Communist Party USA endorses Barack Obama for re-election. So what else is new?

Headline story in the Spokane, Washington Examiner:

Communist Party endorses Barack Obama for re-election

Joe Newby
Spokane Conservative Examiner

August 5, 2011

Attention, Comrades and revolutionaries!

The Communist Party USA has endorsed Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States, according to an article at World Net Daily.

Aaron Klein writes:

While noting he is disappointed with "some aspects" of the Obama administration's domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama's re-election bid.

In the article Klein references, Webb writes that he is disappointed "with some aspects of the Obama administration's domestic and foreign policy," and acknowledges "the structural pressures of governing in a capitalist economy and state."

Nevertheless, Webb goes on to say that what the country needs is a viable third party.

According to Webb, "neither party is anti-capitalist." 

But in his view, the Democratic Party is closer to his ideal than the Republican Party.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Communist Party endorses Barack Obama for re-election - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.comhttp://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/communist-party-endorses-barack-obama-for-re-election#ixzz1UAxIo6Dn

So what else is new? Barack Hussein Obama, II's mentor Frank Marshall Davis, as mentioned in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father, was an active member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) but Obama omits that little detail. In his essay, Obama’s Communist Mentor, Cliff Kincaid writes: " Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”"

Here is one picture that speaks volumes. Click to view larger image.

Barack Hussein Obama II rewriting American history to promote Islam: The Thomas Jefferson White House Ramadan dinner that never happened.

Apparently, the Islamic indoctrination that Barack Hussein Obama II //aka// Barry Soetoro received during his Muslim years in Indonesia left a noticeable impression on his mind. In promoting Muslim propaganda Barack Hussein Obama distorts facts and twists historical accounts to suit his purpose. Concerning one specific example, Obama attempted to convince Americans that one of the Founding Father of our great Republic, Thomas Jefferson, hosted at the White House in 1805 a Ramadan dinner for a Muslim envoy from Tunisia. Herein is a reprint of a well-researched article written by Hugh Fitzgerald and published on Jihad Watch on August 26, 2010.  Read the entire article here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/obama-spreads-false-claim-that-thomas-jefferson-hosted-first-ramadan-iftar-dinner-at-white-house.html

"The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan --- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago." -- Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the "Annual Iftar Dinner" at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a "first known iftar at the White House" given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the "first Muslim ambassador to the United States"? That's what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at the 2010 "Annual Iftar Dinner," knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all to see. Apparently Obama, and those who wrote this speech for him, and others who vetted it, find nothing wrong with attempting to convince Americans, as part of their policy of trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds, that American history itself can be rewritten. A little insidious nunc pro tunc backdating, to rewrite American history. And that rewrite of American history has the goal of convincing Americans, in order to please Muslims, that the United States and Islam, that Americans and Muslims, go way back.

As Obama so unforgettably put it in his Cairo Speech (possibly the most inaccurate, the most cavalier about historical truth, of any speech by any President in American history):

    As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

    I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

 During the six solar months Mellimelli [the Muslim envoy from Tunisia] was here, the lunar month of Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, but naturally unobserved, hardly noticed, by the Americans, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. He probably during that six-month period had done it more than once. Mellimelli replied that he could not come at the appointed hour of three thirty in the afternoon (our ancestors rose much earlier, and ate much earlier, and went to bed much earlier, in the pre-Edison days of their existence). That time fell, for him, but not for Thomas Jefferson or anyone else in the United States of America, during the fasting period of the month of Ramadan. He replied that he could not come at the hour set, that is, at half-past three, but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn't change the menu, he didn't change anything else. And moving the dinner forward by a few hours hardly turns that dinner into a soi-disant "Iftar Dinner." Barack Obama's trying to do so, trying that is, to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests, is false. And, being false, is also disgusting. It is disgusting for an American President to misrepresent American history to Americans, including all the schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, cunningly woven into the newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably misrepresent Islam, as here.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as "the newspaper of record," whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama's remarks at the "Annual Iftar Dinner." Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

    In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a "White Hosue tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson." I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition at all about Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, was not providing the first of the "Annual Iftar Dinners" that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson's non-existent "Iftar Dinner," have been observed "sporadically."

When, then, was the next in this long, but "sporadic" series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their understanding of the very same texts -- Qur'an,Hadith, Sira -- that all Muslims read, an understanding that many have demonstrated since that they share, not least in the spontaneous celebrations that were immediately held in Cairo, and Riyadh, and Jeddah, and in Ramallah, and Gaza, and Damascus, and Baghdad, and all over the place, where Muslims felt that they had won a victory over those accursed kuffar, those ingrates, those Infidels. And it was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim "trust" or to end Muslim "mistrust" -- I forget which -- so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those "violent extremists" who had "hijacked a great religion," started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did it, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks prompted by Islamic texts and tenets and attitudes on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane's doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is, that ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our cultivated and learned Presidents, who started this "tradition" that has been observed only "sporadically" -- i.e., never -- until George Bush came along, unless we are to count as an "iftar dinner" what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his not-too-honored guest.

Yes, and how splendidly Bush, and now Obama, have proven to Muslims that there are no hard feelings. Do you think the three trillion dollars spent in Iraq and now in Afghanistan (not counting the hundreds of billions that, over time, have gone to Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, even the "Palestinian" territories), have done that? It has all been designed to improve the lot of Muslims on the unproven assumption that this will make them less attentive to the texts, the ideology, of their Total Belief-System, and hence more willing to grandly concede to us Infidels a territory of our own, a place in the sun of our own. Yes, George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of "peace and tolerance." And just to prove it, by golly, he'd put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that's just what he did. And that's how the "tradition" that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, began. It's all of nine years old, through the disastrous presidencies of Bush and now of Obama.

Three Cheers again for ABC World News "Made in America" series.

Last night, Diane Sawyer ran another segment in her "Made in America" series and investigated the source for many campaign products being sold by the Republican presidential candidates. Click the link HERE to see the video. This segment revealed that less than half of the announced candidates were using campaign t-shirts that were "Made in America". Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney were the only two who had shirts that carried the "Made in America" label. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain both used t-shirts Made in Honduras and Ron Paul's were Made in El Salvador. To make matters worse, while Cain and Gingrich claimed ignorance and feigned embarrassment over where their shirts were made, Ron Paul took the opposite approach: “No, I wasn’t aware of it… but I wouldn’t change it. I would argue the case that the market should determine it.”

So it is that Ron Paul sees no difference between American business competing against each other and competing against low income countries that often subsidize manufacturing.  

Free Trade is a great concept to foster competition among American businesses. When a foreign government like China builds entire cities around manufacturing complexes that house the work staff and pays then pennies per hour wages, that is not Free Trade. As far as my Tariff idea (in my previous post) sounding more like the AFL-CIO, as one reader commented, I have nothing against unions and manufacturing that employs union workers. Trade unions have done a great job keeping their skills alive. As far as politics goes, there are Republicans and then there are assholes like Ron Paul who call themselves Republicans. Ron Paul makes me believe he would contract out the defense of our country the same way Wal-Mart and Sears finds suppliers, to the lowest bidder, no matter where they are.

One last comment in this ABC News series mentioned that Barack Hussein Obama's campaign was also selling Made in America t-shirts. Too bad Obama has to hold so many anti-American ideas and thinks so highly of those Islamic countries he has visited. And too bad the rest of the Democratic Party is only in favor of the pro-Democrat unions and has heaped so much Federal aid on the cities that have significant Democrat voters.

I often hold a contemptuous view of the slanted coverage on our mainstream news media but this series on ABC World News deserves heaps of praise. Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

  


 

Cutting Federal waste is long overdue. Here are a few Republican ideas on where to start.

It started with an email I got the other day on a plan by some Republicans to cut Federal waste. I searched for more ideas on the Internet and found these and compiled them from various sources:

3rd CD, Pennsylvania, Republican Mike Kelly’s Top 20 Ways to Cut Spending
http://kelly.house.gov/congressman-kelly%E2%80%99s-top-20-ways-cut-spending

National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257611/highlights-republican-spending-cuts-bill-daniel-foster

Then I added a few more of my own ideas.

• Remove all U.S. Armed Forces from the 38th Parallel  Demilitarized Zone in Korea. We have been keeping 50,000 troops on the DMZ since the end of the Korean War - almost 59 years ago.

• Close all U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and any other predominantly Muslim country in the Middle East.

• Since remaining military bases in "friendly" countries are utilized to protect those countries, we should bill those governments for twice the amount it takes the U.S. government to run them. This is the same way private security firms charge for their services.

• Eliminate all Foreign Aid. You really can't buy your friends.

• Withdraw membership in the United Nations and remove this organization from U.S. soil.

• Increase Tariffs for all imports from countries that do not provide a standard of living for its factory workers equal to our own minimum wage.

• Eliminate the entire Dept. of Education.

• Eliminate the entire Dept. of the Interior.

Here is the big list.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy	$445 million
America 's Treasures Program	$25 million
International Fund for Ireland	$17 million
Legal Services Corporation	$420 million
National Endowment for the Arts	$167.5 million
National Endowment for the Humanities	$167.5 million
Hope VI Program	$250 million
Amtrak Subsidies	$1.565 Billion
Eliminate 68 duplicate education programs H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon	$1.3 Billion
U.S. Trade Development Agency	$55 million
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy	$20 million
Cut in half funds for congressional printing and binding	$47 million
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy	$430,000
Community Development Fund.	$4.5 Billion
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid	$24 million
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half.	$7.5 Billion
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%.	$600 million
Essential Air Service.	$150 million
Technology Innovation Program.	$70 million
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program.	$125 million
Dept of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization.	$530 million
Beach Replenishment.	$95 million
New Starts Transit.	$2 Billion
Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts.	$9 million
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants.	$2.5 Billion
Title X Family Planning.	$318 million
Appalachian Regional Commission.	$76 million
Economic Development Administration.	$293 million
Programs under the National & Community Services Act.	$1.15 Billion
Applied Research at Department of Energy.	$1.27 Billion
Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership.	$200 million
Energy Star Program.	$52 million
Economic Assistance to Egypt .	$250 million
U.S. Agency for International Development.	$1.39 Billion
General Assistance to District of Columbia .	$210 million
Subsidy for Washington Metro Area Transit Authority.	$150 million
Presidential Campaign Fund.	$775 million
No funding for federal office space acquisition.	$864 million
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. (which sets "prevailing wages" for workers on federal projects).	$1 Billion
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget.	$1.8 Billion
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees.	$1 Billion
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees.	$1.2 Billion
Sell excess federal properties the government does not use.	$15 billion
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies.	$1 million
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.	$12.5 million
Eliminate Market Access Program.	$200 million
USDA Sugar Program.	$14 million
Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop. (OECD).	$93 million
Eliminate the National Organic Certif. Cost-Share Program.	$56.2 million
Eliminate funding for Obamacare administrative costs or legal defenses.	$900 million
Ready to Learn TV Program.	$27 million
HUD Ph.D. Program.
Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
Eliminating all remaining "stimulus" funding.	$45 billion
TOTAL SAVINGS:	$2.5 Trillion over ten years

Ambassador Alan Keyes comments on Sen. Mitch McConnell and the debt limit crisis.

Below is an email I received from Ambassador Alan Keyes who has made some sharp comments against Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's proposed handling of our nation's pending debt limit crisis. Let me first state that I have a lot of respect for all of the people mentioned in this message, Barack Hussein Obama excepted, and I have often criticized Senator McConnell for acting more like a RINO than a true Republican. I also have the highest respect for the TEA Party in spite of the fact that today's news says that the TEA Party is rallying around House Speaker John Boehner to support him although Speaker Boehner has been unwilling to use the full power of his office to oppose Obama's Marxist/Socialist plan to bankrupt America. Matter of fact, the vast majority of Republicans seem to be intimidated by the White House and have not yet begun to probe into the secrets Barack Hussein Obama, II has tried so hard to keep hidden. And dare not raise any questions about that fraudulent long form birth certificate that Obama brazenly showed the American public. Any common citizen that did that would be charged with a half dozen felonies.  So, before I get off the subject too much, let Ambassador Alan Keyes explain his concerns in his own words.

HAS MITCH McCONNELL GONE MAD?

AN ALAN KEYES COMMENTARY AND ACTION ALERT

Did Mitch McConnell really propose allowing Obama discretionary authority to raise the debt limit for the remainder of his term? According to an AP story I read Wednesday, that's exactly what he did.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a new plan to allow the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority by the summer of next year in three separate submissions. Those increases in the so-called debt limit would automatically take effect unless both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate enact legislation specifically disapproving it.

Then, Obama would be able to veto such legislation.

In a recent commentary Ann Coulter derides the adverse reaction to this proposal of those she refers to as "some hysterical Republicans." She contends that contrary to their view, "McConnell's bill does not forfeit any of Congress' authority. The House and Senate will still have to decide whether to accept Obama's proposed cuts when they write their appropriations bills."

In the fashion often characteristic of people accustomed to think that humor is a substitute for careful reasoning, Coulter uses name-calling to parry the imagined blow of McConnell's critics. Her aim is to distract readers from the cardboard quality of the argument she uses to shield him from what would otherwise be their common-sense agreement with his critics. Readers unfamiliar with the logic of the Constitution's approach to money issues will doubtless be impressed by her weightless argument's decorative qualities. I am not among them.

Is it just a coincidence that the U.S. House of Representatives currently reflects what appear to be the deep concerns of people at the grass roots, while both the Senate and the presidency appear to be mainly influenced by elitist opinion and priorities? Is it just happenstance that the House more accurately represents grass-roots resentment against fiscal policies that consolidate elitist control of the nation's economic activities and resources? As elitists seek to overturn the constitutional sovereignty of the American people, when Mitch McConnell proposes a procedure that takes the initiative in money matters out of the hands of the U.S. House to place it, however conditionally, in the hands of the executive, is it prudent and sensible to see this de facto amendment of the Constitution exclusively in the context of what appear to be the politics of the moment, as nothing more than a cunning political ploy?

Is this a de facto amendment of the Constitution? The Constitution (Article I, Section 7) provides that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills." Beyond verifying the mere fact that they did so, this citation naturally leads us to think about why the framers singled out money-raising bills in this way. We know from The Federalist and other such writings that they were acquainted with the history and practices characteristic of republics since ancient times. They therefore knew that in dictatorial republics (Corinth and Syracuse when rule by tyrants, Rome during periods of dictatorship), one ruler (literally the monarch) monopolized the prerogative of legislation. The sovereign right to initiate, promulgate and enforce the law was in the hands of the tyrant or dictator.

In republics ruled by the few (oligarchic republics) a relatively small elite group monopolized the prerogative of proposing laws. Some, like Sparta, would allow a somewhat larger group of elite citizens to vote on these proposals, while leaving the multitude of inhabitants with no choice but acquiescence, resistance or rebellion. By contrast, in democratic republics like Athens, the multitude of the citizens directly exercised the sovereign power of legislation, with results prone to be determined by tumultuous passions, manipulated by demagogues ultimately intent on substituting their own tyrannical rule for that of the people.

Because none of these alternatives produces a result both just and stable, the framers of the U.S. Constitution devised a historically original alternative. The scheme of representation (as Madison called it) puts the direct power of legislation in the hands of a few, who are to the people at large what the Spartan citizens were to the mass of Sparta's inhabitants. But unlike the Spartan elite, these few are subject to periodic election by the people, who can by this means pass judgment on the results of their use or abuse of the lawmaking power. Yet again, however, in the composition of the body that exercises the legislative power (the U.S. Congress) this division between the many and the few is reproduced, with the U.S. House of Representatives intended to approximate more directly the views and characteristics of the people in their grass-roots communities.

As I consider McConnell's suggestion, I find myself thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the War Powers Act and the other steps by which the U.S. Congress surrendered its constitutionally mandated initiative in respect of the war-declaring power of the U.S. government. With 20-20 hindsight many today decry the surrender of constitutional prerogative that allowed Obama deceptively to claim the right to involve the U.S. in purely offensive war making in Libya, without congressional approval.

Is McConnell's proposal part of a similar surrender with respect to the money issues? It masquerades as a clever ploy intended to tag Obama with the damaging political consequences of the U.S. government's runaway spending and indebtedness. But it's too clever by half (or is it two-thirds?). McConnell's proposal actually shifts the initiative in money matters away from the body intended to represent people at the grass roots to the executive. The executive gains a free hand so long as he is supported by an override-proof minority of the U.S. Senate (i.e., the one-third that blocks both a veto-override and any Senate decision to remove the president from office after his impeachment by the House.)

Given present circumstances, this shift may appear to be narrowly focused on the supposedly arcane issue of the debt ceiling. (Actually it's no more arcane than a parent's decision to require a limit on any credit he co-signs for college-age children.) But, as I discussed in my column last week, the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment makes it unconstitutional to cast doubt on the lawfully authorized public debt of the United States. Give the executive branch license to contract new debt without explicit congressional action, and you are actually empowering it with a constitutional argument that forces the Congress to approve the new expenditures required to service that new debt.

But this borrowed money is acquired subject to the terms of a contract with the creditor (China for example), rather than to any bill approved by the U.S. Congress. With no need for prior congressional approval, what will prevent the executive from using borrowed funds to finance whatever schemes and projects he (or the foreign powers backing him?) likes, while claiming that the language of the 14th Amendment constitutionally requires the Congress to appropriate the funds needed to deal with the consequences? McConnell's proposal thus opens the way to a regime of executive prerogative that would turn congressional action into a mere rubber stamp of executive decisions, much as the Roman Senate became the rubber stamp lickspittle of the Roman emperors and their cohorts.

If the GOP really wants to force Obama's hand, they should simply propose legislation, based on the 14th Amendment language (authorized by law), that requires the executive to give first priority in expenditures to servicing the debt, including veteran's pensions and the Social Security system's paid-for retirement and survivor benefits. This would assure respect for the Constitution and for the promises the nation has made to its defenders and working people, while forestalling Obama's abusive efforts to intimidate America's seniors.

As for McConnell's shift of power to Obama, this is the way the republic ends. This is the way tyrannical empire rises. The Republican Party makes a show of caring about the U.S. Constitution. Do the actions of leaders like McConnell prove that it is all a sham; or do they simply prove that the GOP's leadership lacks the competence to understand and defend what they profess to revere? Either way, what sense does it make to pretend that a party subject to such leadership offers an alternative that will save the American republic? Whether from treacherous malice or tragic incompetence, they simply hasten its demise.

Tell Congress STOP SPENDING! – NO DEBT CEILING RAISE! – CUT THE CARDS!

Please DONATE NOW!
Keep Faith,

Ambassador Alan Keyes
www.AmericansUnitedForFreedom.org

Who has done a better job protecting the environment.

I love the emails my friends send me. Some of them are very much on target when it comes to pointing out modern day fallacies. Especially the differences between our younger and older generations. Take this one from a friend in California that compares how well our older generation used to protect our environment to what our young adults are doing.

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. 

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today.  Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over.  So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind.  We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes.  Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana .

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.  We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. 

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.  And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

The Green Thing

  

2000 year old scripture confirms what every conservative has always known.

So much wisdom in so few words. This is the best email I’ve received in several weeks. Read the enlightening words of wisdom in this little message today.

“I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left." But then I read this verse in Ecclesiastes 10:2 in the Bible:

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”

Could it be that the Holy Bible written almost 2000 years ago was able to explain today’s greatest political dilemma? In addition to the opinions of some Psychiatrists that Liberals all suffer from a mental disease, now we have the Holy Scripture adding a more authoritative source.

This was too good to pass up so I looked it up on Google and found these on a web site called Biblos. http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/10-2.htm

New International Version (©1984)
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

New Living Translation (©2007)
A wise person chooses the right road; a fool takes the wrong one.

English Standard Version (©2001)
A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A wise person's heart leads the right way. The heart of a fool leads the wrong way.

King James Bible
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

American King James Version
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

American Standard Version
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Bible in Basic English
The heart of the wise man goes in the right direction; but the heart of a foolish man in the wrong.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The heart of a wise man is in his right hand, and the heart of a fool is in his left hand.

Darby Bible Translation
The heart of a wise man is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

English Revised Version
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Webster's Bible Translation
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left.

World English Bible
A wise man's heart is at his right hand, but a fool's heart at his left.

Young's Literal Translation
The heart of the wise is at his right hand, And the heart of a fool at his left.

Then I discovered some people had already discovered this truth and produced some great looking t-shirts to carry the message. This is a free plug for RightWingStuff.com

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff.129342432

"A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left." Great message, great truth, pass it on.

 

Bombs beneath the Burqa. Why the Burqa should be outlawed in America.

This excellent repost from the Australian web site Winds of Jihad only left out one more illegal use of Burqas: Male perverts gaining entrance into women's public lavatories. And let's not forget that the Hamas terrorist funding group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wants airport TSA screeners to keep hands off anyone wearing this Islamic bag that completely hides the wearer's identity. But that would be politically incorrect to suggest otherwise. Maybe we should think twice before making fun of the French. They have already passed such a ban.

Under the Burqa

by sheikyermami on July 7, 2011

Terrorists in Drag: Bombs Beneath the Burqa
Frontpage/by Phyllis Chesler


There they all stand, guilty as sin, Afghan Taliban terrorists disguised in women’s burqas—but exposed when they were captured by the Afghan Border Police. Their photo (or rather photos) were taken by an Afghan photographer somewhere near Jalalabad and have just been seen worldwide.



One of these charmers was wearing an explosive vest; six had AK-47s. Clearly they were up to no good. One wonders how long they will remain in jail and what they will do when they emerge.

These photographs conclusively validate the concern that Dr. Daniel Pipes has had about the security risk that burqas represent. For the last six years, Dr. Pipes has been detailing the number of common criminals and Islamist terrorists who have robbed jewelry stories and peeped into women’s bathrooms while wearing burqas, or who have blown themselves and others up from under the protective cover of a mere woman’s shroud.

In December, 2009, a suicide bomber dressed in a full veil and abaya gained access to a ceremony attended by Somali government officials in Mogadishu and killed 19 people, including three cabinet ministers. In February, 2010, a female suicide bomber killed 54 Shia pilgrims in Baghdad. She was dressed in an abaya, which police said allowed her to hide an explosive device. In December, 2010 in Pakistan, a woman wearing a burqa threw a grenade and detonated an explosive vest at a U.N. security checkpoint, killing 41 people.

This is not just happening in Muslim-majority countries or in war zones.

In August, 2010, a man wearing a burqa robbed a bank in Silver Spring, Maryland. In January, 2011, a man wearing niqab (a face veil) attempted to rob a bank in Philadelphia. Three years earlier, also in Philadelphia, three men dressed as Muslim women stuck up a Bank of America branch. One of the men shot and killed a police officer during their getaway.

Why are burqas allowed in public? Or rather, why don’t we view them as potentially suspicious as opposed to a religious custom which we infidels are obligated to honor and revere?

For reasons of safety, the West, and for that matter the entire Muslim world, should immediately ban the burqa as a security risk.

Continue reading page: 1 2 (source)

 

Jury finds the state of Florida failed to prove its case against Casey Anthony. Wasn't she supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" anyway?

There is a lesson we should all learn from the recent acquittal of Casey Anthony. The lesson is about the law and how it is more important than public opinion. None of us would ever want to be falsely accused of a crime and then subjected to a public opinion poll to decide our guilt or innocence.

A long time ago I learned how our great nation was so different from any other in the world. I learned about the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. I learned that our Founding Fathers held such contempt for the word Democracy that it was not used once in the Declaration of Independence or in the United States Constitution. What separates a Democracy from a Republic stems from the root meanings of these two words. Democracy comes from the Greek words “dêmos” which means “people” and “kratos” which means “power” and while some define the term as “Majority Rule” it is commonly seen as “mob rule”. On the other hand, the word Republic has its origin in two Latin words, “res” and “publica” and I was taught this means “the public thing” or “the law”.

How this affects us today can be seen right on our televisions when opinion polls are used to determine if someone is guilty or innocent. And at the same time we only hear the parts of the story someone wants us to hear, we all manage to form our opinions on it, incomplete as they may be. While we might all have differing opinions on any matter I strongly believe that none of us want to be part of a lynch mob that storms the local jail, drags out the accused and hangs them from a tree all because someone got our blood boiling with emotional rhetoric. Every mob has a few outspoken leaders that churn up the emotions of the people and on television we have Nancy Grace on CNN. Take the recent trial of Casey Anthony that has captured the attention of the world, and the “shocking” verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Associated Press has a story today that brings out that Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, averages 1.5 million viewers a night and gained 49,000 new fans on her Facebook page since she started covering the Casey Anthony trial. AP says "Nancy Grace began covering the story in 2008 as a missing persons case and has made little secret of her belief in Casey Anthony's guilt." But the best quote from the AP story was “Michelle Zierler, director of the Project in Law and Journalism at the New York University School of Law, said she had essentially been convinced that Anthony was guilty from watching coverage of the trial. The jurors, however, weren't exposed to this coverage.” (emphasis mine)

The most chilling words I ever heard in a courtroom was during the jury selection process when a prospective juror said, "Anyone arrested by the police has got to be guilty." That is the same bias heard today on the media channels that sensationalized the Casey Anthony trial. I wonder how many future prospective jurors will be affected by this? I wonder how many self-righteous people will sit on a jury and feel that cops don't make mistakes. After all, the CSI-type television dramas tell us how perfect they are. There were very few commentators that mentioned during or after this trial that our basic principle of American Justice says: We are all presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Weren’t we also taught once that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than to convict one who is innocent? I am not saying that Casey Anthony is guilty or innocent but that she was presumed to be innocent until the state of Florida proved its case against her and the jury decided that the state failed to do so.

  

The last word on the Delta Air Lines smear.

 

This was published yesterday on WorldNet Daily News in the Letter to the Editor section. A little after the fact, but better than nothing. As I have said before, the most valuable asset conservatives have is their credibility and they must protect it at all costs. If you don't verify your facts you run the risk of spreading false rumors and then no one will believe what you have to say.

---

---

Friday July 01, 2011

---

WND: Pot calling the kettle black

---

Your story "WND sues Esquire for faked report" contains the following statement, which I happen to agree is entirely true:

"You can't just make up words and put them in people's mouths, deliberately misleading the public, deliberately defaming others and deliberately lying to inhibit commerce," Farah said.

How, then, can WND make up words when describing the actions of other companies? Your lead story on Delta Airlines, titled "Delta adopts Saudi 'no-Jew' fly policy," is as phony and misleading as the story in Esquire because Delta has no flights to Saudi Arabia and has said they have no intention of having any flights there, and they do not codeshare with any airline that does. So how could they possibly adopt such a policy?

What WND did in the story on Delta is exactly the same as what Esquire did to you. You deliberately misled the public and deliberately lied to inhibit commerce.

The facts are that the traveling public is required to obtain their own visas if it is required to enter a foreign country. Every airline is required to ask for proof that the passenger has a visa before allowing the passenger to board the flight. If the passenger did not obtained a required visa then they will not be allowed on the flight, but the airline doesn't know the reason why the passenger hasn't got one.

Nelson Abdullah