's speech has brought many questions to mind about how did the word 'progressive' end up meaning socialist' today. Voting rights for all citizens were secured by those early day 'progressives' and now today's 'Progressives' consider voter fraud a way of life to win. Today's 'progressives' are the types that Teddy Roosevelt and others fought against.

There is an old saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, Vol I That phrase is as true today as it has ever been.

This paragraph about progressives jumped out and with that realized we didn't didn't know a lot about the word 'progressive' from the early 1900's -- all we knew about was today's Progressives:

Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson would have scorned the self-proclaimed "Progressives" of our day for handing out bailout checks to giant corporations, corrupting the Congress to purchase votes for government controlled health care, and funneling billions in Jobs Stimulus money to local politicians to pay for make-work patronage. That's not "Progressivism," that's what real Progressives fought against!

With our initial question in mind 'Where did the word "progressive" originate in the United States and what was its purpose?' we set out to learn some facts.

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.

The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production.

When you realize that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive back in the early part of the 20th Century, it brings into question how a small group of Socialist from the start of Progressive Movement became so powerful in the Congress today. Teddy Roosevelt would not recognize that word today or LaFollette, or Wilson. They were fighting for the people to have a say in Government and take it away from the elitist. Now it is 180 degrees opposite as the 'Progressive' Elitist want to have full control of our lives and take control of Government away from us.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:

The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912

The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s

The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s

We had no idea until reading Cong Ryan's speech that 'Progressives' were anything other then Socialist. This is reminiscent of the slaves being freed by Republicans, Civil Rights Legislation being passed by Republicans, and Blacks voting in large numbers for Democrats.

What causes this phenomenon we keep seeing where Republicans have the foresight to see that 'shining city on the hill' as Reagan put it and Democrats want to take away freedoms and control our lives? Now we learn the original 'Progressives' were the ones who cared about everyone voting, child labor laws to protect children from the greedy manufacturing owners, and election of Senators by the people not the elitists to name a few.

The working conditions of the early 1900's led to rise in the unions which are now almost solidly democrat in management. People have lived for years in deplorable conditions not fit for rats but what have Democrats done to help them? As long as they vote Democrat, they prefer keep them down and give them poor schools so they don't want them to realize they can have a better life. Someday they can reach that 'shining city on the hill' with hard work and drive and getting a better education but that doesn't suit the Democrat mindset which puts getting votes over the welfare of people. LBJ turned 'poverty' into more and bigger handouts with his War on Poverty that managed to keep people even more down which in turn brought in generations of welfare people waiting for their monthly handout and more Democrat voters.

Without Cong Ryan's speech, we would have never looked into what the Democrats have done over the years to secure voting blocks of votes based on economics, race, and perceived wrongs -- all basic lies.

In 2010, Republicans need to show the American people they can lead and with leading return the sense of personal responsibility to the individual to make their life, their local area, their state, and their Country better instead of waiting for the Government to take care of their every need. Yankee ingenuity needs a restart in America in 2010!

It has been a long time since we have read a speech like the one Cong Ryan gave that made us think and go do the research. Tomorrow we will cover blacks and how they became Democrat which this speech made us ask why they vote so heavily for Democrats. Today it was 'progressives' and how a very small group of them took the word and became full blown socialists who want to control our every day lives, tomorrow it is blacks, and the next day unions.

This speech by Cong Paul Ryan whose wife is from Oklahoma is what this Country needs. Read the speech and ask yourself who is this Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan who wants to split his time between Oklahoma and Wisconsin when he retires? This speech goes a long way in telling us about the man and how he believes this Country should be governed. We will be sharing with you in the days ahead his "A Roadmap for America's Future" as we learn more about this Congressman and his vision for America.

April 2, 2010
Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?
By Rep. Paul Ryan

Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill - or I should say, one political party passed it - over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much...or whether you don't qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.

This presumptuous reform has put this nation ... once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person ... on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become.

(snip)

Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity ... or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth ... between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives ... between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work ... between bureaucratic central government, or self-government ... between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there's no going back.

This is not the kind of election I would prefer. But it was forced on us by the leaders of our government.

These leaders are walking America down a new path ... creating entitlements and promising benefits that model the United States after the European Union: a welfare state society where most people pay little or no taxes but become dependent on government benefits ... where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise ... where high unemployment is accepted as a way of life, and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by a tangle of red tape from an all-providing centralized government.

True, the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame. Now we are approaching a "tipping point." Once we pass it, we will become a different people. Before the "tipping point," Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being. Once we have gone beyond the "tipping point," that self-sufficient outlook will be gradually transformed into a soft despotism a lot like Europe's social welfare states. Soft despotism isn't cruel or mean, it's kindly and sympathetic. It doesn't help anyone take charge of life, but it does keep everyone in a happy state of childhood. A growing centralized bureaucracy will provide for everyone's needs, care for everyone's heath, direct everyone's career, arrange everyone's important private affairs, and work for everyone's pleasure.

The only hitch is, government must be the sole supplier of everyone's happiness ... the shepherd over this flock of sheep.

Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood

Excerpt: Read more at Real Clear Politics

Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He serves as ranking member of the House Budget Committee and senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Frank Gaffney: Who Lost Iraq?

We remember when the Iraqi people went to vote the first time and were so proud to show everyone their purple fingers. Now candidates that ran in the last election are being faced with violence from the anti-democracy forces still in Iraq despite what Obama/Biden are saying that the War is over and We Won! We haven't won anything and looks like the Iraqi people who wanted democracy could end up the big losers. There was no reason to pull our troops out so rapidly and send them to Afghanistan except Obama didn't want the United States in Iraq. Who pushed him to get our troops out of Iraq which in part has set off a series of attacks? Why has he been against the Iraq War from Day One or standing up to Iran except with a few words?

Sadly, all other things being equal, that popular ambition seems unlikely to be realized. There is an unmistakable vacuum of power being created by President Obama's determination to withdraw U.S. "combat" forces no matter what, starting with the cities a few months ago and in short order from the rest of the country.

We never understood during the Bush 43 years why Cristopher Hill was involved in our foreign policy since he was an appeaser. Didn't make sense then and doesn't now why Pres GW Bush chose him to deal with the North Korean Leader. We needed a tough as nails type person who would negotiate not an appeaser who seemed to be afraid he might make the North Koren leader unhappy. You negotiate from strength not weakness which Hill never seemed to understand and now is the Obama Ambassador to Iraq.

The signal of American abandonment was made the more palpable by Team Obama's decision to dispatch Christopher Hill as its ambassador to Iraq. Hill is the diplomat best known for his determination during the Bush 43 years to appease, rather than thwart, the despot most closely enabling the realization of Iran's nuclear ambitions: North Korea's Kim Jong Il. The unreliability of the United States as an ally - a hallmark of the Obama presidency more generally - is reinforcing the sense that it is every man for himself in Iraq.

This last paragraph of the article posted below is truly frightening when you realize what is at stake with losing Iraq. Add to that Obama's appeasement of the Palestinians, verbal attacks on Israel, and tepid repines to a nuclear Iran and you have an area of the world ready to blow up while Obama twiddles his thumbs and bows to Muslims like the Saudi King. During the attempted overthrow of Iran by its people, Obama and Hillary were mostly silent. They seem to only find a voice when it is Freedom and Democracy at stake and then it is on the side of those against Freedom and Democracy.

There should be no doubt, however: The repercussions of the Obama administration losing Iraq will cost us dearly in the future as adherents to Shariah around the world are reinforced in their conviction of that our defeat and submission is preordained. Even if, at the moment, we cannot fully comprehend the implications of such a perception, we will know from here on out whose "great achievement" precipitated the resulting horror for America and the rest of what was once the Free World.

How Biden and Obama have the nerve to take credit for anything in Iraq is beyond us as they always opposed the United States being in Iraq. Not only a dark day for American when Obama was elected as more and more Americans are discovering but it was a dark day for Iraq as well as Israel.

Who lost Iraq?
Center for Security Policy Apr 05, 2010
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Back in February, Vice President Joseph Biden declared: "I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration." Even for a politician much given to strategic ineptitude compounded by foot-in-mouth disease, that was a doozy.

As has been pointed out innumerable times since, if Iraq turns out to be a truly "great achievement" in any ordinary sense of the word, Mr. Biden and Barack Obama - two of the most insistent opponents of George W. Bush's efforts to consolidate Iraq's liberation - are among the last people in Washington who should take such credit.

Worse yet, unfortunately for the Iraqi people and others who love freedom, it looks increasingly as though the Obama administration will have the loss of Iraq as one of its most signal accomplishments.

Three murderous suicide bombings in Baghdad over the weekend are but the latest indication of the renewed reality there: Those determined to use violence to destabilize the country, foment sectarian strife and shape Iraq's destiny can do so with impunity.

The fact that the Iranian embassy was one of the targets suggests Sunni extremist groups - perhaps including the once-defeated al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - are responsible for this round of attacks. Elsewhere in the country though, Shiite death squads that may or may not have ties to the pro-Iranian factions currently running the country are ruthlessly liquidating prominent tribal leaders and others associated with the movement in Anbar Province known as The Awakening. The latter were instrumental to the success of the U.S. surge and to the opportunity thus created for an Iraqi future vastly superior to its despotic and chaotic past.

Among the objects of the growing violence are individuals who stood for office in the recent parliamentary elections. This amounts to post facto disenfranchisement of the Iraqi voters whose turnout of over 60 percent - in the face of threats by anti-democratic forces that voting would be deemed a capital offense - powerfully testified to their desire to exercise the right enjoyed by no others in the Mideast except Israelis: to have a real say in their government and future.

(snip)

Increasingly, that vacuum is being filled by Iran and its proxies on the one hand and, on the other, insurgent Sunni forces, both those aligned with al Qaeda and those that have, at least until recently, been suppressing the AQI. On what might be called the third hand, Iraqi Kurds are experiencing their own internal problems as well as an increasingly ill-concealed inclination to assert their independence from the rest of the country.

(snip)

The prospects of any "great achievement" in Iraq are being further diminished by the direction to the Pentagon to shift personnel and equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan. The President himself reinforced that commitment during his speech to U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base last week. The detailed planning and ponderous logistics associated with such a transfer increasingly foreclose options to change course. Our commanders will soon be hard pressed to preserve today's deployments of American forces in Iraq, let alone to have them take up once again the sorts of positions in the urban areas that they held to such therapeutic effect during the surge.

Excerpt: Read More at Center for Security Policy

PRUDEN: The protection of Easter in Jewish Jerusalem

Happy Easter! We found this editorial from Wesley Pruden to be especially timely this Easter in light of what is happening between this Administration and Israel. We stand with Israel and thank them for protecting the Christians who journey to the Holy City of Jerusalem this Easter Sunday.

Friday, April 2, 2010
PRUDEN: The protection of Easter in Jewish Jerusalem

By Wesley Pruden

Celebrating Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important holy day for Christians of all denominations, can be deadly in the Middle East. Reciting a Scripture or humming a hymn could cost your head in Saudi Arabia, and you could risk other highly valued body parts in the similarly benighted ninth-century neighborhoods abounding in the lands of caliphs, imams and ayatollahs.

Beheading is something of the national sport of Saudi Arabia, where the government has scheduled for Friday the gruesome ritual for a man, the father of five, accused of sorcery for "making predictions" in his native Lebanon. (Punditry can be risky there, too.)

Better to take your celebration to Israel, where the government will assist your visit. It's the difference between Middle East and the cultural West, between the 8th and 21st centuries, between civilized and not-so-civilized. The Israeli guarantee of religious freedom, taken for granted in the nations of the West, is part of what invites hostility and belligerence from Israel's neighbors.

Pilgrims proceed under protection today along the Via Dolorosa, believed to be the path that Christ took with His cross to the crucifixion at Calvary, and on to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Many Christians, particularly Roman Catholics, believe Christ was buried on the site three days before the Resurrection. Christians and everyone else are welcome to join the procession. Unless a suicide bomber or other evil-doer slips through security, no one will be harmed. The Israeli government guarantees it.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1948, declares Israel to be a Jewish state, but further declares that the nation "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions." It's a promise bereft of Jeffersonian eloquence, but it's plain and to the point.

In that long-ago day, in a burst of naive enthusiasm, certain idealists imagined that this example would spread to other places where religious freedom is understood to mean that you have the freedom to keep your head so long as you believe what the imams in the government tell you to believe. Israel has since enacted comprehensive legal codes to protect the hundreds of Christian, Muslim and Jewish monuments and markers and to guarantee universal access to them. Jordan, before the Six-Day War in 1967, controlled Jerusalem, and Jews were forbidden entry. Many Jewish holy sites were routinely vandalized.

Moshe Dayan, the defense minister who led the Israelis to victory in the Six-Day War, was clear about religious tolerance and protection in a radio broadcast the morning Jerusalem was captured. "This morning," he said, "the Israel Defense Force liberated Jerusalem. We have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of Israel. We have returned the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again. To our Arab neighbors we extend, also at this hour - and with added emphasis 'at this hour' - our hand in peace. And to our Christian and Muslim fellow citizens, we solemnly promise full religious freedom and rights."

This clearly includes the right to disagree. Not every Christian regards the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the site of Christ's burial. A tomb in a garden below Calvary was discovered in 1867 and, popularized by Gen. Charles George "Chinese" Gordon, an eccentric Bible scholar once assigned to the British military in Palestine, became known as "the Protestant tomb." The Anglican church once recognized it as the authentic tomb. Scholars are divided today on whether this is so.

The tomb fits the description in Matthew 27:58, when Joseph of Arimathea begged Pilate for the body of Jesus: "Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own, new tomb, which he had hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed."

The stone is there today, and the track on which it was rolled away is visible in the rock. The tomb and the garden lie beneath a large stone outcropping, vaguely resembling a skull, marked by two gaping holes, as if eye sockets. Hence the name "Golgotha," or "skull," given to the site of the crucifixion.
The argument continues, as with so much about the meaning of the Scripture. But Christians agree on the Resurrection as the story of Easter, the central fact that gives the Gospel meaning. The pilgrims continue to make their way in peace to Jerusalem, scene of the holiest and most horrific events of history, watched over now with respect and reverence by Jews.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Source: Washington Times

Dems defend candidate for Ill. senator - Alexi Giannoulias Not Dropping out of IL Senate race

Republicans launched this ad that appeared in the Chicagoist.com article back in February and by the first part of April, the Chicago Tribune after researching confirmed what the ad said. Simple amazing that Democrats are continuing to stand by Giannoulias even though behind the scenes they admit that the bank is going to go bankrupt under the weight of bad loans. We are wondering if the Obama administration is going to do a bailout since they are long time friends.

Tribune: Broadway Bank Lent $20M To Felons While Giannoulias Worked ThereThat sound you heard this morning was tens of thousands of the state's Democratic voters performing a *facepalm* upon reading a Tribune report that while Dem. U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias was a senior loan officer at his family's Broadway Bank, the bank lent $20 million to convicted felons. Giannoulias himself didn't talk to the Tribune for the report but said in a statement that he was one of many senior loan officers at the time and didn't have anything to do with these particular loans. Meanwhile, Republicans around the state are saying, "We told ya so," as the story confirmed claims made in an ad launched the morning after this February's primary.


Excerpt: Read more at Chicagoist.com

The Giannoulias family was involved with Obama as far back as his first state senate campaign in 1996. It has been long rumored here in Chicago that Obama obtained a sweetheart deal on his first town home here in Chicago - which he could not have afforded otherwise - and guess who the financing came from for that house? We've been told it was Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias bank. Obama received his first loan courtesy of Rezko to buy a condo under suspicious circumstances since he didn't qualify at a regular bank. Source: American Thinker

With all this background between Obama and Alexi Giannoulias, why would anyone expect a Democrat in IL to drop out of the race for the US Senate no matter what was in their background. Another famous person from Chicago, Hillary, couldn't find the Rose billing records for a long time and they magically appeared one day on a table.

Now we have the senior loan officer for the Browdway bank, Alexi Giannoulias, at the time two loans were made to felons as outlined in the Chicago Tribune headlines, "$20 MILLION IN BANK LOANS TO FELONS" saying he doesn't know anything about the loans.

When are the voters of Illinois going to wake up and realize when you elect a Democrat from Chicago chances of them being on the corrupt side are very high these days. They all seem to be out of the same group of people who will lie, cheat, and steal to gain power.

Are the Democrats going to ask him to step aside? Highly doubtful as he fits their mold they want in the Senate of someone with baggage who can be controlled.

Dems defend candidate for Ill. senator
By Mike Robinson and Philip Elliott
ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 3, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- Democrats are quietly worrying about whether Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias can win President Barack Obama's old Senate seat. His family's bank is believed to be on the verge of collapse and reportedly made $20 million in loans to two convicted felons.

Republican Rep. Mark Kirk is already accusing Giannoulias of lying to the voters about the loans, and his campaign is guaranteed to be pounding away at the bank's problems in millions of dollars worth of television ads.

But the 34-year-old Giannoulias is still electable if he meets the bank embarrassment head on and strikes back at the Republican congressman as more conservative than this Democratic-trending state, Democratic insiders say.
Democrats brush aside any talk of getting Giannoulias to bow out of the race.

"Alexi Giannoulias is running a strong campaign on the issues that matter to the people of Illinois -- like job creation and the economy," says Deirdre Murphy, national press secretary of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Giannoulias was not granting interviews Friday as the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story with the headline: "$20 MILLION IN BANK LOANS TO FELONS." The story detailed how Broadway Bank, a Giannoulias family-owned institution in Chicago, had lent large sums to convicted felons Michael "Jaws" Giorango and Demitri Stavropoulos.

The fact that Broadway had loaned the men millions -- Stavropoulos was convicted of running a multistate bookmaking ring and Giorango of promoting a nationwide prostitution ring -- was a campaign issue when Giannoulias ran for state treasurer in 2006. But the Tribune reported it reviewed court files and other documents that showed millions more -- a total of more than $27 million worth of mortgages to Giorango, his land trusts and companies since 1999, $20 million of which was loaned when Giannoulias was a senior loan officer.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

KING: 100 percent repeal of Obamacare -- Nothing less can prevent American decline

This powerful opinion piece by Congressman Steve King (R-IA), needs read by every last American so that everyone can understand how much Obamacare is an assault on our liberty.

This comment by King drives home the problem we have with the progressive 'socialist' in the Congress and White House:

The rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are prioritized rights. No one has the right to kill in the name of liberty just as no one has the right to take your liberty in pursuit of their happiness. Obamacare is a "taking" of our liberty.

The socialists in Government were gleeful about passing Obamacare knowing full well they went against the Constitution and Rules of Congress for passing legislation that has stood for over 200 years and it didn't bother them at all. The backroom deals provided by the 'troika' of Obama, Pelosi, Reid in exchange for votes should get all three impeached for knowingly and willingly going against the Rules of Congress and the Constitution. No effort was made in the House to include Republicans and instead everything was done by 'Democrats only' behind closed doors and rammed through the House.

In 2010, Democrats who voted for Pelosi as Speaker of the House need ousted because they elected a Socialist to run the People's House who could care less what the People have to say. We the People will speak on November 2nd, 2010 and in January Pelosi will no longer be using her large gavel to ram bills through the House.

Thanks to Steve King and others for standing up and fighting for all of us -- We the People will be standing right there beside them helping them fight for control of the House of Representatives one Congressional district at a time.

KING: 100 percent repeal of Obamacare
Nothing less can prevent American declineBy Rep. Steve King

President Obama, speaking at a rally in Iowa City on March 25, challenged opponents of Obamacare who have vowed repeal. To repeal advocates, the President said, "Go for it."

Before the first light of dawn on the morning after this Pelosi Congress sent Obamacare to the President's desk, I started the process to repeal.My decision to take this fight to and through the next election and probably through the presidential election in 2012 was not a knee jerk response to a legislative defeat.It is a commitment to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, real health care reform and American Liberty.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid - the troika that controls America today - have long had designs to shove America into the abyss of socialism. Their philosophy, political power and cynical effort to expand the dependency class all lined up to make Obamacare the law of the land. The highest price every generation of Americans will pay is not measured in dollars but in lost liberty.
America is a unique nation with unmatched vitality. The rights and liberties which transformed the "Dream" into the reality of American Exceptionalism are written on our hearts. We have a vitality that is unmatched because we have skimmed the cream of the crop off every donor civilization.

Millions have flocked to America because of the promise of liberty. They have joined natural born Americans to form the most vigorous culture on the planet. Every preceding generation has had the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.
Obamacare is a reversal of the formula that has produced the world's unchallenged greatest nation. For these reasons, 100 percent of Obamacare must be repealed.

With the massive costs of Obamacare, we cannot hope to pay our debts in our lifetimes or our children's. Under Obamacare, costs will go up and quality will go down. Under Obamacare, we must go all the way to the Supreme Court to reestablish the Constitution as a pact limiting the reach of the federal government.
However, all of the aforementioned will not crush our national spirit like the oppressive weight of mandated dependency. Obamacare takes away the American right to manage our own lives.

The rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are prioritized rights. No one has the right to kill in the name of liberty just as no one has the right to take your liberty in pursuit of their happiness. Obamacare is a "taking" of our liberty.

We the People understand this intuitively and reject this injustice which will, if not repealed, bring about the American decline. We cannot "hide the decline" or "manage the decline." We must decline the decline by repealing 100 percent of Obamacare.

Every provision of Obamacare must be repealed - not selective parts of it. Not by preserving a short list of less egregious components. Obamacare must be ripped out completely, lock, stock and barrel - root and branch - no vestige left behind - not a DNA particle of Obamacare retained.

The toxic stew of Obamacare would taint every effort to reform and give the next generation of leftist politicians their talking points for another assault on our liberty. Republicans will either stand unanimously together for 100 percent repeal, as we did against the bill, or our ranks will be split and our effort defeated.

The voracious appetite of the leftists to consume American Liberty has spontaneously created a new class of activists whom I define as the "constitutional conservatives." They are the 9-12 Project groups, all the Tea Party groups, and the organizations who join in their efforts.

Constitutional conservatives are emerging as the new majority makers and will not support a partial repeal. They stood in the streets, town halls and capitols of our states and nation to "Kill the bill."

No one demonstrated to "kill the most egregious aspects" or "preserve the least egregious aspects" of Obamacare. This is an all or nothing fight from this point forward. Either we will be unified, energized and resolute for 100 percent repeal or we will be divided and deservedly conquered by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

This is a life or death struggle for the soul of America. We are the redoubt of Western Civilization. It is our charge to set the standard for the world.
From an upstart nation formed on the profound belief that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" we have, over the past century assumed "among the Powers of the Earth," the responsibility of sole superpower. We have defeated our enemies and saved Western civilization for the world.

We are not a nation created to mimic mediocrity. Our charge is to take this nation upwards to a new level of liberty and prosperity built upon the pillars of american exceptionalism.

Congressman Steve King is on the House Judiciary Committee and represents Iowa's Fifth Congressional District.

Source: Washington Times

NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP CONVENES EXPERT PANEL TO EDUCATE ON DANGERS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S U.S. DISARMAMENT AGENDA

Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

The president may make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators who are present agree.

This is one time that Obama will not be able to go around the Constitution like he did on Healthcare, because the Constitution is explicit that any treaty must receive the votes of 2/3's of the Senators present which = 67 votes. There is no way that Obama can get the treat with Russia on Nuclear Missiles ratified which would give advantage to the Russians.

If you are in the DC area, please attend this event as the Center for Security Policy led by Frank Gaffney is educating the American people on the dangers of the Obama US Disarmanet Agenda which frankly is a frightening agenda.

Never has the the United States had a President that was so pro active with our enemies and so anti to our closest allies Great Britain and Israel. He bows to the Saudi King and others. Our American flag is never lowered to another Country and our President does not bow.


The people of America need to listen to Frank Gaffney and the experts on the Disarmament Agenda of Obama. It is mandatory that we all take this threat to heart and work to defeat the Obama Disarment Agenda.

Frie
For Immediate Release
For more information, contact:
Ben Lerner
Center for Security Policy
(202) 835-9077
lerner@securefreedom.org

NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP CONVENES EXPERT PANEL TO EDUCATE ON DANGERS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S U.S. DISARMAMENT AGENDA

(Washington, D.C.): On the occasion of President Obama’s signature of a flawed “New START” treaty with Russia and the eve of a Nuclear Summit in Washington, the New Deterrent Working Group – a group of nuclear weapons experts with decades of experience in the U.S. military, U.S. government service, and defense policy – will be convening a Capitol Hill press briefing on the dangers of Mr. Obama’s nuclear disarmament agenda for the United States.

When: Thursday 8 April, 12:00 pm (lunch will be served)

Where: Room SVC 202/203, Capitol Visitors Center


The NEW DETERRENT WORKING GROUP panel will feature the following experts:

Hon. Paula DeSutter
Former Assistant Secretary of State – Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation;

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting);

Peter Huessy
President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Inc.;

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr.
U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet;

Vice Admiral Robert Monroe
U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Former Director of Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)

The panel will address, among other subjects:

The deficiencies of the START follow-on treaty, including the failure to address Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, as well as the disconnect between this treaty and nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere;

The centrality of a robust, up-to-date American nuclear stockpile and missile defense capability to international stability;

The need for maintaining a strong and modern strategic “triad” of land- and sea-based ballistic missiles and long-range bombers;

The dangers of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
President Obama’s flawed premise that a “world without nuclear weapons” is achievable or desirable.

In announcing this event, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy which sponsors the New Deterrent Working Group, said:

President Obama’s fixation with “devaluing nuclear weapons” has prompted him to adopt policies, to take programmatic actions and to sign a flawed new arms control treaty that will leave the United States and its allies significantly less secure. The New Deterrent Working Group looks forward to providing some badly needed perspective on the true nature and grave risks associated with the President’s denuclearization agenda – with a view to laying the groundwork for a much-needed course correction in what promise to be eventful months ahead – including the Nuclear Summit, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference and Senate consideration of what would better be described as the ‘False START’ treaty.

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

SECUREFREEDOM.ORG
-30-

Pence Calls President's Drilling Announcement "Smokescreen"

We agree 100% with Cong Pence (R-IN). He is right this is nothing but a smokescreen to try to lure in Republican votes for Cap and Trade/Energy bill Obama wants passed so he can bring in more money to the Federal Government which in turn will cost private industry jobs so more people depend on the Federal Government. See our article today concerning NASA flawed data and how it relates to offshore drilling ban being lifted.

Pence Calls President's Drilling Announcement "Smokescreen"

"This Administration's energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work."

Washington , DC —U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference and the American Energy Solutions Group, issued the following statement today regarding President Obama’s announcement on oil and gas exploration:

“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.

“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data and the Relation to Offshore Drilling

"We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible," Barrasso told FoxNews.com.

That quote by Senator Barrasso says it all and why there should be no Cap and Trade legislation this year or next year. It should be dead and buried and any Republican jumping on board to try and pass an energy bill on flawed data needs to see the door. No decision can be made on a bill like cap and trade or any other energy bill without validation of the data. In this case it seems all the data is pretty well junk as the some of the climate scientists at NASA tweaked some numbers to fit their political agenda.

Every person involved in this flawed data fiasco at NASA needs FIRED! Their data could cost the American people huge dollars especially with the Democrats, one independent, and one Republican trying to continue Cap and Trade legislation. Someone needs to tell Lindsey Graham to stop this nonsense now and help block the bill instead of trying to get it passed for Obama.

If you are asking why we are comparing what is going on with the flawed data being used to push Cap and Trade and Offshore Drilling, we are about to answer that question as we believe it is related.

This idea that Obama is going to open the Virginia coast and other coastal areas to possible drilling we believe is nothing more then a ruse to bring in Republicans to vote for Cap and Trade. It takes many months to years to explore, find the oil/natural gas and set up the oil platform before drilling brings in the oil or natural gas. It is not a simple build a platform and start drilling as you have to locate the source before you build the platform and go into operation of drilling and producing from an offshore well. By that time Obama can change his mind 100 times or give the oil lease to CITGO which we think is a distinct possibility since it would make Chavez very happy and then he would allow drilling. Call us very suspicious about this whole deal.

Why did the Democrats in Congress allow the offshore oil ban expire which stood for 30 years? Who was behind allowing the ban to expire in Congress? Answer that question and you will discover who is set to make millions and probably billions off the operation. Our guess is George Soros who funds a lot of Democrat activities and expects paybacks with their votes.

Remember Obama "loaning" money to Brazil's Petrobras to drill off their coast and then discovering that George Soros is a huge investor in Petrobras (Aug 19, 2009 ... Billionaire George Soros bought $811 million stake in Petrobras in the second quarter).

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars ($10B) to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan. Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal

Interior Secretary Salazar has already said no offshore drilling until 2013 so what gives?

The Obama administration’s six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quietly told reporters last Friday. Which means that no new oil and gas leases will be approved during President Obama’s term even though two –thirds of the American public supports such activity, according to a December 2009 Rasmussen poll. Read more at the Washington Examiner

We suspect this offshore drilling is another phony statement by Obama to garner votes like the Executive Order on Abortion he signed which is worthless. Maybe he will prove us wrong, but we doubt that. No way is this President going to stick with drilling off Virginia when his environmentalist base gets done with him.

We believe that Obama is saying one thing to lure in Republicans while his Interior Secretary Salazar follows up with his comments. Perfect example was Obama announcement on offshore possibly being opened and the March 31st statement by Salazar:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said Wednesday that the U.S. will not achieve energy independence through offshore drilling alone.

“We don’t believe that we are ever going to drill our way to energy independence,” said Salazar in a conference call with reporters. Source: AP

Another question that is not being answered in the current discussion is how much will the Federal Government charge for the oil leases and then tax the companies that do win the leases and drill? Does this Administration want to make the price of American crude oil sold higher then what we can import from the Middle East or Venezuela?

The last thing this economy needs is Cap and Trade. We have three Senators out in front on this fight against cap and trade -- Senators Jim Inofe (R-OK), David Vitter (R-LA), and John Barrasso (R-WY). We have to believe there are some sensible Democrats from oil/gas states like Mary Landrieu that can see through this smoke and mirrors and will join Republicans minus Lindsey Graham in defeating Cap and Trade.

If Obama truly believes that planes leave a carbon footprint then why does he fly on Air Force One so much? Why did his family fly on the taxpayer's nickle for spring break in New York? We have a recommendation: "Stay in the White House and save on the carbon footprints if you believe they are hurting the environment."

Updated March 31, 2010
Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data
By Jeremy A. Kaplan
- FOXNews.com

Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency's climate data.



Maps from NASA's GISS reveal temperatures where no data exist, thanks to mathematical extrapolation of data.
____________________________________________________

Not everyone is sipping the global warming Kool-Aid.

Concerns about the validity of NASA's climate research are being raised following revelations that the space agency admitted its data was less accurate than other weather trackers'. Disturbed by these reports, as well as the growing Climate-gate scandal that has left global-warming theorists reeling, Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers.
"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com, stressing the risks of basing public policy on science that remains largely undecided.

FoxNews.com has obtained an advance copy of the letter -- the third that Barrasso, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Vitter, ranking member of the Committee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, have written in the months following the Climate-gate scandal.
Writing that "American data is partially derived from the corrupted data set that has been criticized as too political and unscientific as a result of the Climate-gate scandal," the senators have invited Bolden to testify before the Senate on the credibility of NASA's data.

"Their efforts to attack the science of climate change may be politically motivated. I see nothing in the NASA/GISS data that suggests anything other than an honest effort to discover the scientific truth about the Earth's temperature record," Barrasso says.

When contacted for comment, NASA had still not received the letter, but a spokesman for the space agency was awaiting to the Senators' comments. "NASA has not received the letter," NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said. "We look forward to working with the senators to respond to their concerns."
Read Senator Barrasso's letter to NASA

Excerpt: Read More at Fox News

related links
Achtung! Germans Giving Up on Global Warming
Embattled U.N. Climate Chief Apologizes Again, Won't Resign
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits