Saturday, September 26, 2009

Health Care Behind Closed Doors

Many Americans are alarmed that our Congress is out of control. The Constitution has become an irrelevant piece of paper instead of the blue print for the foundation of our government. Nothing that has happened in Washington since the Obama takeover more clearly illustrates this fact than what is going on behind closed doors in the push to force nationalized health care down the throats of unwilling American taxpayers.

Senators are negotiating on Senator Max Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0 proposal and it hasn't even been written yet.

Of course, to state the obvious, the fact that they're negotiating on something that hasn't been written means no one has read it yet either.

And, to add even more insult to injury, it's now clear they have no intention of letting you read it.

You read that right. On an almost straight party-line vote, Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee squashed an amendment by Senator Jim Bunning that would have required Baucus' ObamaCare bill to be posted on the Internet – for all Americans to read – for 72 hours prior to the Committee voting on it.

Not only that. Bunning's amendment also called for requiring the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's official tally of how much Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0 will cost the American people and what the real impact will be on health costs to be released before the it was voted on.

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

They're leaving the door wide-open to pass Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0 proposal in the dead of night... under the cover of darkness... without even telling you and other concerned Americans what it will cost and how it will affect your health care.

But what really takes the cake is that even after those shenanigans, some Senate Republicans are still going out of their way to play Let's-Make-A-Deal on Senator Max Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0 socialized health care scheme.

They're actually fighting tooth-and-nail, not to stop ObamaCare but to negotiate a so-called compromise on this Obama-Baucus scheme to socialize the nation's health care system.

And that's just one more reason why we must tell our elected officials, right here and right now, that the American people don't want any more negotiations or deals or compromises.

We want ObamaCare off the table and we want it off the table now.

ObamaCare 6.0: A Stunning Assault On Liberty.

If the previous versions of government-run ObamaCare made you angry... Senator Max Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0 is likely to make your blood boil.

Much like its predecessors, the Baucus health care reform plan is chock-full of provisions calling for new government mandates, higher taxes, increased spending and government-dictated, rationed health care.

In fact, it's so bad that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said of Baucus' plan: "This is a stunning assault on liberty!"

Senator Kyl is right. And, the really sad part is this:

As previously stated, the Baucus bill hasn't even been written yet, much less read by the Senators who are doing the negotiating.

It's nothing more than a 200-plus-page shell of ideas to be rammed down the throats of the American people with all deliberate speed... before you and other concerned Americans have the time to find out what hit you.

Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking on FOX News, probably gave the best explanation of what exactly is going on: "[T]he Baucus bill... literally changes everyday... we're making this up as we go... they're trying to buy votes... the vision here is to pass something... they don't give a damn what it is and nobody understands what they're doing."

These so-called leaders just don't get it. Republicans and Democrats are quibbling over what type of government-run health care they believe to be best for you and your family and no one is fighting for the American people.

The American people for months have been sending the message loud and clear that they want no part of ObamaCare, period, regardless of what form it takes. The American people have been telling politicians in Washington that no amount of so-called "compromise" will make Obama's government-run health care scheme acceptable or palatable.

And yet, one of the only things keeping ObamaCare alive is the fact that some Republicans, under the veil of "negotiations," are keeping it alive.

It's time for these politicians to finally get the message. The American people do not want them to "fix" ObamaCare... no more so-called "ObamaCare compromises"... the American people want ObamaCare gone... never to be heard from again.

They Don't Want You To Read The Bill, But Will They Read The Bill?

The Baucus plan, right now, as you read this letter, is rapidly advancing in the Senate – even though the bill hasn't actually been written and none of the Senators working on it have actually read it.

And, as previously stated, it's now clear they have no intention of letting you read it either. Here's what Michael Franc wrote on the Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry:

"During the Senate Finance Committee mark up of the Baucus health bill ... Senator Bunning of Kentucky put forth an innovative amendment. This amendment stipulated that before voting on the measure in Committee, legislative language would have to be accessible to the public for 72 hours and that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would need to publish an official tally of how much this bill will cost the American people and what the real impact will be on health costs."

Franc continued:

"The amendment failed 11-12 on nearly a party line vote. Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR) was the sole Democrat to support this attempt at transparency. The bottom line: when the committee completes its work on this re-make of one-sixth of our economy, Senators will have voted on a phantom - a bill that does not exist with costs that are unknowable until, that is, the unelected legislative draftsmen write the real bill in some back room on Capitol Hill." [Emphasis Mine]

Remember what Senator Graham said: "the vision here is to pass something... they don't give a damn what it is and nobody understands what they're doing."

Fortunately, the American people are one step ahead of of our elected officials this time around.

They believe they can work behind closed doors and try to repackage government-run health care and seal it with a nice pretty bow.

But in the end, the American people are on to their game, we won't be fooled and we can stop them.

No more "negotiating"... no more "compromising"... it's time to stop ObamaCare once and for all.

Socialized Health Care Delivered Under A Christmas Tree Filled With Pricey Ornaments...

FOX News anchor Neil Cavuto summed up the mad dash to pass government-run health care – and specifically Baucus' ObamaCare 6.0:

"Christmas may be months away but that ain't stopping Senators from trying to outdo each other on health care... all sorts of pricey ornaments... 564 amendments... the pace of this is startling."

Like the alcoholic who swears he will never take another drink, only to succumb to temptation the very next day, politicians in Washington lead us to believe that they got the message loud and clear... they lead us to believe they would stop ObamaCare.

But instead of stopping ObamaCare cold, they rushed to make deals and propose amendments the second Senator Baucus unveiled his proposal.

Even Senator Hatch, while calling for a so-called "bi-partisan solution" to ObamaCare, inadvertently stated the case as to why continued negotiations on ObamaCare are a dangerous thing:

"Everything is geared to try to get us to a single payer system... if they can't do it automatically... they'll do it in increments... a one size fits all health care system right out of Washington."

Simply put, any compromise that is reached... any deal that is negotiated will simply lead us down the road to government-run, rationed health care for all.

Some will try to tell you that negotiation is simply a strategy... that it is perhaps the only way to stop ObamaCare.

But the truth of the matter is, ObamaCare never needs to come out of the Senate Finance Committee... it never has to see the light of day.

Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure for the Senate Finance Committee reads: "Rule 4. Quorums. - (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) one-third of the membership of the committee, including not less than one member of the majority party and one member of the minority party, shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business."

That means, at least one Republican Senator on the Finance Committee needs to be in attendance in order to pass any legislation out of committee.

In other words, 10 Republican Senators (Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, Jon Kyl, Jim Bunning, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, John Ensign, Mike Enzi and John Cornyn) could stop ObamaCare cold right now by simply saying they will not support it under any circumstances.

If those 10 Senators would simply say "no," and deny Democrats on the Finance Committee a quorum; ObamaCare would be done... finished... it would die in committee... but you won't hear that on the nightly news.

And yet, instead of finding a way to convince these 10 Republicans to stand firm in their opposition to ObamaCare, we're told it's more prudent solution to negotiate and make a deal with the opposition and hopefully cushion the blow of something that never has to happen in the first place.

Only in Washington D.C. does such a thing seem even remotely rational. It's time to tell these Senate Republicans to get serious about stopping ObamaCare.

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Friday, September 25, 2009

Israel on the chopping block

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton on the Glenn Beck show commenting on Obama's speech at the UN: "This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making" "I have to say I was very shaken by this speech"

On Wednesday, September 23, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly. In his speech he said: "We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” “The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues. Security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear, two states living side by side in peace and security, a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

John Bolton: Two phrases in what you've just heard, the president says that "America does not accept" and I'm quoting now, "the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Not 'new Israeli settlements', "continued Israeli", which, this is Mr.Wordsmith here, that calls into question in my mind all Israeli settlements.

Then he says that "we want a Palestinian state that's contiguous", by the way, Gaza and the West Bank were never contiguous Palestinian areas before, "and that ends the occupation that began in 1967". That means, I think, a return to the 67' borders. Now, he doesn't say that, but that's certainly implicit in this statement.

In the 2008 elections, 77% of America’s Jewish population cast their votes for Barack Hussein Obama. What were they thinking then and what are they thinking now?

Here is a transcript of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's UN Speech. Take a few minutes and read it.  Read the story about this speech at the Wall Street Journal Online:

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust.  It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.  Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants.  Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee.  There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people.  The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews.   Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.  Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself.  Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered.  Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp.  Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration.  Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own.  My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis.  Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium.  To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you.  You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame?  Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace!  What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews.  You're wrong.  History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims.   It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others.  Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.  It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century.  The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future.  And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope.   The pace of progress is growing exponentially.  It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.

We will crack the genetic code.  We will cure the incurable.  We will lengthen our lives.  We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet. 

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment.  These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time.   And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?  Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime.  People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall.   Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims.  That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities.   Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.  It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.

We didn't get peace.  Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv.   Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond.  But how should we have responded?

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population.  It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.   Israel chose to respond differently.  Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.  We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.   Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals.  What a perversion of truth!  What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations,
Will you accept this farce?    Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.

And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace.  Here's why.  When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop.  Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy?  What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes?  And for what?  For acting responsibly in self-defense.  What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror.  This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments.   Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now.   Now and not later.  Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of Israel wants peace.   Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace.   We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat.  We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein.

And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace.  But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.

In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state.  The Jews accepted that resolution.  The Arabs rejected it.   We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years:  Say yes to a Jewish state.

Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people.   The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel.   This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.  They shall learn war no more."   These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city - in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.   We are not strangers to this land.  It is our homeland.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own.   We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security.  The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized.   We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved.  But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.

The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage.  Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Monday, September 14, 2009



In 1911,
Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million  Armenians, unable to defend themselves, 

were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929,
the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
About 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, 

were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935
China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million  Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, 

were rounded up and  Exterminated
In 1938
 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews and others unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956
Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, 

were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964
Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 

100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, 
were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970
Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, 

were rounded up and exterminated
In the 20th Century
56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated because of gun control.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, 
or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them
Of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

This is NOT my president!

The following are images of Barack Hussein Obama II collected over the past year from various sources on the Internet. The office of the president of the United States of America is supposed to represent the leader of the free world yet here is a political candidate who doesn't even know enough to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
Here is a man so caught up in the aroma of his own success he has been labeled by a Psychological Profiler as a Narcissist.

Here is a man who has been so thoroughly manufactured by the Left-Wing News Media that they have actually created a messianic icon that some have compared to Our Lord Jesus Christ.


The above image is a statue of Obama riding a donkey into a city behind worshipers who has laid down palm tree branches to simulate the Christian celebration of Palm Sunday.

And finally, here are two pictures of Obama's bodyguards that resemble some third-world dictator. On more than one occasion these bodyguards were seen aiming their submachine guns at American citizens standing along side the road as he drove by.

This man is NOT the president of the United States of America that I was born in a grew up in.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Tracing Obama's Socialist Background

Last November the greatest fraud ever committed against the United States of America occurred when a radical black socialist named Barack Hussein Obama II was elected president. With the aid of a left-leaning news media who conveniently forgot every principle of good journalism, Obama's background was covered up, his blunders were excused and his public image was turned into a messianic rock star worshiped by his followers. Since his inauguration Obama has begun a war on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and every aspect of our society. He has plundered our Treasury, ruined our economy, destroyed our country's image, apologized to our enemies, side-stepped the legislative process in Congress by appointing over three dozen Czars to oversee virtually everything our government has no authority in.

Never before has America been in need of an ally to help us in the war against the Marxist-Socialists who have taken over our government as much as we do now. And in one of the most unusual places, the far-off country of New Zealand, we have found one. Trevor Loudon, a political researcher from Christchurch, New Zealand has compiled the worlds largest documented background on the Marxist-Socialist-Communist movement in America and the intricate connections it has with Barack Hussein Obama II. I urge everyone to check out the amazing list of links below to read the complete background story. Anyone interested in contacting Trevor Loudon to help support his effort can reach him via
Email: or by postal mail at PO Box 36043, Christchurch, New Zealand.

here is the current list of The Obama Files:

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Government efficiency, it's a joke. Really.

Government efficiency, not only is it a joke, it is an oxymoron.

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people,one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall costs."

So....they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY....During the Carter Administration?




Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready?? It was very simple ... and, at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???


Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

And, NOW, we are going to turn the banking system, HEALTH CARE and have already given the auto industry over to the same Government?


Cash for Clunkers

Leaders from the independent aftermarket were among the most vocal against the Cash for Clunkers program, and they continue to be so after the fact. As, CARQUEST's Pete Kornafel, chairman of the GAAS scholarship committee, writes:

"Here's some math from stories ballyhooing the fact that the average clunker got 15 mpg and the average replacement gets 25...

· A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
· A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
· So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
· The total is about 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons/year.
· That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
· 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's U.S. consumption.
· And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
· So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that???

Hey it was great for Obamacrats!


Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the United States. Try to follow along.

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 per hour cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare.
Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.

Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.

Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year.

Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.

Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...

You are part of the problem!

It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!


Have you heard about the recent telephone poll taken in California? The Governor's office asked whether people who live in California think illegal immigration is a serious problem:

29% responded, "Yes, it is a serious problem."
71% responded, "No es una problema seriosa."

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Beware of a new Constitutional Convention

I though we had stopped the Doomsday machine, but I was wrong. That line has been used before in more than one Science Fiction movie but for now it is very real for every citizen of the United States.

When I became interested in politics some forty years ago I learned of an effort back in the sixties to convene a new Constitutional Convention. The purpose then was to update a few of the provisions our Founding Fathers had overlooked, such as Balanced Budgets and the Equal Rights Amendment (does anyone remember the ERA). The idea back then was mostly endorsed by liberal groups as a way to permanently install their left-wing agenda on the rest of the country. Many conservatives fought against this and we all thought we had won the battle. We were wrong! Please keep reading.

I just discovered that one rule of the process to convene a Constitutional Convention never dies. That rule, which calls for the state legislatures of 34 states to pass a resolution in favor of this, remains on the record forever. As of today 32 states have now done so and only two more are needed. The final push is concentrating on Ohio. Wyoming passed such a resolution ten years ago and has been trying ever since to find a way to rescind it but the law does not allow for that.

What is the greatest threat to all of us if such a convention were convened? The delegates would have the authority to completely rewrite the present Constitution and eliminate the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Quite literally this would mean the end of the United States of America as we know it.

" Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate for the Constitution Party said "If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.'"

Baldwin warned the "Big-Government liberals and neocons" in Washington would adopt a "collective rights" document.

"At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be gone forever," he said."

If you live in Ohio or know someone who does please let them know, you should consider writing your elected state officials and tell them what a bad idea this would be.

I recently attended a rally organized by the Cincinnati Tea Party here in Northern Kentucky. After listening for an hour to two presentations on the real case behind global warming and the healthcare scare the president of the Tea Party began talking about the NEED for a new Constitutional Convention. He mentioned some good points but when I questioned him about the possibility of a rogue bunch of Liberals throwing out The Bill of Rights and trying to rewrite the entire Constitution he showed me how misinformed he was. He said that even if such an attempt was made the rewritten Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. WRONG. A Constitutional Convention does not function under the same rules that applies to an amendment to the Constitution. The delegates to the convention are appointed by the state legislatures to act in their place and with full autonomous authority. Their work needs only to be approved by the majority of the other delegates before it becomes our new Constitution.

Below is the full text of Article V of the United States Constitution which spells out the rule.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Indoctrinating America's Youth

Obama bowed to Saudi King, now he has redirected the 9-11 terrorist attack commemoration and indoctrinated our children

During the introductions of the G20 summit in London earlier this year a shocking video surfaced showing our sometimes-Muslim president bowing deeply at the waist before the king of Saudi Arabia. This gesture of subservience was an act that was described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds. Saudi Arabia was the home of 16 of the Muslim fanatics that high-jacked  four U.S. airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania killing over 3,000 American citizens. Since that day of infamy, September 11th has been commemorated by patriotic ceremonies to remind Americans of this great evil threat to our nation. Now, our sometimes-Muslim president is planning on changing the direction of this date to some other purpose. Obama plans to change 9-11 to a National Day of Service.

In his July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs, Sen. Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military." The comment comes at about the 16-minute mark of his 26.44 minute speech that is available on YouTube:

On March 19th, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 1388 called the G.I.V.E. Act, which had only been introduced 10 days prior. The full text version can be found at:

Eight days later, on March 26, 2009 the bill passed the U.S. Senate and five days later it was signed into law. There was little or no debate on this new law and like several laws recently introduced, few members of Congress bothered to read them.

The preamble states: "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act - Amends the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NSCA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA) to revise the programs under such Acts and reauthorize appropriations for such programs through FY2014. Revises under NSCA:" and lists dozens of enhancements including "Uniforms" and "Mandatory service requirements" and "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."

Conservatives who recalled Obama’s speech in Colorado Springs have noted the uncomfortable comparison between then Sen. Obama’s call for “a civilian national security force” and the “uniformed” youth corps and the wave of national socialism flowing out of the Obama administration. This same wave of national socialism appeared in pre-WWII Germany when Adolph Hitler instituted his brown shirt Hitler Youth Corps.

Socialist mind-bending exercises:

In another effort to indoctrinate America’s youth Obama had planned on giving a speech on September 8th to every school child via the Internet feed into their classrooms. When word leaked out about the planning guides issued to teachers included such things as having children ask themselves how they can help president Obama a storm of protest erupted.  Obama still plans on giving his classroom speech but many state education systems have refused to carry it and many others, including Kentucky, plan to offer some alternative assignment to children who’s parents object to the hidden agenda.

As if this disgusting attempt to affect the minds of America's children isn't enough, some Democrats have even produced a series of comic books for children with such titles as "Mama voted for Obama!", "Why Mommy is a Democrat" and "Why Daddy is a Democrat". Take a look at these book covers:

Sunday, September 6, 2009

VA mandates "end of life" counseling

WSJ: Obama and Veterans Administration Secretary Shinseki now pressuring Veterans toward Euthanasia

The Wall Street Journal just published a shocking editorial written by a respected University President, confirming the Obama Administration is now using VA hospitals to order doctors to pressure all military veterans to sign "pull the plug" do-not-resuscitate orders, hastening their premature deaths through mandatory "end of life" counseling.

President Jim Towey of Saint Vincent's College, founder of the non-profit "Aging With Dignity" and former White House Director of faith based initiatives, wrote a blistering expose entitled "The Death Book For Veterans," revealing President Obama's new Veterans Administration (VA) directive, presumably signed by VA Secretary, General (ret.) Eric Shinseki, which mandates all veterans' primary care physicians must graphically discuss "end of life planning" with all VA patients (not merely those nearing death), and must refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices," 
a book that openly encourages Euthanasia and was written with guidance from the group formerly known as the Hemlock Society. That same pro-suicide group now boasts on their web-site of directly leading the charge to ensure "end of life counseling" is mandated in the Obamacare bill, HR 3200.

On page 21 of the Shinseki-mandated Veteran's Euthanasia book, all military veterans are encouraged to complete a checklist of various scenarios, to decide whether their own life would be "not worth living." For example, the booklet asks veterans 7 questions pressuring veterans to sign a "living will" that authorizes doctors to terminate your life, if you are:
  1. Living in a nursing home?

  2. Being in a wheelchair?

  3. Not able to "shake the blues?"

  4. Ever heard anyone say, "If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug?"

  5. No longer able to contribute to your family's well-being?

  6. Are you a severe financial burden to your family?

  7. Do you cause severe emotional burden for your family?
"This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable," says Towey, "Worse, a July 2009 VA directive [presumably signed by Shinseki] instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to 'Your Life, Your Choices.' [the Euthanasia booklet.] Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition-all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better." Towey recommends a "five wishes" living-will document that does not pressure suicide.

But instead the Hemlock Society booklet is now MANDATED for doctor referral to all patients in all VA hospitals, heaping more evidence upon the growing list of proofs that the Obama Administration is LYING TO THE PUBLIC by denying their health care plan pushes Euthanasia on the elderly. They already do it today. Just imagine if ALL hospitals become government-run like the VA.

We all gasped when the federal government seized control of General Motors, and Obama effectively fired the Chairman and replaced the board with government bureaucrats selected by Treasury Secretary Geithner. Now Obama and his liberal Democratic House allies want to replace your doctors with bureaucrats, hasten grandma's demise, abort and kill children in urban neighborhoods, cut doctors' pay and control their religion, and transform Private hospitals into government-controlled atheist bureaucracies. 

Does any of this remind you of Communism? Do not stand idly by and allow this. Write Congress to say, "no to Obamacare." Will you? Then please forward this message to all your friends who care about our beloved country, especially those senior citizens who may be at greatest risk.

Please, take action right away to STOP this bill dead in its tracks

Reference links to this story: 
Wall Street Journal
Read the book "Your Life, Your Choices,"  Click link to view in PDF format

National Black Republicans Association

Democrats have recently adopted a new attack strategy for anyone who criticizes Barack Hussein Obama. Instead of making an effort to refute the facts of the criticism they accuse them of being racist. Here is a bonafide rebutal to these false charges.

Visit the web site of the National Black Republicans Association at

Reparations Petition to Congress
Demanding a Formal Apology to  African Americans
 for the
 Democratic Party’s 200-year History of Racism

  • We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
  • Whereas the healing of wounds begins with an apology, and the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor held accountable for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices are having on us today,
  • Whereas as a result of the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006, the North Carolina Democratic Party issued a unanimous apology on January 20, 2007 for the Democratic Party’s 1898 murderous rampage against blacks,
  • Whereas in 2007 the Democrats in control of Congress refused to pass the H.R. 40 bill, Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, that was first introduced in 1989 and was re-introduced in every Congress since then by black Democrat Congressman John Conyers of Michigan,
  • Whereas inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman wrote a book, Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats, and filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party on December 10, 2004, but, after admitting their history of racism under oath in court, the Democrats refused to apologize,
  • Whereas history shows that the Democratic Party through its racist agenda and “States’ Rights” claim to own slaves, sought to protect and preserve the institution of slavery from 1792 to 1865, thus enslaving millions of African Americans, while the Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party and fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks,
  • Whereas the Democratic Party enacted Fugitive Slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations; instigated the 1856 Dred Scott decision which legally classified blacks as property; passed the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new Northern states; and passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to spread slavery into all of the new Northern states,
  • Whereas the Democratic Party in the South formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union and fought a Civil War to expand slavery where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousand blacks,
  • Whereas starting in 1861, anti-Civil War Democrats in the North were called “copperheads” like the poisonous snake because they (a) wanted to appease the South and accept a negotiated peace that would have resulted in an independent Confederacy where blacks were kept in slavery, and (b) showed their deep opposition to the Civil War draft by taking their anger out on blacks, murdering and maiming blacks in virtually every Northern state,
  • Whereas anti-Civil War Democrats in New York engaged in “Four Days of Terror” against the city’s black population from July 13-16, 1863, and the anti-Civil War chant of the Democrats, as reported by one Pennsylvania newspaper, was: "Willing to fight for Uncle Sam", but not “for Uncle Sambo,"
  • Whereas the anti-Civil War Democrats verbally attacked Republican President Abraham Lincoln because he wanted to free the slaves through war and grant blacks civil rights, and drafted Northern men into the army to fight and die to make his Emancipation Proclamation a reality – a Proclamation that became the source of the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today,
  • Whereas after the Civil War, the Republican Party (a) pushed to amend the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment); (b) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875; and (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans,
  • Whereas anti-civil rights Democrat Andrew Johnson became president when Republican President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and after the Civil War, the Democratic Party fought to end Reconstruction and deny blacks the promised “40 acres and a mule;” fought to overturn all civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s; and passed repressive legislation including the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws,
  • Whereas the book A Short History of Reconstruction by the renowned historian, Dr. Eric Foner, revealed that: (a) the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by Democrats as a Tennessee social club; (b) the Ku Klux Klan became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy; and (c) the Ku Klux Klan spread into other Southern states, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders, black and white,
  • Whereas the book A Short History of Reconstruction by Dr. Eric Foner exposed the facts that: (a) the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 was an attempt by Republicans to get the Democrats to stop lynching Republicans, black and white, and respect the rights of blacks; and (b) contrary to legend, President Rutherford Hayes did not remove the last federal troops from the South, but merely ordered federal troops surrounding the South Carolina and Louisiana statehouses to return to their barracks,
  • Whereas after taking control of Congress in the late 1800’s, the Democratic Party passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875,
  • Whereas the Democratic Party supported the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 that established the “separate but equal” segregation doctrine,
  • Whereas historical documents show that: (a) in an effort to stop the Democrats from lynching and denying civil rights to blacks, the NAACP was founded on Republican President Abraham Lincoln’s 100th birthday, February 12, 1909, by white Republicans Oswald Garrison Villard, Mary White Ovington and William English Walling; and (b) the first black general secretary of the NAACP was black Republican James Weldon Johnson who became the general secretary of the NAACP in 1920 and, in 1900, wrote the song, “Lift Every Voice,” known as the “Black National Anthem” in collaboration with his brother, John Rosamond Johnson,
  • Whereas after Democrat President Woodrow was elected in 1912 and while Congress was controlled by the Democrats, all black American civil employees where pushed out of federal government jobs, and the greatest number of bills proposing racial segregation and discrimination were introduced than had ever been proposed in our nation’s history,
  • Whereas even though Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of many black Americans due to his “New Deal,” he banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists and rejected anti-lynching laws pushed by Republicans, as well as efforts by Republicans to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission that did not get established until 1958 under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower,
  • Whereas Democrat President Harry Truman not only rejected Republican efforts to enact anti-lynching laws and establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission, but also failed to enforce his 1948 Executive Order designed to desegregate the military, an order that was not effectively enforced until Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was elected,
  • Whereas with the party slogan: "Segregation Forever!," the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, (a) formed the States' Rights Democratic Party for the presidential election of 1948; (b) remained Democrats for all local elections and all subsequent national elections; and (c) did not all migrate to the Republican Party as Democrats today falsely claim, but instead the Dixiecrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks,
  • Whereas during the civil rights era of the 1960's, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was a Republican, was fighting the Democrats including: (a) Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox who famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant; (b) Democrat Public Safety Commissioner "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators; and (c) Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace who stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,"
  • Whereas the Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in the Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (a 1954 Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) which declared that the “separate but equal” doctrine violated the 14th Amendment and ended school segregation,
  • Whereas in 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent the desegregation of a Little Rock public school, resulting in Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sending federal troops to prevent violence and enforce a court order desegregating the Little Rock school,
  • Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy was not a civil rights advocate because he: (a) voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law (that was pushed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower); (b) opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (that was organized by black Republican A. Phillip Randolph); (c) authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to wiretap and investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist in order to undermine that Civil Rights leader; (d) was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues; and (e) only grudgingly agreed to make a telephone call to get Dr. King, Jr. out of the Birmingham jail after Dr. King, Sr. requested Kennedy’s help,
  • Whereas due to the nearly 100 years of opposition to civil rights laws by Democrats, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, sought to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation, but his efforts were not heeded by the Democrats who later unjustly criticized Goldwater,
  • Whereas Democrat President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans due to the strong opposition of Democrats, and in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights and not one word about voting rights,
  • Whereas it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960 and 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing,
  • Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
  • Whereas because Republican Senator Everett successfully fought to pass civil rights laws in the face of strong opposition to civil rights laws by the Democrats, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous leadership;” and "The Chicago Defender," the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction,”
  • Whereas the statement by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 civil rights law was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks, but instead, was an expression of fear that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party,
  • Whereas after Democrat President Lyndon Johnson expressed his concern that the racist Democrats in the South would be lost  after the passage of the 1964 civil rights laws, Johnson’s concern came true when Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor Lester Maddox,
  • Whereas in March of 1968, while referring to the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. left Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited, which motivated Dr. King to return to Memphis a few weeks later where he was assassinated on April 4, 1968,
  • Whereas Democrats expressed little, if any, concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats; yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values, and who were discriminating against blacks,
  • Whereas Republican President Richard Nixon established Affirmative Action as a merit-based system to help African Americans prosper with his 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's first goals and timetables, as well as his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made merit-based Affirmative Action programs the law of our nation, but Democrats turned Affirmative Action into an unfair quota system;
  • Whereas Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds,”
  • Whereas in the early 1970’s, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd pushed to have the Senate’s main office building named after a former “Dixiecrat,” Democrat Senator Richard Russell who was Senator Byrd’s mentor and leading opponent of ant-lynching legislation, and in 2001 Senator Byrd was forced to apologize for using the N-word on television,
  • Whereas Democrats did not denounce Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd who praised Senator Robert Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War; yet Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond who was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats,
  • Whereas Democrats today demean and discriminate against blacks including (a) Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals;” (b) Democrat Senator Harry Reid who slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as someone who could not write good English; (c) Democrat Senator Joe Biden who boasted that his home state of Delaware was a slave state and slandered all black former presidential candidates (Rep. Shirley Chisholm who became the first black and the first woman to run for president in 1972; Senator Carol Mosely Braum; Rev. Jesse Jackson; and Rev. Al Sharpton) by declaring that Senator Barack Hussein Obama (the son of an white American woman and a man from Kenya) is the first “clean” black presidential candidate; (d) Democratic Party operatives who depicted Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele on the Internet as a “Simple Sambo;” (e) cartoonist Jeff Danziger and Pat Oliphant who portrayed Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice as a “stooge” and a bare foot, “Ignorant Mammy;” (f) Democratic Senator John F. Kerry who denounced Affirmative Action on the floor of the Senate in the 1990’s; (g) Senator Hillary Clinton who set the tone for the current race-based slander when she insulted Mahatma Gandhi of India who was a role model for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by calling Gandhi a gas station attendant; and (h) President Bill Clinton who – following in the footsteps of his mentor J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist –  refused to enforce a court-ordered Affirmative Action Plan while president and was himself sued for discriminating against his black employees while he was the Governor of Arkansas,
  • Whereas the Democratic Party’s use of deception and fear to intimidate black Americans into voting for Democrats is consistent with the Democratic Party’s heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery –  a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party; and the Democratic Party’s racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
  • Now, therefore, for the documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology from the Democratic Party.