THE TEA PARTY IS HERE TO STAY

In elementary school, our teacher screened a little known Cary Grant film "The Howards of Virginia". Now you might ask, why would a teacher be showing a Cary Grant film during school hours? Well, we were studying American Colonialism (you know, Obama's favorite 'hate America' topic), back in the day when American History was still taught in schools with great detail. It was a film [and subject] I never forgot, and still hold near to my heart today.

It’s about the events leading up to the Revolutionary War, encompassing the early career of Thomas Jefferson. The film pays meticulous attention to detail, and tells the story about pioneers who paved the way for the riches we enjoy today, through hard backbreaking work, untold sacrifices, pain & suffering, and the joy of success.

Juxtapose that with what we have today - - a nation almost 50% dependent on entitlements, most of whom do nothing for it. It’s not surprising that Obama and his ilk want to terminate our Senior citizens, because we know history, and the importance of hard work, charity, capitalism, and above all – freedom.

Is it any wonder why so many of us have gotten our second wind, and mustered up the strength & confidence to get out there and save our great country for our children and our children’s children. Long live the Tea Party and the spirit which drives this great force.

One of our biggest supporters, The Heritage Foundation writes an excellent piece about the Tea Party, what happens when a country is dependent on Big Government, why the Tea Party has grown by leaps and bounds, and why it’s here to stay. God bless Heritage for keeping us so well informed and strong enough to fight Goliath. Consider becoming a member and sign up for their Morning Bell. Check out the link to Jim DeMint's great piece about us in POLITICO.

The Tea Party Is Here to Stay
The Heritage Foundation - October 14, 2010

Today, The Heritage Foundation released its 2010 Index of Dependence on Government. This annual report tracks the growth of dependence-creating federal programs, programs that crowd-out what was once America's great civil society. At one time, social obligations and services were carried out by community groups, family networks and even local governments. Now, an ever growing and ever more unaccountable federal bureaucracy undermines our spirit of self-reliance and self-improvement by making more and more Americans dependent on Big Government. In 2010, we witnessed a record-breaking surge in American dependence on the federal government including:

Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 per person today (adjusted for inflation).

132.5 million Americans either pay no income tax or live in a household that pays no income tax. This is up from just 34.8 million in 1984.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up 41% of all non-interest federal program spending. Unchecked, this will grow to 62% over the next decade.

Not all dependence is bad. As Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis director Bill Beach writes: "People spend most of their childhoods utterly dependent on their parents, and many people will rely on caregivers during their last years. Dependence on family, neighbors, fellow members of community groups, and—yes—local government is the normal, everyday stuff of life." But dependence on the federal government is categorically different. Federal government aid does not strengthen communities and families: just look at how the federal welfare system undermined family structures and hollowed-out communities for a generation.

Worse, federal government programs quickly become a drain on the vitality of the nation. Jonathan Rauch explains in his book, "Government's End": "By definition, the power of government to solve problems comes from its ability to reassign resources, whether by taxing, spending, regulating, or simply passing laws. But that very ability energizes countless investors and entrepreneurs and ordinary Americans to go digging for gold by lobbying government. In time, a whole industry - large sophisticated, professional, and to a considerable extent self-serving - emerges and then assumes a life of its own. This industry is a drain on the productive economy, and there appears to be no natural limit to its growth."

But there is still hope for our country: the Tea Party. Decentralized and skeptical of central authority, the Tea Party offers baffled politicians and lobbyists no one to co-opt. Sally Oljar of Tea Party Patriots recently told Rauch: "Our real mission is education and providing resources to grassroots activists who want to return the country to our founding principles. We recognize that's going to require a cultural change that will take many years to accomplish."

The Heritage Foundation fully supports their endeavors and believes the Tea Party movement is here to stay. Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) write in today's Politico:

Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics. ... [T]he tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.
...
Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people. On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

As The Daily Caller notes today: "The Heritage Foundation think-tank has made it clear: they may be an established conservative organization, but they’re with the Tea Party activists who’ve risen up to protest Washington’s old ways." The only way for us to end the era of big government dependency is to fight against it together. As Ed Feulner would say: "Onward!"

Take the Heritage Foundation with you here

AN OBSERVATION

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

REMEMBERING THE PROVIDENTIAL GIFT OF AMERICA

As we begin to welcome a new year, with new hope for the future, we also reflect on our lives -- how far we have come, how we survived the year gone by, how to prepare for the next, and the many things for which we are grateful.

When in doubt, lately I get strength in reflecting on our past, and the strength it took our Founding Fathers to fight on, in the darkest of times. What these men and women went through to get us where we are today, can only be imagined, and I thank God every day for their spirit and supreme sacrifice. They have given us a new nation, with new principles - a truly unique gift, a constitutional government. We cannot let them down.

The Heritage Foundation writes a beautiful Christmas piece:


Remembering the Providential Gift of America
December 25, 2009

Christmas, 1776.

Summer had begun with strong declarations of noble ideals, but by winter the cause of liberty seemed to be at low ebb. Having suffered defeat after defeat, many had all but given up hope. It looked like freedom would succumb yet again, as it had throughout history, to the forces of authoritarianism and tyranny.

Then, on Christmas Day, 1776, a small band of colonial forces under the command of Gen. George Washington, having retreated all the way from New York, again crossed the Delaware River and brought battle at Trenton, New Jersey. Washington not only won the battle but regained the initiative and turned the war in the patriots’ favor. One week later, Washington defeated the British at Princeton and forced the enemy to withdraw, preventing its advance on Philadelphia, seat of the Continental Congress.

When it announced itself to the world in 1776, the United States of America was little more than an alliance of 13 small colonies on a barren continent, thousands of miles from their ancestral homeland, surrounded by hostile powers.

Now, well over two centuries after winning independence from the British Empire, America is the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Along the way it established sovereign nationhood, settled a continent and more and brought unprecedented prosperity to its citizens. It survived a devastating Civil War that threatened its very life, abolished slavery and raised up the emancipated to be citizens equal to their one-time masters. It triumphed in two world wars fought on foreign soil and a decades-long struggle against worldwide communism that, 20 years ago, led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union.

What accounts for this monumental success?

The founding of the United States was indeed revolutionary. But not in the sense of replacing one set of rulers with another, or overthrowing the institutions of society. John Adams queried:

“What do we mean by the American Revolution? The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people. . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Our revolution was about the ideas upon which a new nation was to be established. Permanent truths “applicable to all men and all times,” as Abraham Lincoln later said, proclaimed that principle rather than will would be the ultimate ground of government.

What is truly revolutionary about America is that, for the first time in history, these universal ideas became the foundation of a system of government and its political culture. Because of these principles, rather than despite them, the American Revolution culminated not in tyranny but a constitutional government that has long endured.

To this day, 233 years after Washington and his men crossed the Delaware, these principles–proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the Constitution–still define us as a nation and inspire us as a people. These principles are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other. They are the highest achievements of our tradition, a beacon to those who strive for freedom but also a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere. Because of these principles, not despite them, America achieved greatness.

The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson later recorded, was “neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, [but] was intended to be an expression of the American mind.”

As Americans, our aim must be a clear expression and forthright defense of the nation’s principles in the public square so that they become, once again, an expression of the American mind. Despite constant scorn by academic elites, political leaders and the popular media, most Americans still believe in the uniqueness of this country and respect the Founders’ noble ideas. They may fail a test of particulars – quick: when did Washington cross the Delaware? – but they overwhelmingly want to know about this nation and its meaning.

We must give voice to all those who have not given up on their country’s experiment in self-government, have not concluded the cause of liberty and limited constitutional government is lost and have not accepted America’s decline as inevitable.

The goal must be to restore the liberating principles of the American Founding as the defining public philosophy of our nation. As it was for most of American history, so it can be again.

The joy of this wonderful season is about new beginnings and the eternal promise of redemption. We Americans have the immeasurable benefit, the providential gift, of having inherited a great country.

We must never forget its confidence, optimism and promise, its endless capacity for renewal, are contained in our dedication to the enduring principles of liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator.

May you and yours have a merry and blessed Christmas.

A LETTER TO OBAMA FROM AN AMERICAN VET

This is a moving letter from an American Vet, and is worth sharing. Hat tip to Earl B of The Conservation Underground, who mentioned the validity is still to be determined but the point is still clear.

This letter is profound, when you consider how many lives have been sacrificed in American history to keep our country free, and help allow the same freedom for others, most of them strangers.

Attention Patriots. Get out that hankie.

A LETTER TO OBAMA FROM AN AMERICAN VET
This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

MAKE MINE FREEDOM (1948)

An excellent animation about how wonderful our country is, and how fragile. This creator had a wisdom back in 1948 that we desperately need some 60 plus years later.

"This is one of a series of films produced by the Extension Department of Harding College to create a deeper understanding of what has America the finest place in the world to live."

ELECTION '09: CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN !

Considering the odds, conservatives can hold their head high. Doug Hoffman came out of no where, with less than a month to let himself be known, and came admirably close to victory. Had Scozzafava acted like an adult, instead of licking her wounds, he would be the new congressman that Republicans desperately need in Congress.

America definitely let the world know that our heritage is alive and well, and the 2008 election was an ephemeron. People who got caught up in the hoopla, do not like the direction this man is taking our country. History has shown that America is a center right country -- freedom was hard fought, it's in our blood, and we are not going to succumb to tyranny.

An excellent piece by the ever brilliant Ann Coulter from World Net Daily:


Election '09: Change I can believe in!
by Ann Coulter, November 4, 2009

• MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:

"In (McDonnell's master's thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.

"Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell."

• MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:
"And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.

"Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."

On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent – winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office.

Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.

To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.

And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey – a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago – lost by 5 points.

At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn't even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)

The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who – once again – produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.

The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar "date night" with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.

Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done."

Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.

That is why Corzine's defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.

The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he'll be able to see a doctor right away.

The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats – you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!

Far from an upset, the Democrats' winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That's why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh's seat would be easy pickings.

Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise – an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against "mainstream" Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated "Republican" candidate in the special election.

This is preposterous – there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.

Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race – which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros' Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.

Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.

Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: "I dare Blanche Lincoln – I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."

While I'm sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher's threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George-Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.

Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights – such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq – but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.

By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years.

Get Ann's new book "GUILTY: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America" here.

OBAMANOIA

Americans have been ignoring the sovereignty of their country for the last 50 years, at least. It took the threat of fascism, Obama, and the loss of their country to wake them up, hopefully not too late and hopefully enough Americans. Long may she wave......

If we stay educated and informed [this piece is one], we can save her and bring back our freedom of speech, our schools, and our jobs. Where have they gone? Victor Davis Hanson pours out his heart in this fabulous piece in PajamasMedia:


Obamanoia
by Victor Davis Hanson, October 21, 2009

Little Hope, Less Change

Consider: The 120,000 troops in “the surge is not working” Iraq are now complaining of ennui —while the White House is paralyzed over whether to send more troops to the new escalating front in Afghanistan. How odd the present perceptions: Bush’s bad optional war became good in the public mind, and Obama’s necessary good war became bad. (Careful study of the history of both countries, the existing challenges, and the topography might have suggested to candidate Obama to be careful about demonizing the surge while chest-thumping a war he never wished to finish. Did Obama really think he would be elected, hailed as the anti-war laureate, simply summon home the troops from the “quagmire” in Iraq, and then fly over to Kabul to do a Victory Column speech?).

The Russian gambit failed; Putin humiliated the Eastern Europeans and then rubbed it in by lecturing us about “hands off Iran.” The July threat to Iran of comply—or “face consequences” by September—morphed into September’s comply—or “face consequences by the October head-to-head meetings—which, in turn, morphed into October’s comply—or some day soon face consequences.

Sorta, Kinda, Maybe Diplomacy

Soon we will get everything on the official transcripts and websites scrubbed down to read: Guantanamo really will close on March 1, 2010; Iran must comply this time by June 1, 2010; all combat brigades will be out by March 2008, 2009, 2010; health care must pass by August, September, October, November.

Oil is climbing back over $80 a barrel; the dollar is falling against the Euro to 1.50. The annual deficit is already over $1.6 trillion and may go well over that. The tab for health care will hit right under $1 trillion. Unemployment may be headed over 10%. The people who voted for Obama were mad over Bush’s bailouts, unemployment, deficits, and supposed divisiveness. And?

They got greater bailouts, higher unemployment, larger deficits, and Chicago politics.

Please, please

Right now to save America we need some steady leadership that reassures businesses of lower taxes, less government spending, no new regulations, educational reform to improve the work force, and confident expansionary energy exploration and development. Instead, we get a prescription to terrify private enterprise: Mr. President, every time you besmirch someone as greedy, lying, and unduly rich, some business, somewhere, pulls in its horns.

Uncertainty Everywhere

Full recovery is uncertain, given (1) oil prices have been low and are now climbing, boosting the import tab higher and higher (what happened to candidate Obama’s promises of more drilling?); (2) interest rates are historically low, meaning the price of servicing the mega-deficits hasn’t hit yet; but they too will climb, further taxing the hocus-pocus borrowing; (3) so far higher taxes are just talk; but soon the income rates will climb at a time when many of the states have already increased their sales and income rates. Remember the promised end to the FICA caps on higher incomes; note the promised health care surcharge taxes. And keep in mind that 55% of those in the cross-hairs who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

And You Get in Return?

I believe that even the soon-to-be murderously taxed upper brackets would patriotically hand over their money to a grasping government—IF it went to debt reduction.

But it won’t. Far worse. Millions will work from January to September to pay for Acorn-like subsidies, more NEA politicized grants, nationalized health care, canceling mortgage, credit card, and student loan debt of those who may well have been less than careful with their expenditures. In short, consider: the more you will be taxed, the more you will be demonized as deserving it, the more your money will be wasted, the more your country will borrow, the greater you country will become the world’s laughing stock debtor.

And that depressing fact is beginning to infuriate millions. If Obama needs a mop to clean up after Bush, someone will need a fleet of street sweepers for his financial detritus.

So I expect Obama’s ratings to dip well below 50%, and that will be something to fear, given his unfamiliarity with the notion that over 1 out 2 Americans thinks he is failing.

But imagine that you are a small business owner, and just consider—why expand now or rehire? since (a) I have no idea what the new taxes will be; (b) I have no idea about what all these new regulations, cap and trade, card check; etc will cost me; (c) I am beginning to think all this trash talk about bad doctors, insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce, CEOs, the wealthy, etc. suggests this administration does not like me or what I do; (d) the government is everywhere: Ford now must compete against Government Motors; Banks against government-affiliated Citibank; Blue Cross against the public option; and so on. If I have a business, somewhere down the line there is going to be a government-run rival, sort of like your local can’t go broke PBS station in every avenue of commerce. Why insist on ensuring hustling employees when the rival, overpaid DMV-like work force can’t go broke whatever they do?

Meanwhile…

YouTube videos play 24/7 of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn—now that Van Jones yielded center stage—either idolizing the greatest mass murderer in civilization’s history or boasting about how Team Obama took the obsequious media to the cleaners. Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod—apparently worried that the public thinks this two-headed Cerebus is too nice and meek—swarm the talk shows to blame Fox News. That’s the equivalent of a Bush around 2007 whining about MSNBC not being a news organization and the meanness of a Chris Matthews is hurting the war in Iraq. Sending creepy people out to say creepy things does not make sense, when a hit network loves showing Americans how these creepy people say creepy things.

And the Problem?

Obama’s agenda polls less than 50% on almost every element. What keeps him viable is that the public still likes him and his family personally, and takes him at his unity/no blue state-no red state/can’t we all get along? 2008 rhetoric.

Don’t they get the obvious: In reaction to that Olympian, above-the-fray brand, what does Obama do? He sends out two of the most unlikable, mean-spirited attack hounds to go after a news organization in Nixonian fashion, which only erodes the precious image of a kinder, gentler Obama—right now the administration’s only asset.

One almost gets the feeling that Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, the Huffington Post, etc. are all not quite enough to balance right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

The problem is that (1) it is always harder to defend a president than criticize him (as the liberals can attest from their 8 years of demonizing Bush); (2) those in the right-wing media are more populist and grass-roots than those in the staid left-wing elite media establishment. So Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck can caricature Obama far more effectively than can a Rachel Madow or Brian Williams bow to him; (3) the traditional left’s homage to dissent, protest, free-wheeling media outbursts, demonstrations, and over-the-top commentary is now, to use a Nixon term, “inoperative.”

Somehow we went from revolutionary fervor to the boring Ministry of Truth in nine months.

Personally I found the left far more interesting when they were suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome than Obamophilia.

Bottom Line: Code Pink and Moveon.org have been Gergenized.

BOSTON GLOBE COLUMNIST IS RIGHT: AMERICA SUCKS

If we don't get on the "apology tour" bandwagon, are we unAmerican? What makes America so exceptional? If history is not taught in schools, America's exceptionalism will soon be forgotten, and that's a bad thing, because our exceptionalism is real, which is why we are a target.

No one wants to topple the lower on the totem pole -- where's the fun in that? Pam Meister writes an excellent tongue-in-cheek in PajamasMedia:


Boston Globe Columnist Is Right: America Sucks
How dare we hold our heads higher than anyone else?
by Pam Meister, October 17, 2009

Writing for the Boston Globe, Neal Gabler recently stated: “The hoariest and most oft-repeated cliché in American politics may be that America is the greatest country in the world. Every politician, Democrat and Republican, seems duty bound to pander to this idea of American exceptionalism, and woe unto him who hints otherwise.”

Gabler reminds us that, far from being exceptional, America is quite mediocre, as we rank low in education (the teachers’ unions have nothing to do with it, I’m sure) and health care (we’re dying in the streets!), and are behind other nations when it comes to median income (gasp!). And when it comes to national pride, it’s okay as long as we keep things in perspective: “The point is that just about every country has a lot to be proud of, and America has no more right to assume it is the greatest nation in the world than does France, Switzerland, China, or Russia.” He’s right. How dare we hold our heads higher than anyone else?

You know, I’d better show his article to my neighbor, Marcio. See, Marcio came here from Brazil and not only went from working as a sandwich maker in a deli to owning his own painting business with his father-in-law, but is working toward citizenship. I wouldn’t want him to take the oath of citizenship without knowing what he’s getting into.

Gabler makes me wish that Paul Revere had decided to stay in bed that night instead of warning his fellow citizens that the British were coming, that Betsy Ross had told George Washington she was too busy working on a quilt to sew the first flag, and that the Minutemen had put away their dangerous muskets (you’ll put your eye out, kid!) and just stood by as the redcoats swept through Boston and Massachusetts on their way to an easy victory. Think of all the heartache that would have saved! No “Stars and Stripes Forever,” no ugly American syndrome, no McDonald’s, no Coca-Cola, no GI Joe. Slavery? That would have been the UK’s problem, not America’s.

Perhaps we could have eventually ended up as part of Canada, and then we wouldn’t have to worry about people dying in the streets for lack of health care or not having enough maple syrup for their pancakes and waffles. Inexpensive maple syrup ought to be a constitutional right, don’t you think? I’m tired of paying six to eight bucks for a measly 12 ounces. Speaking of ounces, we wouldn’t have to be embarrassed because we haven’t joined the rest of the world in using the metric system. Heck, we wouldn’t have to be embarrassed about anything because we wouldn’t be Americans; we’d be Canadians. What could be finer?

There would have been no World War I — oh wait, Canada did get involved to support Britain, so as Canadians we would have been involved too. But we wouldn’t have been involved in World War II — oops, forgot, Canadians were a part of that fracas too. Never mind. But just imagine what the world would have been like without America to put her nose in everyone else’s business. Perhaps all the Jews in Europe would have perished under Hitler. Hooray! Perhaps Japan would not be the peaceful, productive nation it is today but would be ruling the Pacific with an iron fist. Awesome! But there I go again, suggesting that America might have had some kind of hand in the outcome of World War II, meaning that America has some reason to be proud of herself. Old habits die hard. But don’t worry, I’m learning.

I was a bit puzzled when I read Gabler’s byline: “Neal Gabler is the author, most recently, of Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.” But then I realized he probably had nothing to do with the book title or the byline; those details tend to be handled by editors. If he could have, Gabler probably would have named the book Walt Disney: The Raping of American Indian Native American Resources or Walt Disney: A Creepy Talking Mouse Dumbs Down International Culture. Book titles aside, he probably also suggested the following for his byline: “Neal Gabler is currently packing his bags to move to the island paradise of Cuba.”

That’s another plus! Poor Cuba wouldn’t have to endure American sanctions, which would allow communism on that island to reach its true potential. You do know, of course, that if it weren’t for American economic sanctions, Cuba would be one of the grandest and richest nations in the world. And poor Elián Gonzales wouldn’t have had to be traumatized by the Clinton administration’s decision to rip him from his relatives’ home in Miami and send him back to Cuba because his mother probably wouldn’t have tried to come here in the first place. Why would she? We’re no better than anyone else.

Gabler also says, “There is something bizarre about a country whose leaders have to constantly toady to their constituents and in which any criticism is tantamount to a lack of patriotism, but that describes America today. Every politician feels compelled to ape Jimmy Carter’s old words to the point where our alleged greatness has also become our national mantra.”

Fortunately we no longer have to worry about this terrible, embarrassing “we’re number one!” syndrome. Barack Obama is in the White House and instead of toadying to his constituents, he’s toadying to the UN, Russia, Iran, North Korea, the Olympic Committee, and anyone else who will accept his generous serving of humble pie. That bow to the king of Saudi Arabia was something, wasn’t it? While voters in Europe are beginning to reject liberalism and once again look to conservatism (well, conservative for Europe), Obama is herding America toward the left side of the aisle, toward the socialism that Europeans are discovering — after many decades — doesn’t work as well as they thought it did. Obama wants to strip us of all nuclear weapons because if we don’t have any, no one else will find it necessary to have any because, as we all know, America is the cause of international grief. If we pose no threat, all will be well in the rest of the world and sparkly unicorns and sweet gumdrops will be the order of the day. And he wants to put government at the center of our lives because nameless, faceless bureaucrats know better how I should live my life than I do.

So, Mr. Gabler, thank you for reminding me that America is not all that. The “nation without humility” that is “spoiling for calamity” is in for a huge dose of humility with Barack Obama at the helm. We should all be eternally grateful.

Oh, here’s my new byline: “Pam Meister agrees that being an American means she’s no better than anyone else — in fact, she’s probably worse.”


Pam Meister is the editor for Family Security Matters and a contributor to Big Hollywood. Her work can also be seen at American Thinker. The views expressed here are her own.

THE ROOTS OF THE OBAMAS' CONTEMPT

From the very first time I focused my attention on Barack Hussein Obama, which was about July 2008, there was an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach. Following my Mother's constant advice, I went with my gut instincts, which have been proven spot on time after time since he took office. I think the statement he made in his July 2nd "public service" address sealed it for me.

"We cannot continue to rely only 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."

That lump jumped from my stomach to my throat. America is in some dark days ahead, as free market and free enterprise are on the decline, along with free speech, and anyone or anything in support of these freedoms are demonized. This piece in PajamasMedia is also spot on:


The Roots of the Obamas’ Contempt
Barack and Michelle Obama are bound together in their conviction that certain fundamental American values are wrong and need "change."
by AWR Hawkins, October 13, 2009

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made it obvious that he wanted to fundamentally “change” America. It was equally clear that his wife Michelle supported him in this endeavor. She did so time and again in 2008 by giving speeches critical of the country as it existed prior to Obama’s presidential run. What wasn’t as evident, until Obama secured the presidency, was why this was so; why were he and Michelle so ardent in their belief that America needed “change” to begin with?

The answer is that Barack and Michelle harbor great contempt for this country and flaunt it so brazenly that they appear to be bound together by it.

Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh picked up on this contempt quicker than most, and even before last year’s election was settled, he warned that Obama’s America would be one where wealth (which is power) would be taken from those who have and given to those whom Obama believes ought to have instead. Limbaugh’s criticism was more than validated by Obama’s campaign promise to implement new taxes on all incomes over $250,000 per year in an attempt to “spread the wealth.”

By early summer 2009, Limbaugh claimed that Obama was “closing out the American dream.” Again, this criticism was well founded, since by June Obama had nationalized the American automobile industry, passed a $700 billion stimulus package, pushed cap and trade through the House, and was going full steam ahead on universal health care. In light of Obama’s unmitigated war on the private sector, Limbaugh poignantly added: “If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they’d better hurry because Obama is beating them to it.”

We have to understand that Obama “looks at this country as an obstacle, … [and as a] country [that] was immoral and unjust before he was elected.” We also have to recognize that this is the same view of the country Michelle holds, as was made evident in her now-infamous announcement that she was proud of her country “for the first time in [her] adult life” once her husband closed in on the Democratic Party nomination.

Simply put, Michelle shares Barack’s conviction that many facets of America were wrong prior to his ascension to high office. In this way, the president and first lady are united in contempt for the United States.

Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen explains Obama’s mindset this way:

He’s possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world and should be prevented from doing such things ever again.

This belief in the “terrible things” America has done led to Obama’s international apology tour and his quasi-sycophantic Muslim outreach earlier this year. Both these things were direct outgrowths of Obama’s contempt for this country, or what Ledeen refers to as a “hatred of freedom.”

Even more to the point, Ledeen surmises that Obama “rather likes tyrants and dislikes America.” And who could argue? We’ve seen Obama’s fondness for tyrants firsthand through his support of Manuel Zelaya instead of the freedom-starved citizens of Honduras, his adoration for Hugo Chavez, and the fact that he’s trying to “[ease] up on the Castro regime [diplomatically]” without also demanding that Castro give at least a little in return (like allowing “free elections in Cuba”).

Again, it’s hard to think about Obama’s “hatred of freedom” or his low view of common men without thinking of Michelle’s opposition to freedom and her elitist outlook on people as well. Who can forget her words to working-class women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the 2008 campaign, where she urged them to forgo a pursuit of financially rewarding careers and choose instead to give themselves to community work? What was she doing if not asking them to forgo the freedom and opportunity available to them in this nation and pursue instead a plebeian’s life?

Ultimately, like her husband, Michelle has a contemptuous view of freedom and the people it could benefit most because she wants to be the center of the universe. She is a member of the ruling class who can’t go without reminding us commoners of the sacrifices she makes for our benefit. We must remember to bow when she passes by.


AWR Hawkins is a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.

WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE

Hundreds of pieces have been written ad nauseam about the now devalued Nobel Peace Prize, but none so brilliantly dissected as this one, written by Dennis Prager. He has taken the Oslo Committee's nine reasons and translated them into a realistic look at how Europe sees Americanism - quite sad, but true nonetheless.

Dennis Prager writes:


Why President Obama Was Awarded the Nobel Prize
by Dennis Prager, October 14, 2009

The Nobel Peace Prize, already devalued, has sunk to a new low. This assessment has nothing to do with one’s estimation of this year’s recipient, President Barack Obama. Most of those on the left, with a few predictable exceptions such as the New York Times, regard giving the president the award as belittling him and the prize.

How did this happen? What was the Oslo Committee’s motive?

They may be moral idiots, but they are not stupid: I believe that they had two clear aims.

One is to undercut American exceptionalism — the notion that America has a superior moral value system to that of the “world” (specifically the United Nations and the European Union) and America’s willing to use its unique power, alone when necessary, in accordance with that value system. The other is to promote an essentially pacifist agenda.

Here is the entire announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize committee:

1. “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Meaning: No more Lone Ranger America.

2. “The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Meaning: The Nobel Committee wants no country to possess nuclear weapons. That an American president shares this dream and is working to achieve it excites the Nobel Committee — and the world’s left generally — beyond words.

Meaning: The Nobel Committee wants no country to possess nuclear weapons. That an American president shares this dream and is working to achieve it excites the Nobel Committee — and the world’s left generally — beyond words.

Many people around the world — not just Americans — would characterize a world in which America and all other decent countries had no nuclear weapons not as a dream, but as a nightmare. But for the naive left-wing (a redundant phrase: If one is not naive about evil, one is not on the left) members of the Nobel Committee, the prospect of encouraging an American president to dismantle his country’s nuclear arsenal was too tempting to allow to pass — even at the price of appearing foolish.

3. “Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”

Meaning: To the international left, as embodied by the five members of the Nobel Prize Committee, the United Nations is the beacon of hope for mankind.

To many Americans and others, however, the United Nations is regarded as a moral wasteland that rewards some of world’s cruelest regimes with seats on its Human Rights Committee, does nothing to prevent genocides (some would way say the U.N. actually abets them), honoring tyrants, and mired in corruption.

4. “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”

Meaning: As the pacifist bumper sticker puts it: “War is not the answer.”

Oslo’s approach echoes what the British government under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed vis a vis Adolf Hitler.

But had Hitler been confronted instead of “dialogued” with, perhaps tens of millions of innocent men and women’s lives would have been spared and the Holocaust averted. Europeans tend to believe that evil regimes will act responsibly because of dialogue, not threats of force.

5. “The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.”

Meaning: We believe that a world in which no country possesses nuclear weapons will be a safer world. We believe that even though the technology to make nuclear weapons will still exist, no terrorist organization, nor any other bad people, will make such weapons.

The existence and deterrent power of nuclear weapons have probably saved as many lives as have antibiotics. As David Von Drehle writes in this week’s Time Magazine, “If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb.”

6. “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”

Meaning: To our delight, unlike the previous president, this one believes in global warming and in changing the American economy to combat it.

The “climate change” scare has become the most effective vehicle for compelling a transformation of Western economies along the lines that left-wing environmentalists have urged for decades.

7. “Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

This, unfortunately, has no meaning; it is nonsense. Under Barack Obama, the United States has not been the friend of democrats around the world. America has responded weakly to the democratic movement in Iran, ended the funding of the largest pro-Iranian human rights groups in America, pressured democratic Israel, made overtures to Hugo Chavez while denying American ally and pro-democratic Colombia a free trade agreement, abandoned Honduran anti-Chavez democrats, and has obsequiously deferred to Vladimir Putin.

8. “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Meaning: Only very rarely does the European left have such a kindred spirit in the American presidency.

9. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

Meaning: With Barack Obama, we in Europe finally have an opportunity to end American exceptionalism.

The Oslo committee’s view is, tragically, true. Thanks to Barack Obama, America is for the first time is aligning its values with those of “the majority of the world’s population.” If you think the world’s population has had better values than America, that it has made societies that are more open, free, and tolerant than American society, and that it has fought for others’ liberty more than America has, you should be delighted.

AMERICANISM AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

A couple of items crossed my plate worth showcasing.  Since most of us know Obama doesn't have an original bone in his body, take a peek at this 1934 Chicago Tribune political cartoon:

(click to enlarge - hat tip Geoatbeck)

We are not only going down the same road as the road FDR chose, it goes even farther back -- The Roman Empire. Unlike the students of today, our Founding Fathers knew their history, and also unlike the spoiled youth of today, our Founding Fathers lived it.

This knowledge created one of the greatest works in history, and, like the Roman Empire, the power hungry politicians are chipping away at the edges. Unless America wakes up and gets engaged, we will lose our liberty, our republic, and our freedom, and thousands of people will have lost their lives in eventual defeat.

Once the Romans dropped their guard, power-seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted to them, and eventually learned they could elect politicians to use government power to take property from some and gave it to others. They even set up housing and welfare programs.  All of this leading to an oligarchy -- a tyranny of the elite. Sound familiar?

No wonder they don't want to teach history in schools.

"The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government." Here is a short video on Americanism and the American system -- The American form of government: (h/t Mom Dianne)

Watch here

HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING HOW ARROGANT WE ARE?

How many Americans are sick to death of hearing how arrogant we are? How dismissive we are? How divisive we are? America is NONE of those things, but our president is.  Want proof? Take a look at these glorious pictures.

I'm proud of America, and will be glad when we have a President again that is also proud.

During Obama's trip to Europe , he stated that "we are an arrogant country".

In alphabetical order - Just Europe

1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 of our military dead.
We Apologize.

2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329 of our dead.

3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410 of our military dead.

4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.

5. Cambridge, England. 3812 of our military dead.

6. Epinal, France American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead.

7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military.

8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402 of our military dead.

9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992 of our military dead.

10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.

11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076 of our military dead.

12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.

13.. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301 of our military dead.

14. Normandy, France. A total of 9387 of our military dead.

15. Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6012 of our military dead.

16. Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.

17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861 of our military dead.

18. Somme, France. A total of 1844 of our military dead.

(no image)

19 St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4153 of our military dead.

20. Suresnes, France. A total of 1541 of our military dead.

 

IF I ADDED CORRECTLY THE COUNT IS 104,366.

Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.

As Americans, let's all look forward to the next elections - to find a President who doesn't think we need to be ashamed.

May God have mercy on us until this tragically inept presidential term is over!

Help bring back God to our nation, and God bless America.