Your Voting Choice – Explained

It can’t be explained more simply than this.  We either elect CONSTITUTIONAL conservatives to pull us out of our crash dive, commit slow suicide by electing more RINOs, or kill ourselves quickly by electing democrats.



America: A Nation on Her Death Bed

What is the single biggest reason for this decay in our society?
Biblical illiteracy.


50 Facts That Show How Far America Has Fallen In This Generation


What has happened to America?  Please show these numbers to anyone that does not believe that the United States is in decline.  It is time for all of us to humble ourselves and face the reality of what has happened to our once great nation.  For those of us that love America, it is heartbreaking to watch the foundations of our society rot and decay in thousands of different ways.  The following are 50 facts that show how far America has fallen in this generation, but the truth is that this list could have been far, far longer…

#1 According to a survey that was just conducted, only 36 percent of all Americans can name the three branches of government.

#2 Only 25 percent of all Americans know how long U.S. Senators are elected for (6 years), and only 20 percent of all Americans know how many U.S. senators there are. Continue reading

Cinco de Mayo? No. May 5th.

Cinco de Mayo

Socialism’s Trajectory: Obama’s HHS Is Bigger Than LBJ’s ENTIRE Government

Yes, you read that right. Adjusted for inflation, JUST the Dept of Health and Human Services under Obama will spend more in 2011 than LBJ’s ENTIRE FREAKING GOVERNMENT.

Jeffrey on Socialism’s Trajectory: Obama’s HHS Is Bigger Than LBJ’s Government

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Anyone who doubts that the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.

In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.

What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.

1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.

From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.

But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs — Medicare and Medicaid — that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.

From George Washington’s administration to Franklin Roosevelt’s, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.

FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.

He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.

FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause — the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.

The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.

“The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation,” the Court said answering FDR’s argument. “If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.”

When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the “general welfare” of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution’s other enumerated powers.

FDR’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.

To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.

Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR’s allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR’s court-packing plan.

That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama’s historical tables.

When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid — and began fulfilling the court’s prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case — federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.

When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP. This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.

In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion — about what all of HHS costs this year.

In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.

Obama Doesn’t Want America to be a Super Power

Here’s another spoonful of sand on the mountain of evidence that Obama hates America and everything she stands for.

Obama and the progressives are hell-bent on destroying everything Americans have worked for over 200 years to build. Freedom, liberty, wealth, and prosperity are about to be destroyed in America unless he is stopped.

As I’ve said before, Obama may not be THE anti-Christ, but he sure as heck is at the very least a false prophet.

Obama: “Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower”

posted at 7:52 pm on April 14, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
[ Obama ]    printer-friendly

I know how many of you just hate the fact that the United States is a dominant military superpower in the world. But don’t worry. Obama is our president now, and he’s here to change all that. Unfortunately, for the time being, we have to reconcile ourselves to this: that, like it or not we remain a dominant military superpower.

In all seriousness now, this is a disturbing way of phrasing this. This statement was made at the closing of his Nuclear Security Summit. It’s a nice coincidence, considering he’s doing his best to weaken us with his new policy on nuclear weapons.

And I guess this video explains why he would enact such an awful policy. Apparently, there are just tons of people — Obama included — who can’t stand the fact that we are a dominant military superpower in the world.

Why would that bother an Why would anyone want America to become a weaker country? (Yes, that was a rhetorical question.)

Now, Obama may have been simply referring to the fact that we get dragged into world conflicts. As a world superpower, that is true. But as I recall, we are supposed to be a force for good in the world. Part of being a force for good in the world means that, occasionally, we have to be the “world’s police”.  (This part I don’t necessarily agree with.  As a “force for good,” we don’t have to be “world police.”  We establish relations with nations, possibly station forces their, and defend our interests and allies.  It’s pretty much that simple.  The more people who are our LEGITIMATE allies, not just money leeches, and the stronger we are to deter aggression, the more stable the world becomes, and the less we are called upon to “walk a beat.”) Let’s think about WWII and Germany. If Obama was president then, would he have bothered fighting the Nazis? Or would he have just let them continue their evil reign throughout Europe, murdering millions along the way? Yeah, sure, it’s easy to say now, in retrospect, that of course he would have helped to liberate Europe and destroy the Nazis. But remember his position on preventing genocide during the campaign? Specifically, he said that preventing genocide in Iraq was not a good enough reason to keep our troops there. Why should we believe he’d have wanted to stop Hitler if he wouldn’t have had a problem letting Hussein continue his tyranny and terrorization of Iraq? The point is, being a superpower in the world is a good thing. There will always be a superpower in the world, and if it isn’t us, who would it be? China? Russia? During FDR’s term as president, we weren’t a superpower, and look at what happened. Germany and Japan took our place, and look what that led to. England was bombed relentlessly for years. Major countries in Europe were invaded and taken over, like France and Poland. Japan joined with the Axis Powers and invaded China and French Indochina. Had we been a stronger superpower in the word at the time, we might have been able to prevent these countries from coming to power. The lives of millions and millions of innocent people could have been saved.

The point is, we are needed in the world to be a superpower, and to use our military power as a force for good in the world. The United States is a rare country in this. We may have to act as the world’s police occasionally, but we never act for our own gain. If we fail to be that force for good in the world, it will open the door to another situation similar to what enabled WWII to be possible. If we’re not the superpower, then we can’t keep countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea in check. Al Qaeda will be able to unleash their terror on the world with literally no one to stop them. Who will step up against them if we won’t? Canada? England? France? Yeah, right.

The scary thing is that our Commander-in-Chief can’t see this. He looks at our military dominance, and our role in the world as a force for good, and thinks it’s a bad thing.

Obama’s State of the Union, January 2010: Unpresidential and Uninspiring

An open letter to Barack Obama in response to his State of the Union speech:

State of the Union, January 2010

Mr. Obama, here are my reactions to and impressions of your State of the Union speech last night.

First of all, let me make one overall recommendation to you, Mr. Obama.

Grow up and take responsibility.

You say “I’m not interested in re-litigating the past.”  Yet you continue to blame George W. Bush for EVERYTHING under the sun.  You point fingers and blame everyone else on the planet for your problems, and for things you don’t like while dodging any and all personal responsibility for events taking place in America now.  It makes you look immature and petty.  The minute you signed onto the stimulus and began taking over companies and banks, you owned this economy, and your senatorial votes during the Bush administration played a significant part in the economy’s demise.

You said that you understand the “burden of working harder for less,” and “I know the anxieties out there now.”  Really?  Sir, most of your life has been one of privilege financed by others.  Now you are at the pinnacle of that life living in the lap of luxury, throwing lavish parties, traveling all over the world, flaunting power all at the expense of the American taxpayer.  If you really understood, you wouldn’t be throwing your weekly parties for your cronies, and you wouldn’t be spending millions of taxpayer dollars flying all over the country and world on Air Force One just to get photo ops for your never ending campaign.  You would be staying in Washington, D.C. working on REAL, bipartisan solutions.

You stated that you had cut taxes for millions of us in the middle class.  Really?  Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if you had.  Allowing us to keep more money up front and then taxing it away from us on April 15th is not a tax cut.  Mailing me a check for a SMALL PORTION of the tax money that was mine to begin with is a REBATE, not a tax cut.  When you mail those same checks to the 50% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes anyway, that’s just a handout.  When you’re charitable with your own money, that’s generosity.  When you’re charitable with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, that’s called THEFT or REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH when it’s done by the government.

You talk of creating government/public service jobs to help the economy.  Since you were supposedly a “professor,” I would expect you to be educated enough to understand that public-sector, government jobs by definition CAN NOT CREATE WEALTH, which is what will stimulate our economy.  A government job by definition takes money away from the economy to pay for itself.

Mr. Obama, you said you wanted a “jobs bill” on your desk immediately.  Sir, here’s the jobs bill guaranteed to create jobs, and stimulate economic growth.  I’ve delivered it to you before congress could, and kept it so brief that any child could understand it.  Here it is.  Are you ready?


Cut personal income taxes, cut corporate taxes, and eliminate the “death” and “marriage” taxes, and I GUARANTEE that the economy will take off like a rocket.

You also mentioned that you were going to “double exports” to reduce our trade deficit.  That sounds good, but how do you plan to achieve that, and what do you plan to export?  The liberal policies of taxing businesses and creating a business climate that forces them to move their businesses overseas has left us with very little to export.  When you make a corporate environment that ATTRACTS businesses, we will once again produce what the rest of the world wants, and exports will be a natural byproduct of that.

When it comes to health care reform, you have been wrong, and continue to be wrong.  You have been dishonest in your dealings with the American people, and have outright lied about the “transparency” that was supposed to be the hallmark of these negotiations and of your administration.  CSPAN?  How’s that working for you?  I guess I just missed all of those broadcasts, because I haven’t seen any of them.  You said “if anybody has a better idea (about health care) let me know.”  Oh, dear Lord in Heaven (I can introduce you to Him), please keep my head from exploding.  You and the rest of your “progressive” (read communist) buddies have SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED REPUBLICANS from the entire process, and refused to listen to, include or consider ANY of their ideas while crafting your government takeover of the health care system.  Sir, the ideas are there but you are unwilling to listen to any ideas that do not fit your agenda.  Tort reform, tax cuts, competition across state lines, and several other ideas have been put forth that are proven successful strategies for making health care better and more affordable.  Yet you won’t allow them to be put on the table because they don’t pay your union buddies, or contribute to the takeover of health care.  I pause to conjure the spirit of Rep. Joe Wilson.

You said you were going to “freeze spending for three years.”  You speak of how that won’t start until 2011 because “that’s how budgeting works.”  How convenient that it works out that you are putting it off until AFTER the midterm elections so that any possible pain associated with your policies won’t be felt until after Americans cast their votes. Your “spending freeze” sounds good to the uninitiated and uneducated that you hoped were the majority of your audience last night.  But the reality is that you have already allowed HUGE spending increases in nearly every government agency that they wouldn’t have seen in the next 5-7 years COMBINED.  Then you exempt the largest portion of government spending from any freeze.  That would be the ENTITLEMENT SPENDING upon which you and the liberals depend for your political lives, and to which NO ONE IS ACTUALLY ENTITLED.  If you were serious about eliminating the deficit, and paying down the debt, then you would get serious about ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  Go to a flat tax (which is a FAIR tax) with no exemptions and eliminate the IRS.  That would save about $11 Billion per year.  The Department of Energy was established to “end our dependence on foreign oil.”  How would you say that’s working?  The DoE is about as useful as mammary glands on a boar hog.  Scrap it and save the billions of dollars per year that it sucks up from the tax payers.  You could legitimately close the doors of 75% of the Federal government with no negative impact on America.  You would in fact allow America to prosper by simply getting government out of the way, and saving us all of that money.

You speak of dismantling our nuclear arms and “agreements” with the Russians.  You obviously are not a student of history.  When we weaken ourselves, our enemies do not follow suit.  Whether it be the Soviets/Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans, they have proven themselves to be liars.  They will say whatever you want them to say to gain short-term political favor.  They will not disarm themselves.  Disarming unilaterally and dealing from a position of weakness will only open us up to aggression and attack from the likes of Russia, China, and Iran, not to mention the many terrorist groups who want nothing more than to see Americans die.  We need to be the biggest, strongest kid on the block to ensure peace for us, and for the rest of the world.

The one thing from your speech on which we agree is the building of nuclear power plants, and removal of restrictions on offshore drilling.  Everyone agrees that we need to try to develop clean, self-sustaining forms and sources of energy.  But letting private innovation lead the way and develop products that Americans ACTUALLY WANT is the only way to make “green” energy a success.  By forcing it down our throats while demonizing and destroying our other inexpensive, reliable forms of energy will only destroy those jobs before new ones emerge, skyrocket the cost of energy (which you promised us under YOUR plan), and destroy an economy that depends on energy at an affordable price.  I’m beginning to think this may actually be your intent.

Finally, you displayed your true, anti-American, communist, thug, street organizer colors when you quietly announced your “enemies list” during your speech.  You and your band of thugs like Rahm Emanuel bully and intimidate people to get your way.  You did so with Fox News and the other news outlets when you declared that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization, would not be treated as such, and that the other “news” outlets would be “wise” not to treat them that way either.  Attempt to destroy one to make an example of them, and use fear to control the others, a strategy from your idol, Saul Alinsky.  In a total breach of decorum and decency, you publicly flog the Supreme Court, who can’t defend themselves, and lie about their decision that actually reaffirms the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.  You hand down the list of people whom you will combat and try to destroy if they stand in your way, a list which includes bankers, capitalist “fat-cats,” the Supreme Court, and anyone in the media or with a microphone, megaphone, or pulpit from which to deliver a message that exposes the fallacies of your agenda.  You are blatantly trying to stifle free speech.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR were two of the “progressives” who employed similar tactics.  No more, Mr. Obama.  We will not tolerate your attempts to silence us.

Mr. Obama, you simply don’t care about Americans or America.  The people of Massachusetts, a solidly liberal state, sent you a loud and clear message.  But you won’t listen.  Congress didn’t give you what you wanted, so rather than reevaluate whether what YOU want is what Americans want or need, you boldly declare that you will simply sign executive orders to bypass the congress, and any other entity that stands in your way.  You attack and besmirch the Supreme Court because you don’t control them.  You lied when you said you “never said you could end divisiveness and start a post-partisan, post-racial era.”  BULL CHIPS!  You campaigned on EXACTLY THAT PROMISE!

Sir, you are an arrogant, dishonest narcissist who is a danger to America.  You attempted to include yourself in the greatness of America when you said that “our ideals built America.”

Mr. Obama, it was OUR ideals that build America, NOT YOURS.

Out of patience,


Stifling Free Speech the Old Fashioned Liberal Way

1st Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe it says freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. If you are offended by what I am saying, you have a right not to listen. Simply walk away. If I don’t like what is on television, do I sue the network which airs the programming? No. I simply change the channel.

These liberals (the article originate in the UK, but there are similar examples in the US, and will be more, I’m sure.) who move into a neighborhood where a church has been for nearly half a century worshiping the same way virtually the entire time, and then complain about the noise are blatantly gaming the system. They are just like idiots who move into a neighborhood under the approach/departure path of a large airport that has been there for decades, and then complain about the noise. The argument is at best frivolous.  If we refer to what the Bible calls “sin” as “sin,” then according to liberals we are guilty of hate crimes. If we endorse candidates from the pulpit (who most likely won’t be liberal), then churches risk losing their tax exempt status. Now they will stand right outside our doors and complain that they can hear us and it bothers them.

This is part of why liberals and communists want to remove God religion from the public square.  Liberals just can’t stand the concept of “sin.”  If no one tells them what they are doing is wrong, they can feel better about themselves.  The other part of the process is the destruction of the moral underpinning of society.  The communists have always known that a populace with no moral foundation is easy to control.  You can see the fruits of their labors in the dumbing down of our society and the emergence of moral relativism, or the concept of the “gray area.”  In reality, EVERYTHING is either right or wrong.  It is man’s lack of understanding of where the demarcation line between the two lies that makes it seem “gray” to many.  Once you see something as gray, you are open to manipulation by proponents of EITHER side of the argument.

If you are a Christian, you should be encouraging your pastors to preach the word boldly, and you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him to resist the onslaught of liberal attacks.  If not, you will soon lose both your freedom of speech, and your freedom to exercise worship in the religion of your choice.

Even if you are not a Christian, and you don’t go to church, the same still applies to you.  You must protect the freedom of speech and exercise of religion for all (What about islam, you ask? When an entire religion teaches that you or I must be converted or killed, then the protection no longer applies.  The freedom of your fist ends at the tip of my nose).  If one of us loses these precious rights, all of us will.  Whether they be lions, liberals, or muslims, if you appease them by sacrificing your brother, it just delays the inevitable.  They’ll be coming for you next.


Newest attack on Christianity: Just shut up!

Noise ordinances latest weapon against churches

Posted: January 16, 2010
11:10 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Christian legal organization in the United Kingdom is reporting a skirmish victory in the latest war against Christians and their churches – the demand that they essentially be silent in their worship.

Cases have cropped up in recent months both in the U.K. as well as the United States in which governmental bodies have demanded that Christian groups essentially be silent – so that no one can hear their worship.

The Christian Legal Centre in the U.K. is reporting a victory in a battle, although the war remains.

The group said this week there has been a “last-minute out of court settlement” that will allow a 600-member church in London to continue its worship.

The Lambeth Council previously had issued a noise abatement notice to the All Nations Centre in Kennington which prevented the church from using any amplification for its worship music and its pastor’s preaching.

No allowance was made for any of the seniors in the congregation, some of whom have hearing difficulties, officials said.

The noise abatement order was issued last fall without warning or discussion, shortly after the church, which has been in the same location for more than 45 years, began to publicize its services in its own neighborhood.  (This is just like idiots who buy a house under the approach/departure path to a large airport that has been there for decades, and then complain about the noise.  Why do we have to suffer for their stupidity?  This is about freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech.)

(Read complete article HERE)

%d bloggers like this: