Obama trained under Mao Tse-tung - can I get on your list now?

Obama knows where Hoffa is buried (the other Hoffa, the one who originally used phrases such as “we’re going to take out the [opposition]” without counting on his daddy’s ghost to make those words sound like a veiled threat. Obama also knows who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

OK, that should do it, don’t you think?  If my goal is to make it onto the Obama reelection team’s “Attack Watch” list, those accusations should be enough. I’m pretty sure, unlike many other accusations, they have no validity and, yet, would qualify as actual “phony attacks.”

I consider it a matter of honor to earn a spot on Obama’s “Attack Watch” list though I don’t think I need to make up stories about Obama training under Mao Tse-tung to find myself a spot there. I believe that, in days to come, when the media’s constant and biased defense of this man has run its course, I’ll be able to look at myself in the mirror and say, “You knew something was rotten in Kenya and you didn’t just sit around complaining about it; you did something about it” (No, I’m not saying Obama was born in Kenya, I just figure that’s a little teaser to help ensure my spot on the list).

Maybe the “Attack Watch” list is a legitimate idea to defend Obama from unjustified accusations.  Never mind that the idea smells of something generated from a dank basement at Gestapo headquarters, how far do we need to shove bamboo needles under someone’s fingernails before they admit the list is really about portraying any opposition to Obama as though it’s an irrational and hateful attack, and probably an attack that is racial in nature.

The story I read at FOXNews.com about the “Attack Watch” list suggested that folks, presumably like me, would lie about the Affordable Care Act. First of all, if I’m going to say anything about this outrageously unconstitutional law, I’m going to call it by its legitimate name – Obamacare. Second of all, I don’t need to lie about it.

I don’t need to point out that its passage came after a year-and-a-half battle when we should have been concentrating on jobs and the economy. I don’t need to point out that, in the process of its passage, Obama’s promise of transparency was fully demonstrated as a blatant and transparent lie. I don’t need to remind people that then Speaker of the House Nancy ‘Ole-Plastic-Puss’ Pelosi actually stood up and told the American people, “We need to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”

None of this is necessary for me to know, in my heart and regardless of the eventual Supreme Court decision, that this law absolutely violates my constitutional rights; that it sets a precedent so frightening that I don’t need to wait for things to get worse before taking a stand. In fact, the folks at “Attack Watch” can pass my name on to the Justice Department as I’ll say it right now – I don’t currently have health care, and would love to have it. But, I’ll go to jail before I abide by the ‘mandatory’ conditions of Obamacare.

See, I don’t need to lie about Obama to demonstrate that he seems to miss the entire point of rights, liberty and equality. From a financial standpoint, I’m struggling to say the least. But, that doesn’t make me unequal to a Matt Damon or George Soros. In fact, from where I’m standing, I think they’d need extension ladders to look me in the eyes.

Equality isn’t about everyone having the same widescreen television and an SUV. It’s about a personal sense of self-worth. It’s about self-respect and dignity.

I spent the larger part of a year teaching English in Japan. When you live in a foreign country, other than a foreigner living in the U.S., you’re expected to adapt to their culture. In Japanese culture, instead of handshakes, they bow.

The Japanese bow to each other in a stratified manner: a worker bows deeper to his boss and a wife bows deeper to her husband, for instance. As an American, adapting to Japanese culture meant that I was expected to bow, as well. This was unfamiliar territory for me, especially since I grew up with a sense that I’m an American and I don’t need to bow to anyone. But, I could see that it was appropriate to adapt.

So I bowed. But, I bowed the same to everyone and not too deep mind you. I mean, it wasn’t like I was Obama and I dropped a dime as I was meeting the King of Saudi Arabia.

So, put me on your list, Obama.  Shove bamboo spears under my fingernails. Or, put me up against a wall and shoot me. Since I consider a spot on your list evidence of serving my patriotic duty, I can think of few higher honors.

Obama can have the Bears, I’ll stick with the constitution

Lately, I’ve contemplated the unthinkable – an act of treason; an act of disloyalty so treacherous that friends and kinfolk may very well cast me out from the bosom of our family.

No, it’s not as bad as you think; I’m not going to start rooting for the Packers. I may, however, stop rooting for the Bears. In fact, I’m thinking about rooting for the Lions. Hey, what do you want from me? I like underdogs.

Not exactly where you thought I was going with this in the opening sentence? Thought I was alluding to something a little more important than team loyalty?

I know someone who is tired of all that is going on in this country and has told me he’s planning to move to Fiji. Now, I think Fiji is probably a nice place to live but I’ll be damned if I’ll let these radical leftist pukes destroy this country. They’ll shovel 6-feet of dirt in my face before I abandon our nation’s children to a life in the shadow of what once was and could continue to be the greatest country the world has ever known.

To get back to the point of this posting, through significant control of our educational system and virtual complete control of the media, liberals have so castigated and maligned our country that many today would find it easier to abandon their country than their favored sports team.

I’ve been a hard-core Bear fan for a long time now. I remember wearing paper bags on our heads in the ‘70s and early ‘80s while watching them consistently lose – and yet my loyalty was firm. I watched the team slowly disintegrate after the 1985 season and yet I stood my ground, you know, for the team.

The straw that finally broke the camel’s back was when the Packers visited the White House last week. I stumbled and figuratively fell on my face when I read, and re-read, the line that Obama welcomed the Packers to the White House even though he’s a devout Bears fan.

That, in and of itself, wasn’t enough to cause me to change my colors but it did start me thinking.

For several years now, the only piece of team-monikered clothing I’ve worn is a hat given to me by a dear friend who didn’t otherwise realize my attitude about such things. I think it’s a tremendous scam professional sports has pulled on the American people, convincing them, not only to wear and market team logos, but to pay, and pay extravagantly, for the privilege to do so.

It also occurred to me that the team I’ve traditionally supported is from Chicago – Chicago, where the only joke about “vote early and vote often” is that we all know it’s true, where political corruption is rampant, where Rahm “Deadfish” Emanuel is now mayor and where liberalism is a disease that has actually gone viral among people who even work for a living.

In other words, the only real connection I have with the Bears, or any other Chicago sports team, is an emotional connection fraudulently nurtured and supported by the sports teams themselves. So, why should I continue to support the Bears?

Now, if the only reason for supporting America and its constitution was out of nostalgia, it might not make any more sense than painting my body blue and orange so I could stand out in the stands at Soldier Field on a frigid, wind-swept, 20-below Sunday afternoon watching grown men play a game.

But, I don’t support the constitution out of a form of nostalgia, though I deeply respect my country’s rich history. I support America because the constitution does one simple thing – it recognizes the inherent need to limit the power of those in government.

A lot of people are willing to abandon that limitation when it’s to their advantage. As I pointed out in an earlier posting today, the constitution is not a shield that we can wear in times of convenience.  We live by it or we don’t. And when we don’t, our ability to draw upon its protections becomes questionable.

As our opponents are quick to point out, the constitution can sometimes seem a heavy and cumbersome shield. There’s no guarantee we can draw it into a defensive position as quickly as threats to our liberties might strike. But, if we’re willing to bear the burden of eternal vigilance, there is no better protection on the planet from those who would stomp on our individual and inalienable rights.

As for professional sports, just to spite Obama, I might even purchase a Lions hat. Yes, it’s inconsistent of me but it’s an inconsistency I can live with, unlike inconsistent adherence to the constitution, which we can’t.

Immigrants, legal or otherwise, should consider the value of an America without its constitution: Congress needs to hold Obama accountable, but it won’t

On FOXNews just now, the topic was Obama’s sidestepping of the constitution to review cases of deportation for illegal immigrants on a case-by-case basis. The Hispanic gentleman who applauded Obama’s decision characterized the decision in glowing terms, terms I can’t even find fault with, not when he speaks of deporting the wives and families of men who are serving in our military.

In the view of the non-Hispanic guest, Obama’s decision was not painted with the same rosy colors. Rather, and in my mind this trumps all, what Obama has done is to create a constitutional crisis … again.

If an illegal’s spouse is a member of our military his or her spouse has my full support. Congress needs to address that, and they tried. However, and the Hispanic guest on FOX failed to mention that, when they tried to address that, the radical liberals in Congress wouldn’t let go of the idea that an illegal attending college in the U.S. should receive the same level of respect as someone fighting for our country.

That an illegal immigrant attending college should be treated the same as someone who puts his or her life on the line makes sense from the elitist liberal perspective. In the liberal mind, college is the training ground for their own elitist leaders. The military, on the other hand, is largely populated with thick-headed Neanderthals who have bought all that tripe about patriotism and country.

Of course, the liberals neglect to acknowledge that ‘a few’ conservative students manage to slip through the cracks to graduation from ‘higher’ education without the pasteurization of their minds in the liberal mold. Liberals, for all their purported intellectual superiority, can’t seem to recognize what would happen to their temples of educated radicalism – our nation’s universities – if those supposed Neanderthals weren’t standing at the tip of the sword defending the rights of liberals and conservatives alike.

But, this is all just rhetoric. It means nothing if a president can sidestep the constitution and implement policy that was rejected by Congress.

Liberals clear their schedules and pop their popcorn anytime “All the President’s Men” is shown on television (actually, many of them probably have the movie in their collection).

The point of that story wasn’t just that some of Nixon’s people were guilty of breaking and entering, or that they and Nixon engaged in a major effort to cover up the offenses. The point was that Nixon was trying to operate outside of the constitution. To operate outside of the constitution is to ignore the constitution. If we, as a nation, allow it, we have no recourse when our leaders choose to ignore our constitutional rights.

Congress will not do anything about this, which is because voters naively returned Harry Reid and too many of his friends to the Senate. Reid is the buffer between Obama and the constitution. Obama can get away with stuff like this because Reid and the other democrats in Congress put party above the constitution, just as Obama puts politics and ideology above the constitution.

Obama is counting on the Hispanic vote as a reward for circumventing the constitution in this case. But, Hispanics, whether born in this country or whether they came across the border, should consider whether they really want this kind of help. This time, Obama is circumventing the constitution to their benefit. What guarantee is there that, next time, it will work out as well for them.

The constitution is not a shield that we can raise when it’s convenient. What would the value of the constitution be if the Founding Fathers had written it this way:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which our elected leaders can implement or ignore at their discretion.  

The difference between liberal progressives and conservatives

There are a lot of differences between liberal progressives and conservatives. For instance, liberal progressives look back at America's history with a happy feeling of shame. Conservatives look back at America's history with reverence for the incredible accomplishments of Americans who came before us, a sense that there are lessons to be learned from the past, including the mistakes of the past, but, most importantly, with a just and reasonable sense of pride.

Liberal progressives look at the problems in the world and irrationally blame the U.S. for all of these. Conservatives look at the problems in the world and, while seeing room for improvement, recognize the significant contributions of the United States to world peace, the reduction in hunger, the recovery from disaster, and, beyond the contribution of any other, the advancement of individual and national freedoms.

Liberal progressives look at government as the solution to problems at home and abroad. Though the government rarely truly improves a situation where it meddles, Liberal Progressives fit the model of insanity by striving to employ the same types of big-government actions while expecting different results. Conservatives have seen that socialism, welfarianism, and big government fail to solve virtually any problems and always, always erode the basic freedoms of individuals. Their mantra is limited government and, true conservatives follow this pattern religiously for one simple reason - it works.

In another stroke or perspective on insanity, liberal progressives identify the government as America, heap all the world's guilt at its feet and then invite it into our personal lives as though, with the blessing of liberal progressives, government will suddenly change its stripes. Conservatives identify the people - the individuals - with a fervent sense of freedom and liberty, as America and the government as a necessary evil best taken in small doses and the smaller the better.

Liberal progressives see nation states as outmoded and fatally flawed models for society regardless of the despots and violent radicals who cover the earth. Conservatives, while recognizing that it is not workable to force other countries to adopt our system of government, realize the idiocy of abandoning a system the works for a pipe dream based on principles already proven unworkable. If other countries are jealous of our success, they're welcome to join us in a system of government that respects the individual, as well as the individual's right to strive for success, which is only possible if the individual also has a chance of failure. The beauty of this system is that, should someone fail, they have the right to try again ... and again ... and again ... and again ...

Liberal progressives see 'the end of the world' around every corner. Conservatives realize that this big, blue marble is not going to explode and vanish into space dust any time soon. They recognize the limits on the influence of man on nature. While agreeing that we share a responsibility as stewards of the planet, conservatives humbly admit that, while temperatures ebb and flow, disasters come and go, mankind is only one small part of that equation.

Liberal progressives see their elitist intelligence as the ultimate 'wisdom' in the world, therefore justifying their leadership. Conservatives recognize the limitations of man's capacity for understanding, place their ultimate faith in a higher power and realize that the greatest failings of man center on instances when mankind arrogantly overestimates his level of intellectual brilliance.

If it appears that I could go on and on, that's probably because I could. But, to wrap things up, please consider the following differences between liberal progressives and conservatives. The prior, when caught in an unseemly situation, such as a politician caught with his pants down, laughs it off and goes on as though nothing happened because they can't be held accountable for ethics they never aspired to. The latter, justly goes through the political wringer because he failed to live up to the ethics he claimed and generally watches his political career rightly crumble.

The other big difference is that, in the eyes of our Left-stream media, all violence originates with conservatives, even when reality flies in the face of that assertion. Unsubstantiated threats of violence against liberal progressives are touted by the media as continued examples of radicalism from the right while actual threats against those on the right, such as union threats against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are all but ignored.

Tell your reps to support Congressman King - shutoff Obamacare

YES WE CAN! Sound familiar? It's not a quote. I'm not repeating the phrase that Obama and his handlers coined during the 2008 presidential campaign. It's me. It's me and many others, I'm sure, who have listened to Congressman Steve King (R-IA) explain that it's nonsense to suppose that the previous Congress could have written language into Obamacare binding the current Congress into spending $105 billion on the program.

There is nothing straightforward about the way Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their liberal cohorts in Congress shoved Obamacare down our throats. Even in an environment like the one in Washington, D.C., the methods and shenanigans were virtually without precedent.For my money, there's no question that Obamacare is unconstitutional, and two federal judges have already indicated they agree.

What Rep. King said is unequivocally true - Obamacare represents a "destiny issue for this country." And, yes, we can drum Obamacare down into the dirt where it belongs. And, yes, we can hang Obamacare around the president's neck like a lead necklace for a sprinter about to enter a race (the 2012 campaign). Obama may once have thought that Obamacare represented his crowning achievement. I believe Obamacare will come to represent the Achilles Heal of a president who doesn't understand America, the Constitution or the appropriate limitations of presidential authority.

Boehner talks issues - Reid retorts with insults

(Caution: contains R-rated content - language)

It's a battle of words in D.C. today. I'd say that it's a battle of wits but, one side, hasn't adequately demonstrated the possession of any wits yet.

Of course, I'm talking about the verbal confrontation between House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The spat seems to exemplify my point. Boehner speaks to the issue, suggesting that, if Reid has a plan for cutting spending he should share it or, assuming he doesn't (a fair assumption for my money), he "owes the American people an explanation."

What does Reid hit back with? A hard hitting commentary on the wisdom of Reid's fiscal philosophy? An explanation of economic realities from a liberal progressive perspective? No, Reid tries to insult his way out of the political corner he's painted himself into. Reid's spokesman fires back: "That's tough talk from someone who is being bossed around by a bunch of freshman."

Ooooooh - scary.

I hope, when Boehner heard this reply, he had enough sense to merely shake his head and go about his business, the way an adult does when challenged by a witless infant. Boehner doesn't need to respond to this kind of mononic hyperbole. Leave that to us.

Let us point out the following to Reid: Listen, you shit-for-brains asshole, the economic crisis we face is not figurative. It won't be fixed by juggling the books a little. People, real people with blood running through their veins and thoughts through their minds, are suffering from the financial pickle you and the other pond-scum Liberal Progressives out there in the Beltway have put us in.

Congress needs to make a hard choice: continue down a liberal progressive path to economic and social ruin or return to a Constitutional footing that embraces fiscal conservatism, limited government and Constitutional principles. If there's a government shutdown, only a fraction of Americans will buy your argument that "It's their fault." And, those freshman representatives you're bashing - in only two months they've shown more statesmanship, wisdom and patriotism than you've shown in, what ... how long have you been abusing that seat in Congress now?

I tell you what, Senator, the next time you find yourself in a verbal confrontation of this sort, when you have nothing of substance to say, instead of submitting to the knee-jerk temptation to strike out blindly, take a deep breath and reflect for a second. Ask yourself a simple question: "If I don't have anything intelligent to respond with, could this be an indication that my position is without merit?"

If you ask yourself this question honestly, and with an open mind, you may wake up one day and realize, "Oh my God, how much time have I wasted following this Liberal Progressive garbage." OK, now I'm getting silly. You have as much chance of finding true clarity in that addled liberal brain of yours as I do of finding the Hope Diamond in a McDonald's Happy Meal.

Oh, wait - are you folks in D.C. still letting us eat those if we want?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/reid-boehner-exchange-barbs-stopgap-measure/#ixzz1FTLJqs8h

Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee - we have no royalty in the United States

I hope this link brings you to the story I'm referring to. It's on the Patriot Action Network site and, I've found that, for viewers who are not registered with some of the sites I link to, the stories I'm referring to don't always show up for them.

I hope you can read this story because I think it's important. It's a story about Rep.Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, apparently, acts like a bit of a prima donna. If the story is only half true, it's fair to say that she is extremely abusive to her staff. Uncompromising, inflexible, aloof, aggressive and insane do not represent a good mix in anyone, but their like dynamite and a lit fuse when someone has the 'power' of a Congressional seat to back them up.

The point of this story and, from my opinion, the reason it's important is that it demonstrates an attitude of arrogance that we should all be familiar with by now. Think Nancy Pelosi.

I've seen a lot of child movie stars over the years - the kid from Home Alone, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, just to name a few. It's gotten to the point that, whenever a new kid star appears on the scene, I hold my breath hoping this won't turn out to be another dingbat.

Of course, I can't entirely blame the kid. All that fame, people pandering to their every wish - I've never walked in their shoes (I was somewhat less than famous as a child) but I can imagine that would twist their egos 360-degrees and back again. Without a solid foundation, apparently often missing with parents who are as unprepared for the limelight as the children, odds are against the kids. More than likely, they'll turnout as arrogant little snots that would do well with an occasional slap upside the head they only receive psychologically when their misdeeds are spread across the news.

I've heard it said of some of these stars that 'they were born for fame.' That may be true in terms of their talent but it seldom seems the case in terms of their psyche. As infants, we are not born with the defense mechanisms required to deal appropriately with fame and all its trappings.

While I can make some, small allowances for child stars gone bad, I can think of no defense for a grown woman arriving in Congress with the same starstruck, look-at-me, I'm a big shot attitude. And that's what Congresswoman Lee has - a big-shot attitude. I understand from the story that she has referred to herself as a "queen."

This doesn't merely show arrogance; it shows a total and complete lack of comprehension about her role in Washington, D.C. She treats her staffers terribly because they have the misfortune to work for her.

Well, Rep. Lee, you work for me, as well as 300-million other Americans. You don't have a position of royalty. We shed that problem more than 200 years ago and at the cost of American blood - even the blood of Black Americans - if you require that personal connection.

As one of your bosses, I have a couple requests. One is that you sit down and read the Constitution. It's not as long as the Obamacare bill you passed last year but I'm fairly certain you haven't read it either. You might also do well to read the Declaration of Independence and it wouldn't hurt to find a good book about the American Revolution (the official one that started in 1776). Read these items with an open mind and you may come away from the experience with a Frank-Capra-like moment of clarity.

I have one other request. As one of your bosses, I would like you to instruct your staff members that, every time you call one of them a bad name, they say the same thing to you on my behalf. But, since you're unlikely to follow through on that directive, please allow me a little head start - you ... Sorry, I can't do it. You clearly deserve it but I just don't care to lower myself to your level today. I'm having enough trouble digging myself out of my corner of the financial hole you and your cohorts have dropped this country in.

Department of Injustice and Media connection attacks Constitution

Were you alarmed when you heard that CIA Director Leon Panetta gave testimony on the situation in Egypt based on what he had heard in the media? If that's the case, shouldn't we slash the CIA's budget by about, oh, I don't know, 100 percent? We don't need the CIA. All we need are some large screen televisions for Congress and the president to watch so they can obtain their intelligence briefings from CNN and MSNBC.

Today, I watched an interview with Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio where he indicated that, if I have this correctly, the governor of Arizona and he are facing investigations lawsuits from the Justice Department based on information the Justice Department heard on the news.

The media in this country deeply troubles me. Speaking as someone who has worked in the field himself for many years, I found that I was vastly outnumbered as a conservative in an ultra-liberal field of journalists. My understanding, based on what I was taught by liberal college professors, was that my personal political persuasion had no place in the coverage I provided unless I was writing a column or editorial. But, in the media today, not only do they seem to ignore that principle, they seem to see the 'news' as a vehicle to further the political agenda.

And here, in this environment of journalistic disgrace, we have our Justice Department looking to the media as a basis for initiating investigations and lawsuits? Is it a surprise to anyone that this occurs during a time when those in power in the Justice Department happen to lean in the same direction as the media?

We don't have a Justice Department - we have an Injustice Department. We need an investigation all right, but not of a governor and sheriff who are trying to impose the nation's laws under their jurisdictions. We need an investigation into the Injustice Department and the administration that has allowed them to act in such a partisan manner.

Just partisanship is an oxymoron. They contradict each other at the core. In other words, if the approach is partisan it has left Justice aside. And our Injustice Department can't possibly operate with the goal of achieving Justice if it depends on the media, a partisan profession if there ever was one, for guidance.

The reality is, defeating Obama and his Congressional cronies in 2012 is not enough. We need an investigation, and an investigation without the politics, into the manner in which this administration and its agents have violated the core principles of Justice in America - how this administration and its agents have consistently violated the core principles of the Constitution they have all vowed to defend.

The victory we require as a nation is one that is achieved when the cell bars slam shut behind the likes of Obama, Holder and their ilk.

Palin has to be stupid

Sometimes, well, I guess the wheels turn a bit slowly for me. The obvious hangs out there just beyond my reach until, one day, I stumble forward and, before it can skitter away, I latch onto logic as though it were my own idea. I feel as though that's the case today.

I've found it mind boggling the way the Left and the Leftstream Media have utterly demonized Sarah Palin. Sure, I realized they recognized her as a political threat. After all, she's a woman in an age when a male politician is somewhat detached and distant in the world of PC. Sure, a lot of men are still elected to office but that only proves that some of us have shrugged off the politically correct brain cleansing that the elitists started 20 years ago or so.

But, today, I realized that it's not just that she's a threat politically - that she has a chance to pull away members of her own gender from a customary majority vote for the Liberal side. The Liberal Progressive premise is that any intelligent woman will recognize her interests as best served with the Democrats, just as any union member would have to be out of his or her mind to vote Republican. In other words, Palin has to be stupid.

If the Liberals concede that Palin isn't a razor's edge above a moron they have to also concede that an intelligent woman might not find the Liberal argument as entirely convincing; they'd have to admit that there are plausible reasons for a woman to vote conservative.

This goes deeply against the grain for the Liberal Progressive way of thinking. Doesn't Palin know that the Democrats have bought and paid for her vote with addictive support for abortion rights and equal rights. All an intelligent woman need do is look at the voting records. But, what if those votes, in the long run, aren't as assuredly in a woman's best interest after all?

What if standing firm on Constitutional principles is a more certain road to the best interests of women. What if conceding that choice starts and ends at conception would actually save women from the horrible 'choice' of infanticide, saving them from a life of regret and inescapable guilt?

So Palin has to be stupid. It just has to be that way. Think of it as her sacrifice to the Liberal cause. Of course, if she's unwilling to make that sacrifice, maybe she's not that dumb after all. And, if Palin's not that stupid, maybe more union members can come to see that their immediate interests are poorly served in the long run.

Right to Bear Arms - clearly stated (a must see video)

I just received this in an e-mail from the Schaumburg TEA Party. It's definitely worth a few minutes of your time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

Walsh looks even better by a Dold light

Someone made a pretty good point yesterday after I posted my comments about Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and the exemplary manner in which he has not forgotten the promises he made during the campaign. He is well deserving of the praise, particularly since, when people in public office screw up, I'm among the first to jump on that.

However, as was pointed out, I failed to mention Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL). During the campaign, Dold had a clever little campaign ditty that played off the similarity between his name and former Presidential Candidate Robert Dole. Otherwise, Dold was very similar to Walsh in terms of the promises given. As was pointed out, that's apparently where the similarity ends.

Where Walsh has demonstrated limited-government, fiscal-conservative backbone, Dold has apparently sold out on virtually all of his campaign promises. The way it's been explained to me, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to find out that Dold was a liberal progressive plant from the start only masquerading as a conservative. I understand he has a voting record that would make Nancy Pelosi proud.

In a sense, I regret highlighting Dold's 'accomplishments' since arriving in Washington, D.C. My intention was that I felt Joe deserved the limelight unencumbered by the likes of a charlatan spewing patriotic rhetoric as though he means it. I regret the decision because, in reality, Dold's behavior makes Joe's all the more noteworthy.

Just a couple days ago, a conservative I know complained that, Republican or Democrat, they were essentially all alike - out for themselves and screw the nation. With people like Joe Walsh in Washington, D.C., I was able to respond, "Well, not quite all of them. Sure, we've got our Dolds but we also have our Walsh's, and thank God for that."

Republicans and Democrats play by different rules and priorities

We all watched the way they shoved, pulled and manipulated the system to push that monstrosity across the finish line. Rules be damned. Obama, Pelosi, Reed and all their liberal co-horts weren't going to be stopped by a little thing like procedure. As a result, we now have a law that is so incredibly wonderful that the president - the architect of the entire disaster - is passing out waivers to his friends so they can ignore the splendors of Obamacare.

In the midst of this political environment, the liberal progressives seem to be saying, "The Constitution is outdated. Why should we listen to the words of a bunch of old white guys who wore wigs?" It's as though they've taken license to ignore the Constitution and ignore the rules of law to achieve their aims because, by golly, no idea would dare to cross their brain pans unless it was valid.

So, why can't the Wisconsin legislature do the same thing? To heck with the Democrats hiding in Illinois. Just right a new rule, twist a policy here and there and vote without them. All is fair in love and war, right, and that must cover the government.

Truth is they can't do it because it violates the rule of law, which is not OK, and that's the difference between the liberals and the conservatives. The liberals don't believe in anything until some dictator is breathing down their necks. Life is funny that way.

Things like unions, gay rights and handouts from the government are all the rage when you have a Democratic Republic protecting you. But, strip away those Constitutional rights and suddenly not having Federallies bust down your door at 2 a.m. is a little higher on your list of priorities. When you have to ask permission from some bureaucrat to move to another state, assuming your papers are otherwise in order to cross the state line, the rights of gays to marry isn't as big of a deal anymore.

It's one of the reasons so many people in other countries laugh at us from time to time - "Those crazy Americans, protesting for unions. Heck, I'd be thrilled just to drink water we didn't take from the same river we use as a toilet."

That's the thing. For liberals, based on a world built on the backs of hardworking Americans and the blood of our young soldiers, all they can see is what's important to them within that plane. For conservatives - real conservatives, the ones who don't look at limited government as a way to horde a fortune while trampling the rights of individuals, who believe in the Constitution whether it's made them wealthy or not, keeping in mind that wealth is a relative term compared to someone in Zimbabwe or something, the priorities start with the Constitutionally defended liberties we've taken for granted in this country for so long.

And for this reason, the Republicans cannot violate the rules in Wisconsin the way the Democrats so cheaply do; they cannot tear apart the rule of law to defend it.

Life isn't always fair. Republicans are typically driven from office by sexual scandals while Democrats come out of the closet and gain a new constituency they can count on at election time. Republicans are duty bound to follow the rules while Democrats consider it a mark of honor to violate the rules.

Of course, there's only one way the liberals and Democrats can keep getting away with this - as long as the voting public keeps telling themselves it doesn't matter. And that will happen just as long as many in the voting public are more concerned about things like 'gay rights' than basic Constitutional liberties.

Obama may be gay about Marriage Act but the Constitution is cringing

Rahm Emanuel has left the White House, at least as an official arm of the Obama administration, but his legacy lingers. Following in the former chief of staff's footsteps, his former boss, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, has used the current chaos in Wisconsin and other states, not to mention foreign upheaval in the Middle  East and North Africa, as an opportunity to slip in a little news about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Of course, the liberal media, to the degree that they can take their eyes off the ‘socialist plight’ of protesters in the Midwest and the Middle East, have heartily endorsed the decision. Obama, by executive decree, has essentially altered the law, through unconstitutional means, based on his personal perspective that the law is unconstitutional. Many Lefties admit the methodology is not exactly kosher but, since the outcome fits their agenda, well, that’s OK. What’s a little Constitutional misstep among friends?

In reality, it’s only by way of a certain, flexible perspective, that the Defense of Marriage Act can be seen as a violation of gay rights. By way of the liberal prism, marriage is redefined, after several millennia, on the whim of those who think the institution is merely based on who they are sexually attracted to.

The truth is, the sexual attraction has always been a component of marriage for one reason and that reason had nothing to do with how much fun people might have during sex. There are animals that omit odors, make unique sounds or puff up their breast feathers to induce the opposite sex to commit to an act of procreation. There are even animals that dance a little jig because the opposite sex of their species is enticed by this behavior.

For humans … well, there are a myriad of components to sexual attraction. But, all of these, come down to the basic natural premise of convincing the species that it must reproduce to continue.

Marriage is fundamentally related to the development of a family and the ability of most married couples to create offspring. Yes, there are some couples who discover they can’t have children and we should all be thankful for the possibility to fill this sense of void through adoption. But, that’s still not fulfilling the marital act of procreation. Parents who adopt can do a wonderful job of parenting and deserve a tremendous measure of respect for doing so. But, procreation is procreation. It’s that simple.

Now we have test-tube babies and artificial insemination and, who knows, maybe they’ll add legal cloning to the mix someday. Some may say that this has changed the landscape and, to a certain degree, it has. It has allowed couples who could not have children to, in some cases, have children of their own after all. So, why not gays?

First of all, in the great, big Petri dish of life, we’ve found that there are always unforeseen consequences of our actions. Television, once seen as a potential boon for education, has turned out somewhat differently. The Internet was supposed to bring us all closer together. I’ve seen that people on the other side of the planet have read my ramblings of late but I can’t tell you the last name of anyone on the block where I live (I can still tell you the names of all the neighbors on the block where I grew up). So, assuming this will result in a happier and better planet is presumptuous, at best.

But it’s more than that. The idea fails the 100-percent test. Imagine for a second that everyone was gay and from the beginning of that point where man became a subject of time, that’s how it was. First of all, that being the case, the species would have died out immediately unless there were a few in the caves, or with Adam and Eve when they left the Garden of Eden, who convinced someone to make the ‘eternal sacrifice’ of having intercourse with the opposite sex.

“I know, girls are yucky, but, if someone doesn’t do it, when we die, that’s it.”

“Ugh. But why me?”

“Sorry, you picked the short straw.”

In other words, without heterosexuals, the species would have died off long before anyone had a chance to think, “Why can’t two men or two women marry?”

What two men or two women do in the confines of their own home is none of my business. It is my business when the liberals among us attack the nature of the most sacred and vital relationship in the history of mankind because it doesn’t fit their jollies.

Tell yourselves your married. Who cares? But don’t desecrate something as intrinsically important to so many others just because it doesn’t fit your ideal. That, is the true denial of Constitutional rights.

“Sorry, your marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore other than that, if you divorce, well, it’s a binding contract.”

It’s an undeniable truth – with the approval of gay marriage we have reduced the institution as a whole to the point where it has almost no value.

Maybe that's what Obama is after - another stake to drive through the heart of America? 

Patriots United Obamacare forum puts radical nature of legislation in perspective

http://patriotsunited.com/I attended a Townhall forum this evening put on by Patriots United with a panel including two physicians and a CEO from the area health care system. The event was inspiring and frightening. It was inspiring to see people at that level who have calmly and coolly consider the implications of Obamacare and have rationally found it, not just wanting, but destructive to an extreme.

How about this for a highlight: Did you know that 90 percent of medical costs are determined by a panel of 29 members of the American Medical Association. The process, and the pricing documents the AMA creates, have a value of $100 million, according to one of the physicians. And yet, somewhat less than 17 percent of all "living" physicians actually belong to the AMA.

Why does the government allow this partisan agency such influence?

Anyhow, it's late, at least in terms of how early I have to get up tomorrow. I don't think they've posted the video of the event yet, but it should be up at the following soon: http://patriotsunited.com/


I'll try to come back with more tidbits and pearls from the event in the next few days. In the meantime, if you're looking for a way to maximize your effort to help put this country back on a Constitutional footing, you might want to check out the Patriots United site now, even if the video isn't up yet (there's a video of another event posted to the site as I write this).

Townhall meeting to discuss Obamacare tonight at MCC

From 7 to 9 p.m., tonight, Wednesday, Feb. 16, Patriots United will host a Townhall Meeting in the auditorium of McHenry County College, 8900 US Highway 14, Crystal Lake, IL, to discuss the preservation of the doctor/patient relationship in the age of Obama. The forum discussion will be led by members of Docs4PatientCare, a national organization committed to maintaining that vital relationship. They will update attendees on the current state of health care issues, recent related events in Washington, D.C., and will make recommendations to continue the struggle to defend patient's rights.

Patriots United, a group in based from McHenry County, IL, is made up of concerned citizens who feel the country has gotten away from its Constitutional path. The group focuses on five 'pillars' or areas of government that need redress. They include: National Defense, Pro-Family, Free Market Economy, Limited Government, and Choice in Education. People interested in learning more about the experts at tonight's event should visit: docs4patientcare.org. For more information about Patriots United, how to join the group or start a chapter in your area, visit: patriotsunited.com.

This article submitted by Rich1776Patriot.

Should Egypt follow Obama or Jefferson?

OK, Mubarek is gone. Now what?

Well, unfortunately, folks like Glenn Beck may be too close to right. While Obama tries to tell us it's all good, we may find out that we have another Iran on our hands and this one situated at the head of the strategically vital Suez Canal. But, let's suppose the folks on the Left are right; this is a wonderful thing. What then?

The Egyptians will form some kind of a government. But, what kind of government? Should they choose a government from the mold Obama is striking here in the U.S.? Should they give their new government the power to regulate health care and force Egyptians to purchase insurance? Should they give their new government the power to hit a kill switch and shutoff the internet? Assuming they have similar branches of office, will it be OK if they have a legislative branch to write laws and an executive branch that can avoid the balancing power of a legislative branch by using czars, agencies and regulations to de-facto legislate from the executive mansion?

It's almost funny that Obama didn't support Mubarek. They have so much in common. But, in the case of Egypt, Obama has put concerns about spreading 'democracy' ahead of our national interests. Hopefully, this will work out in favor of our national interests but that's clearly not the position Obama took in the matter leading up to the day that Mubarek called it quits. He put democratic principles first.

Funny, I seem to remember him taking a different posture when similar protesting occurred a little to the east in Tehran in the recent past. Democratic principles took a back seat to an opportunity to meet with the Iranians face to face for a little love fest. Of course, consistency has never been Obama’s strong suit. One day he’s telling new House Republicans they’ll have to get in back the next he’s telling them we’ll need to work together.

If everything works out rosy in Egypt that may reflect on Obama in a positive light. His approval numbers may go up. I hate to think that any situation will improve his image. I find his image is less than consistent with the core values he’s supported since coming to office. But, I do hope things work out well in Egypt. We can’t afford for things to do otherwise.

Still, given a choice, would the Egyptians really want to go back to a quasi-Mubarek form of government, based on the Obama model, or would they prefer a Jeffersonian version of government based on the principles of liberty, freedom and limited government?

My new Patriotic blog and facebook page.

Along with this, my new and improved blog site in defense of the Constitution, I have created a new fan page for the cause. I welcome patriots everywhere to visit both and welcome your feedback, both in regards to the format of these pages and to the current and future content. To visit the new facebook page, please click here.

Thank you

Responding to Durbin’s voice from the sewer

Responding to Durbin’s voice from the sewer
No. Obamacare was a step back for the American people. It’s unaffordable and un-Constitutional. It’s a disgrace that it was passed into law and a dark mark on the credibility of those in office who take their oaths to uphold the Constitution so frivolously. You should be ashamed for forcing this disaster upon the American people and the people of your state. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to recognize that casts your personal credibility into the sewer.

Americans need, first and foremost, representatives who will uphold the Constitution. The economy will ebb and flow. Our liberties should not ebb and flow as well.

From: “correspondence_reply@durbin.senate.gov”
To: r…
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 5:48:22 PM
Subject: Message from Senator Durbin
February 9, 2011
Mr. R….
Dear Mr. R….:
Thank you for contacting me in support of H.R. 2, a bill to repeal health reform. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.
Health reform is making a difference in the lives of people in Illinois and across our nation. For the first time in our history, insurance companies are accountable for providing quality coverage to Americans. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, or place limits on the amount of care people can get, especially when they need it.
The new health reform law gives working families and the middle class a greater assurance that they can find and keep affordable coverage. Tax credits are provided to small businesses to help them cover employees, and when fully implemented, the law will give tax credits to working class Americans who cannot afford their insurance policies. The law will cut the federal budget deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years and $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. It will also protect Americans from arbitrary rate hikes and denials of insurance coverage as broad insurance reforms are implemented.
A repeal of the health reform law would be a step backwards for our nation. H.R. 2 would remove consumer protections that prevent insurance industry abuse and would cause millions of Americans to lose health care coverage. Significantly, H.R. 2 would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion dollars over the next decade – a task both Republicans and Democrats have promised not to do.
In addition to the burden on our nation’s deficit, repeal of the law would have other adverse effects. Small businesses across Illinois would lose insurance, for example, because they would no longer have access to a small business tax credit to make insurance affordable. If the law were repealed, the necessary steps to close the donut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program would be reversed. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of seniors would lose a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and 47,200 young adults under age 26 in Illinois would lose their insurance coverage on their parents’ insurance plans if the law were repealed.
The new law is not perfect; however, the law makes great strides in providing quality coverage to Americans and reducing the federal deficit. I stand by my support for health reform and will continue to work towards its implementation.
I recognize that we disagree on this issue, but I appreciate knowing your thoughts on it and I hope you continue to contact me on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/kg