Kagan Must Recuse Herself

Give Thanks for American Exceptionalism

The Pew Research Center

has provided some timely food for thought as we enter our traditional holiday season.



According to a new report comparing attitudes in Europe and America, only 49 percent of Americans now feel that American culture is superior to others. This is down from 60 percent in 2002.


For those that may find this troubling, there is more reason for concern in that only 37 percent of young Americans, ages 18- 29, say American culture is superior.

What the study does not examine is what we mean by culture.

I happened to hear a discussion on one of the cable shows about this report, and the discussants were bewailing the prevalence of reality shows, Kim Kardashian, and Facebook.

But I think this is a misreading of culture. Culture is about the prevailing core attitudes of a society. And, when we look further into this same study, we find that American attitudes are distinctly different from their European counterparts and that these attitudes very much reflect what is uniquely American.

For instance, 58 percent of Americans feel that individual freedom is more important than government “guarantees that nobody is in need.” Only 36 percent of French and 36 percent of Germans feel this way.

Only 36 percent of Americans agree that success is largely determined by “forces outside our control.” But 72 percent of Germans and 57 percent of French agree with this.

And 50 percent of Americans believe religion is very important in contrast to 21 percent in Germany and 13 percent in France.

Americans are distinct from Europeans in our beliefs in the importance of individual freedom, of personal responsibility, and religious faith.

Can it be an accident that these values that are so prevalent in American culture today are in line with the principles stated in the nation’s founding document 235 years ago? That our Creator endowed us with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and “That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men.”

Distinctly American is our credo, but also that being American is defined by free choice and a set of principles rather than blind circumstance of geography or genetics.

But to point to the fact that American culture is distinct does not necessarily prove that it is better.

Is it?

Considering economic performance, there is little comparison between our nation and Europe. Per capita GDP of the US, the economic output per each individual in the country, is $47,200 in the US compared to $32,700 in Europe.

The average per capita GDP in the European Union is less than that of America’s poorest state, Mississippi ($32,764).

One hint that there might be something special going on here is that our problem seems to be limiting the number of people that want to come in, rather than preventing people from escaping.

According to the State Department, more than 5 million people are now waiting to immigrate to the United States in various family and employment categories.

Although American attitudes are distinct, they are changing and trending in the direction of Europe. So, if you think this is a problem, and I do, there is reason for concern.

I consider my own experiences and know that nowhere else in the world could I live the life I have been living.

Where else could a young black mother on welfare conclude she was on the wrong path, walk away from it, get her degree, build a business and a non-profit organization that includes on its board of advisors a former US Senator and Attorney General of the United States and a former Counselor to the President of the United States and US Attorney General?

My work is inspired by my conviction that America is truly exceptional and I pray every day that we do not lose our way.
Star Parker; Townhall.com - 11/28/2011

Dump The EPA

Like a bad lover, the EPA is a nagging, beguiling mooch. The EPA unconstitutionally barged into our lives and we need to break free from this destructive relationship; let’s give the EPA a two-letter title beginning with ‘E’ and ending with ‘X.’

President Nixon formed a group called the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization to help him sidestep Congress and mold public policy. On April 29, 1970, the Council wrote a memo advising Nixon to establish: “an Environmental Protection Administration, a new independent agency of the Executive Branch. … [and the] Executive Branch should be so structured that a high order of public interest is served in making policy, rather than a narrower advocacy position.”

Four decades later, the EPA has grown into the President’s pet behemoth—a darling dragon he can fly to over Congress and blow fire onto America’s energy producers and job creators.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently told University of Wisconsin-Madison students that she is proud to work for a President who will bypass Congress and create his own rules via executive order: ‘I’m proud to be part of an EPA that has mobilized science and the law to create modern and innovative protections for the health of the American people. I’m also proud to be working for a president who has said that “we can’t wait” on these issues.’

Jackson may think our President is a king. Yet the Constitution prohibits the President from making laws or delegating lawmaking to an extra-Congressional committee. Federalist and framer Alexander Hamilton explains in “The Federalist No. 78” that Congress controls the purse strings and makes laws while the president merely enforces the laws: “The Executive ... holds the sword of the community.”

I’m sure Alexander Hamilton would slap the President’s hand if he caught him in the cookie jar—seizing taxpayer dollars from the federal purse to sustain an extra-Congressional, policy-making agency like the EPA.

We already have Congress to make laws; we don’t need the EPA. “It has long been clear to me that elected representatives should write the rules, not the EPA,” Sen. Lindsey Graham has said.

The EPA’s regulations are so burdensome, sweeping and impractical that it’s nearly impossible for energy companies to comply without going out of business. Hence, businesspeople in the energy industry increasingly find themselves facing enormous fines and even criminal allegations.

In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” a state scientist quips: “Did you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. … We’re after power and we mean it. … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.”

Case in point: The April 20, 2010 BP oil rig explosion off the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people and caused oil to seep uncontrollably for 87 days. When this fatal environmental accident occurred on the EPA’s watch, the EPA’s regulators and enforcement partners within the Interior Department blamed the oil industry instead of owning up to their incompetence and deceit.

The Federal Government has charged BP as a “responsible party” in the spill and BP has set up a $20 billion fund to compensate victims. The Justice Department is also leading a criminal investigation into the spill.

Certainly BP’s laxity played a role in the accident. However, BP relied on government regulators and engineers who approved the use of a seal that had far too much cement and indeed reports now show that the excessive cement triggered the fatal explosion.

The government approved the faulty seal and granted BP a "categorical exemption" from performing an environmental impact analysis on its Gulf of Mexico lease less than two weeks before the spill. Who are the “criminals” here? BP executives or the environmental regulators who governed BP?

Per a 2007 Supreme Court Decision, the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases—only if scientific data shows that greenhouse gases endanger public health.

But in September, the Associated Press revealed an internal government watchdog report: “The Obama administration cut corners…” because the EPA issued “controversial and expensive regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time” despite the fact that the EPA did not conduct sufficient scientific studies to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions do in fact “pose dangers to human health and welfare.”

Today, tens of thousands of oil jobs (and therefore the public health) are in jeopardy because President Obama is citing faulty EPA data on greenhouse emissions to delay building the Keystone XL pipeline.

The EPA claims to be “working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.” Instead, the EPA places the environment and public health in jeopardy. Let’s dump the EPA. Katie Kieffer; Townhall.com 11/28/2011

Media Bias goes On and On

I swear ... the phony mainstream
media is more frustrating for me

than the phony politicians
on either side of this
never-ending political nightmare.



On The Same Day CNN Puts Bachmann Through The Wringer,
They Puff Up The Liberal Wing's GOP Favorite: Huntsman

Was Brooke Baldwin's kid-glove treatment of candidate Jon Huntsman a harbinger of things to come in CNN's Tuesday night debate? The CNN host tossed the liberal media's favorite GOP candidate softball after softball in a Tuesday afternoon interview – while conservative candidate Michele Bachmann was asked Tuesday morning if she regretted running for president. In an cushy interview during the 3 p.m. hour of Newsroom, Baldwin heaped praise on the Republican who supports same-sex civil unions and who ripped conservatives as "anti-science" for not believing in global warming. The CNN host fawned over Huntsman's "lovely" daughters and slobbered that "you seem pretty unflappable, and if I may, governor, downright nice."

If I had closed my eyes, I could have sworn Obama was the one being interviewed, rather than Huntsman.



CNN to Bachmann:
"Do You Regret Following God's 'Edict' to Run for President?"

CNN's Carol Costello asked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Tuesday if she "regretted" following God's "edict" to run for President. In an interview around the top of the 8 a.m. hour of American Morning, Costello had mentioned that Bachmann, in her new memoir "Core of Conviction," wrote that she had prayed to discern God's will before choosing to run for President. "So I just wanted to ask you if you regretted following that edict," Costello pressed the candidate.

These people are a pathetic excuse for journalists, news reporters, or editorial reporters ... or whatever else they call themselves these days.
I think I am going to throw up.

Who Won the GOP Debate?

Explaining Super Committee Failure

After weeks of negotiations the great Congressional Super Committee that was supposed to come up with budget cuts at or above $1.2 trillion over a ten year period has resulted in a much
predicted Super Failure!




I suppose you could say:

"since not much was expected ... so not much was delivered."

Given the deep ideological divides between Senate Democrats and Republicans this situation was all to easy to predict. Now, because the Super Commitee couldn't come up with their own budget cut agreements the automatic cuts previously agreed on in the debt deal are set to take effect – in 2013 – which is after the elections! From The Blaze:


Congress’ Super Committee conceded ignominious defeat Monday in its quest to conquer a government debt that stands at a staggering $15 trillion, unable to overcome deep and enduring political divisions over taxes and spending.

President Barack Obama held a press conference at 5:45 p.m. Monday to discuss the committee’s impotence, and threatened that he will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts that would take effect in 2013 if Congress can’t find other ways of trimming government deficits:

Those spending cuts include significant reductions to the Pentagon that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said would be devastating to the military…

Based on accounts provided by officials familiar with the talks, it appeared that weeks of private negotiations did nothing to alter a fundamental divide between the two political parties. Before and during the talks, Democrats said they would agree to significant savings from benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security only if Republicans would agree to a hefty dose of higher taxes, including cancellation of Bush-era cuts at upper-income brackets. In contrast, The GOP side said spending, not revenue, was the cause of the government’s chronic budget deficits, and insisted that the tax cuts approved in the previous decade all be made permanent…

Negotiations in the Capitol led by Vice President Joseph Biden were followed by an extraordinary round of White House talks in which Obama and House Speaker John Boehner sought a sweeping compromise to cut trillions from future deficits. They outlined a potential accord that would make far-reaching changes in Medicare and other programs, while generating up to $800 billion in higher revenue through an overhaul of the tax code. But in the end, they failed to agree.

By contrast, the Super Committee never came close, instead swapping increasingly small-bore offers that the other side swiftly rejected.

Within the past week, Democrats said they would accept a Republican framework for $400 billion in higher tax revenue and $800 billion or so in spending cuts, while rejecting numerous key proposals.

Late last week, Boehner floated an offer that included $543 billion in spending cuts, fees and other non-tax revenue, as well as $3 billion in tax revenue from closing a special tax break for corporate purchases of private jets. It also assumed $98 billion in reduced interest costs.

It was swiftly rejected.

As an added note the U.S. debt has now surpassed $15 Trillion. That is $15,000,000,000,000. As long as every America pays up $48,000 we can pay it all off! Grab your checkbook! Liberty Juice 11/23/2011

Sad to say it but our government is clearly dissfunctional.

The Great Charade

Why did Paul Ryan decline when asked to serve on the supposed "Super Committee"?

Well, obviously he saw the committee exactly for what it was: more political games with the lives of the American people.

And Congressman Ryan refused to play the game ...


Failure or Success?

Many people are lamenting the failure of the Congressional "Super Committee" to come up with an agreement on ways to reduce the runaway federal deficits. But you cannot judge success or failure without knowing what the goal was.

If you think the goal was to solve the country's fiscal crisis, then obviously the Super Committee was a complete failure. But, if you think the goal was to improve the chances of the Obama administration being re-elected in 2012, it was a complete success.

Imagine that there had been no Super Committee in the first place. Who would be blamed for the country's fiscal crisis? The overwhelmingly Democratic Congress that voted to spend the money which increased the deficits more during the Obama administration than in the eight years of George W. Bush.

When the Obama administration's massive spending spree was going on, Republicans were so hopelessly outnumbered in both houses of Congress that nothing that the Congressional Republicans could say or do would have the slightest effect.

Even the cleverest political spin-master would have a hard time trying to keep blame from falling on the Obama administration, without the later shift of attention to the debt crisis.

Two things got the blame shifted. The first was the national debt ceiling, which had to be raised, if politicians were not going to be forced to either cut existing programs or shut down the government -- neither of which was politically attractive.

By the time a vote on raising the national debt ceiling was required, Republicans had gotten control of the House of Representatives. This meant that the national debt issue was now a bipartisan issue, whereas the spending that drove the national debt up to that national debt ceiling had been a problem strictly for the Democrats.

Splitting the blame with the Republicans for what Democrats alone had done was a political victory, in terms of making the Obama administration less vulnerable at the polls in 2012.

With the help of the media, the big issue was no longer the big spending that drove the national debt up to the legal ceiling, but the failure of the Republicans to help solve the debt ceiling crisis.

Many people lamented the failure of President Obama to become engaged in the process of working out a solution to the fiscal crisis, and regarded that as a failing. But, again, success or failure depends on what goal you are trying to achieve.

If the goal was to reach a bipartisan solution to the country's fiscal crisis, then the president's involvement might have increased the chances of doing that. But, if the goal was to outsource the blame, then the president's fading away into the background was the perfect political ploy.

Appointing a bipartisan Super Committee with dramatic powers, and apparently dramatic consequences if they failed to reach agreement, created another long distraction in the media that took the president further out of the picture. When it came to media coverage of the country's financial crisis, it was almost a question of "Barack Who?"

The draconian spending cuts that were supposed to hang over the heads of the members of the Super Committee, like a sword of Damocles, turned out to be a cardboard sword when the inevitable failure to reach an agreement occurred.

A new Congress meets before these draconian cuts are supposed to happen -- and no Congress can be forced to do anything by a previous Congress. So all this turned out to be a grand charade -- and politicians are great at charades.

This one was a complete political success, because we are now talking about who is to blame for not coming up with a way of solving the fiscal crisis, rather than who did the runaway spending that caused that crisis in the first place.

An even longer-running charade is the budget-cutting charade, where big spenders promise to make spending cuts to match tax increases -- or even to exceed tax increases. Of course the tax increases come first and the spending cuts are spread out into the future -- and usually end up not taking place at all.

This particular charade could be ended by making the spending cuts take place first. But that would spoil the political game.
Failure or Success by Dr. Thomas Sowell 11/23/2011

What Will We Do?

Far left Media turns on Obama

There was a time when Chris Matthews said that ... "Obama sent a thrill up my leg.”

Has the thrill in his leg
morphed into a dull pain?

No ... No ... No


In reality, this is MSM playing the fair and balanced game ...
but only for a quick moment!

Here is more. enjoy it while it lasts.
This will most likely be the last time you will hear any of this.


“What are we trying to do in this administration?
Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us?
What’s he going to do in the second term?
More of this? Is this it?"

"IS THIS AS GOOD AS IT GETS?"

"Where are we going?
Are we going to do something the second term?
He has yet to tell us."

WHAT WILL WE DO AND SAY NOW?

COME ON, MR PRESIDENT HELP US OUT HERE ...
CAN'T YOU SEE ... WE'RE LOST bw

"He has not said one thing about what he would do in the second term.
He never tells us what he is going to do with reforming our healthcare systems, Medicare, Medicaid, how is going to reform Social Security.
Is he going to deal with long-term debt? How?
Is he going to reform the tax system? How?"

"JUST TELL US!"

"Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, Commander, give us our orders and tell us where we’re going, give us the mission.
And he hasn’t done it."

WHAT WILL WE DO ... WHAT WILL WE DO?

"And I think it’s the people around him, too many people around, they’re little kids with propellers on their heads. They’re all virtual. Politics, this social networking, I get these e-mails, you probably get them. I’m tired of getting them. Stop giving them to me. I want to meet people. Their idea of running a campaign is a virtual universe of sending e-mails around to people."

"No it’s not. It’s meetings with people, it’s forging alliances. It’s White House meetings and dinner parties that go on till midnight, and he should be sitting late at night now with senators and members of Congress and governors working together on how they‘re going to win this political fight that’s coming."

"I don‘t have a sense that he’s ever had a meeting.

I hear stories that you will not believe.”


Bob's question: "MSM ... Why aren't you telling us these: "stories we will not believe"? Oh, that's right, I almost forgot, you are on Obama's re-election team. Now I get.


This isn’t the first time that Matthews took some swipes at Obama, but does that mean that the liberal commentator on the network that Newt Gingrich accurately labeled “The Obama’s Re-Election Team.” Don’t count on it!

Matthews does raise some good questions in his short rant. Primarily he points out that Obama does not outline specifically what he is going to do. Had Matthews not been drooling so much over Obama during the last presidential campaign season he would have realized that Obama has not changed at all since then. He has never stood for anything more than vague, but flashy campaign rhetoric. Obama didn’t have a plan to solve America’s numerous problems then and he certainly doesn’t have a plan to solve them now.

Just because Matthews is voicing his complaints about Obama’s absent leadership does not mean that you will see honest, well-balanced reporting from him when the general election kicks into full gear. He may be upset, but Matthews is still a liberal. If he values his job at MSNBC, and we know he does, he will tow the Obama/liberal line as happily as can be. After all, Matthews isn’t necessarily upset with Obama’s performance. He said that he is just waiting for Obama to “give us our orders.” Once King Obama knows who his Republican challenger will be Matthews will get his orders and he will be sent off to accomplish the mission – to re-elect Obama! Thankfully his network’s audience is limited to those that shoot the loony-liberal kool-aid as fast as it can be poured so his impact is minimal.
Liberty Juice 11/21/2011

Barry's Kids Occupy

There’s big news breaking simultaneously in the world of entertainment and in the not-so-different world of politics.

Jerry Lewis is coming out of retirement.

And he’s doing it just in time for the first annual Occupy Wall Street Labor Day Telethon. The telethon is being held for disillusioned youths who voted for Barack Obama only to have their hopes and dreams dashed by hopelessness and an undersupply of change – particularly change in the national rate of unemployment.

For Barracks Kids, also known as Barry’s Kids, Jerry Lewis has said he’ll be coming out of retirement only temporarily. “I want to support America’s newest cause, Occupiers, Barrack’s Kids, Barry’s Kids, or whatever you want to call them. They are all helpless and all they suffer from the same horrible symptoms,” said the 85 year old entertainer. “I want to educate the public and raise both awareness and money for this chronically helpless and handicapped generation of college graduates.”

Newly Enlightened Widespread Militant Dissatisfaction, or New MD, is relatively unknown to most of the general public. However, those stricken with it can be identified by several common characteristics:

Chronic joblessness. This is often due to personal hygiene issues. Unfortunately, once it sets in, a vicious cycle tends to break out. Bad hygiene hurts job prospects. Then unemployment impedes the ability of New MD sufferers to purchase products that might tend to improve personal hygiene.

Chronic confusion. Just one example: Many New MD sufferers are able to articulate a shared belief that debt should be banned. Yet they are incapable of explaining how poor people would get loans to purchase homes and automobiles and how this would reduce, and not exacerbate inequality.

Blurred vision. At first, this was thought to be caused by the overwhelming tendency to focus on other people’s possessions. Now, there is some consensus that it stems from excessive texting and preoccupation with playing video games – also known as chronic v-idiocy. Most protestors – despite their claimed distain for corporations – regularly use the Ipad2 and other compatible Apple products. Because they often do this after smoking copious amounts of marijuana, which increases squinting, their vision is eventually impaired.

Memory loss. Put simply, Barry’s Kids have forgotten that they live in the greatest nation on earth. Who else would host the first annual Occupy Wall Street Labor Day Telethon but public TV? It’s all in line with their philosophy: What’s yours is theirs and what’s theirs is theirs. But somehow they’ve forgotten that they would not have public TV without the generosity of the American taxpayer.



The first annual Occupy Wall Street Labor Day Telethon Special will feature an all-star cast – the kind only Jerry Lewis could assemble. Unlike the good old days, there will be no special appearances by Sammy Davis, Jr. and Dean Martin. But Operation Christmas Child will be diverting gift shoe boxes from children in poverty-stricken Africa in order to provide for shoeless Barry’s Kids living in public parks all across our great nation.



Fundraising events will include a marathon for Occupy Wall Streeters only. It’s unlikely the Occupiers will actually run. In all likelihood, they’ll be expecting someone else to run for them. A benefit concert is also planned. It will have headliners like Lionel Richie’s step cousin Jerome, Milli Vanilli, and Stryper with background vocals by Nancy Pelosi. Lyrics are already in the works for a Barry’s Kids theme song "Don't stand so close to me (Really, you haven't bathed in 3 weeks!).”

Eventually, there will be a cure for New MD, which is afflicting literally thousands of recent college graduates who voted for Barack Obama. But hope is on the way for Barry’s kids. They can rest assured that a cure is being sought by people who are much more intelligent, productive, and grateful than they are.

In the meantime, it is important for parents to prevent their kids from ever being afflicted with New MD. The best thing they can do is to challenge them intellectually by keeping them out of the public schools. Then, if they go to college, they can ban them from majoring in useless disciplines like sociology or anything ending with the word “studies.”

A mind really is a terrible thing to waste. That’s especially true if you’re a white kid with a worthless degree, a mountain of debt, and a false sense of moral superiority. By Mike Adams

What Is a Progressive?

Woodrow Wilson, our first Ph.D. in the White House, made clear his complete rejection of the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and classical liberalism in his books and other writings.

As Ronald Pestritto notes, liberty in Wilson's view was "not found in freedom from state actions but instead in one’s obedience to the laws of the state."


The primary domestic objective of progressives was to create in peacetime what Wilson had accomplished during war.

They were able to do so a little more than a decade later. Franklin Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy under Wilson, and when he led Democrats back to the White House in 1932 he brought with him an army of intellectuals and bureaucrats who shared the Progressive-Era vision. Indeed, most of the "alphabet soup" of agencies set up during the Great Depression were continuations of various boards and committees set up during WWI.

At that time it was commonplace for intellectuals on the left to be enamored of Lenin’s communist regime in Russia. And almost everyone who was enamored of Lenin was also an admirer of Mussolini’s fascist government in Italy. For example, General Hugh "Iron Pants" Johnson, who ran Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA) kept a picture of Mussolini hanging on his wall. The admiration was often mutual. Some writers for publications in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy wrote of their fascination with Roosevelt’s New Deal. As Goldberg explains:

The reason so many progressives were intrigued by both Mussolini’s and Lenin’s "experiments" is simple: they saw their reflection in the European looking glass. Philosophically, organizationally, and politically the progressives were as close to authentic, homegrown fascists as any movement America has ever produced. [They were] militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of Darwinian eugenics, [and] enamored of the Bismarckian welfare state.

The progressives saw the state as properly involved in almost every aspect of social life. Herbert Croly envisioned a government that would even regulate who could marry and procreate. In this respect, he reflected the almost universal belief of progressives in eugenics. These days, there is a tendency to think that interest in racial purity began and ended in Hitler’s Germany. In fact, virtually all intellectuals on the left in the early 20th century believed in state involvement in promoting a better gene pool. These included H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (founders of Fabian Socialism), Harold Laski (the most respected British political scientist of the 20th century) and John Maynard Keynes (the most famous economist of the 20th century). Pro-eugenics articles routinely appearedin the left-wing New Statesman, the Manchester Guardian and in the United States in the New Republic.

One of the ugliest stains on American public policy during the 20th century was the internment of 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II by the Roosevelt Administration. Another stain is the resegregation of the White House under Wilson. Bruce Bartlett argues that these acts were consistent with the personal racial views of the presidents and that the Democratic party has a long history of racial bias it would like to forget.

The worst excesses on the right in the 20th century are usually associated with Senator Joe McCarthy; the hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), including pressuring Hollywood actors to reveal their political activities and name the identities of their colleagues; and domestic surveillance of political enemies.

Yet all of these activities have roots in the Progressive Era as well. Joe McCarthy started his political life as a Democrat (and later switched to be a Republican) in Wisconsin — the most pro-progressive state in the union. As Goldberg observes, "Red baiting, witch hunts, censorship and the like were a tradition in good standing among Wisconsin progressives and populists." The HUAC was founded by another progressive Democrat, Samuel Dickstein, to investigate German sympathizers. During the "Brown scare" of the 1940s, radio journalist Walter Winchell read the names of isolationists on the radio, calling them "Americans we can do without."

Civilian surveillance under American presidents in the modern era (for example under Republican Richard Nixon and under Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) are extensions of what went on earlier in the century. However, modern surveillance does not begin to compare in magnitude to what went on during the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies.

Bottom line: the next time you hear someone call himself a "progressive," ask him if he knows the historical meaning of that term.
What is a progressive by John C. Goodman Townhall 11/19/2011

America's Time For Decision

“Each man is questioned by life;
and he can only answer to life
by answering for his own life;
to life he can only respond
by being responsible.” ...

"Responsibleness is the key to freedom" ... Dr. Viktor Frankl




America's Time For Decision and Definition
By Star Parker

The Wall Street Journal calls the economic implosion now taking place in Europe “a crisis of the welfare state.”

The latest European nation to hit the wall is Italy, where national debt is 120 percent of GDP. That is, for every dollar their national economy produces, they owe $1.20.

The Journal calls this a crisis of the welfare state because this Italian national debt well in excess of the ability of Italians to pay for these obligations is the direct result of excessive government spending.

When the Republican presidential candidates were asked in the most recent debate if the United States should help bail out these bankrupt European nations, the consensus response was “no.”

This, I believe, is the correct answer for two very basic reasons.

First, the way to deal with irresponsible behavior is not to find new ways to finance it but to demand responsible behavior.

And second, we are on the same path here and we need to wake up.

Over the last five short years, our national debt as a percentage of our GDP has doubled to about 70 percent, where it stands today.

Projections show that, continuing on the path that we’re currently on, in a little over ten years, our national debt as a percentage of our total economic output will be exactly where Italy is today.

We’ve simply got to change and the big question is if we’re up to the task.

This is really the central issue of our time and what will define the 2012 presidential election.

We’ve got one view of the world in which government takes on a life of its own and takes responsibility for the care and feeding of the nation’s citizens. This is the European view, shared by our current president and Democrat leaders.

The alternative view is that freedom and responsibility begins with individuals. Free and autonomous citizens direct their own lives, create wealth and employment, and finance government to provide protection, domestically and internationally.

The machinations going on now with the so-called congressional “Supercommittee” are essentially a coming attraction – a sneak preview if you prefer – of next year’s election.

These 12 members of Congress – 6 from the Senate and 6 from the House – are charged with coming up with a plan for $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23. If they don’t, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts will be triggered, divided between defense and domestic spending.

Let’s recall that this is the result of Republicans earlier this year refusing to automatically sign off on an increase in the authorized debt ceiling for the nation.

Runaway spending and debt does not seem to faze Democrats. It is Republicans – specifically the young Tea Party Republicans in the House - who drew a line in the sand and why we’re being forced to deal with this issue.

Now, not surprisingly, the “Supercommittee” is at an impasse. Democrats want to raise taxes. Republicans want to cut spending.

The nation as a whole is becoming increasingly and more deeply divided, with Democrats moving further to the left and Republicans moving further to the right.

“Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.” ...
"Responsibleness is the key to freedom" -- Dr. Viktor Frankl


Some would have us believe that compromise is what has always defined our political process. But compromise works only between parties that are essentially on the same page to begin with.

When what we’re dealing with are fundamentally, irreconcilably different views of the world, resolution is what is needed, not compromise.

This is a time for decision and definition. Not a time for splitting the baby.

Are we going to continue in the direction of materialism and bureaucracy and share the fate of Europe?

Or will we make the tough decisions to get back on the path of prosperity, the path of faith and individual freedom?

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

Supreme Court To Rule On Obamacare

The long-awaited Supreme Court showdown over the Obama administration's health care overhaul formally began Monday as the justices agreed to consider a high profile challenge to the law.




The court, in a short written order, agreed to hear a challenge brought by a group of Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs.

The case raises several issues, but chief among them is this: Did Congress exceed its constitutional powers when it required most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty?

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March, with a decision expected by the end of June. That timeline means the court will rule on President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement during the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether the law's individual insurance mandate is constitutional. The Justice Department, which is defending the law, and several challengers all filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

The challengers, who view the insurance requirement as an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberty, argue that Congress cannot use its interstate commerce powers to regulate citizens who choose not to participate in the health insurance market.

The Obama administration argues the insurance mandate is a valid way to address a national crisis in which the uninsured impose huge costs on the US health care system. It also says the provision is an essential part of the law's insurance reforms, which require insurers to accept all prospective customers, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions.

In the event the justices strike down the individual mandate, the court also agreed to rule on whether the rest of the health care overhaul can remain intact. The law's challengers are seeking to void the entire law, while the Obama administration argues that most of the law's provisions are not connected to the mandate and should remain in place even if the insurance requirement is invalidated.

Many of the law's provisions, including state-based exchanges where consumers could comparison-shop for coverage, are scheduled to take effect in 2014.

The Supreme Court also agreed to consider a procedural question that could preclude it from issuing a major constitutional ruling: Do the insurance mandate penalties amount to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before? If the answer is yes, then courts would not have legal jurisdiction to consider such challenges until individuals start paying penalties after the mandate goes into effect in 2014.

Nearly all courts that considered the matter have decided that the challenges can proceed now. But a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., reached a contrary conclusion in September.

In addition to insurance mandate issues, the Supreme Court said it would consider the state challengers' legal attack against the health care law's expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to low-income Americans. Lower courts ruled for the Obama administration on this issue.

Only the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down the insurance mandate as unconstitutional, ruling that Congress could not command that individuals purchase insurance products.

Three other appeals courts have ruled for the Obama administration, which scored a notable victory just last week when a leading conservative judge, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that court's opinion upholding the law. The ruling served as a reminder that the outcome of the case may not fall strictly along ideological lines.

Conservative justices hold a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, and their views will be crucial.

Media Bias Update

HERE WE GO AGAIN ...

The MSM doesn't even attempt to hide their blatant bias to anything liberal or that supports their views.





Media Bias Gone Wild


1. Networks Curb Cain Obsession as They Pounce on Rick Perry's Forgetfulness After 117 stories over ten days, what would it take for the big three networks to ease up on their unending obsession with the Herman Cain sexual harassment story? The opportunity to go after another Republican, this time Rick Perry. From Wednesday night's evening newscasts through the Thursday morning shows, there were only two Cain stories (bringing the total to 119). Good Morning America, CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today all pounced on Perry's debate performance and an inability to remember a government agency that he wished to eliminate. The three morning shows only offered brief passing mentions to the Cain scandal. Instead, co-host Ann Curry pressed Perry, "Have you thought about ending your campaign? Are you staying in this race, sir?"

2. NBC's Curry Tries to Bury Perry: 'Have You Thought About Ending Your Campaign?' Interviewing Texas Governor Rick Perry on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry asked the Republican presidential candidate about a flub in Wednesday's CNBC debate and wondered: "One of your fundraisers told The Wall Street Journal, simply, 'He just ended his campaign.' Have you thought about ending your campaign? Are you staying in this race, sir?" On CNN's American Morning, Christine Romans struck a similar tone with Perry: "How is this not the end? Convince us that this is not the end of your – of your candidacy....across the board you're hearing folks say that this was one of the worst, if not the worst, debate moment, those 54 seconds, you know, in modern primary history."

3. Piers Morgan Kisses Up to White House: Obama Has 'Extraordinary' Demeanor. In a Wednesday interview with the White House communications director, CNN's Piers Morgan gushed over President Obama's "extraordinary" demeanor and praised Obama as "confident" and "assured." Morgan slobbered to Dan Pfeiffer, "Does he [Obama] know something we don't? Or is he just quite cool under pressure?"

4. Newt Mocks Bartiromo's 'Funny' Defense of the Liberal Media During Wednesday night's presidential debate, Newt Gingrich could barely restrain his amusement as co-moderator Maria Bartiromo defended the liberal media's reporting of the economy. Bartiromo took umbrage after Gingrich's asserted, "What is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history." The CNBC journalist responded by huffing, "I'm sorry, but what is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy?" An incredulous Gingrich mocked, "I love humor disguised as a question. That's terrific."

What will they do?

This is the Liberals Worst Nightmare ...

What will Obama do ...
when his base turns aganst him?
1. Here is a registered Democrat
2. A Black American
3. A Woman
4. Exposing Obama's false promises
5. A Proud Tea Party member from Harlem

On Hating America

A recent Superman comic book
has the hero saying:


"I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship"
because "truth, justice,
and the American way ...

it's just not enough anymore."





This is pathetic!

The constant brainwashing with this one world belief system is relentless, and it has permeated our culture ... even in supposedly kid-safe entertainment such as Superman comic books.


Though not addressing Superman's statement, Stanford University professor and Hoover Institution senior fellow William Damon explains how such a vision could emerge today but not yesteryear.


The explanation is found in his article "American Amnesia," in Defining Ideas (7/1/2011), based upon his most recent book, "Failing Liberty 101: How We Are Leaving Young Americans Unprepared for Citizenship in a Free Society."


The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that only 1 in 4 high-school seniors scored at least "proficient" in knowledge of U.S. citizenship. Civics and history were American students' worst subjects. Professor Damon said that for the past 10 years, his Stanford University research team has interviewed broad cross sections of American youths about U.S. citizenship. Here are some typical responses: "We just had (American citizenship) the other day in history. I forget what it was." Another said, "Being American is not really special. ... I don't find being an American citizen very important." Another said, "I don't want to belong to any country. It just feels like you are obligated to this country. I don't like the whole thing of citizen. ... It's like, citizen, no citizen; it doesn't make sense to me. It's, like, to be a good citizen -- I don't know, I don't want to be a citizen. ... It's stupid to me."

A law professor, whom Damon leaves unnamed, shares this vision in a recent book: "Longstanding notions of democratic citizenship are becoming obsolete. ... American identity is unsustainable in the face of globalization." Instead of commitment to a nation-state, "loyalties ... are moving to transnational communities defined by many different ways: by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and sexual orientation." This law professor's vision is shared by many educators who look to "global citizenship" as the proper aim of civics instruction, de-emphasizing attachment to any particular country, such as the United States, pointing out that our primary obligation should be to the universal ideals of human rights and justice. To be patriotic to one's own country is seen as suspect because it may turn into a militant chauvinism or a dangerous "my country, right or wrong" vision.

The ignorance about our country is staggering. According to one survey, only 28 percent of students could identify the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Only 26 percent of students knew that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Fewer than one-quarter of students knew that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Discouraging young Americans from identifying with their country and celebrating our traditional American quest for liberty and equal rights removes the most powerful motivation to learn civics and U.S. history. After all, Damon asks, "why would a student exert any effort to master the rules of a system that the student has no respect for and no interest in being part of? To acquire civic knowledge as well as civic virtue, students need to care about their country." Ignorance and possibly contempt for American values, civics and history might help explain how someone like Barack Obama could become president of the United States. At no other time in our history could a person with longtime associations with people who hate our country become president. Obama spent 20 years attending the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled sermons, which preached that "white folks' greed runs a world in need," called our country the "US of KKK-A" and asked God to "damn America." Obama's other America-hating associates include Weather Underground Pentagon bomber William Ayers and Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn.

The fact that Obama became president and brought openly Marxist people into his administration doesn't say so much about him as it says about the effects of decades of brainwashing of the American people by the education establishment, media and the intellectual elite.
From Failing Liberty 101; 7/13/2011 Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
*********************************************

We must understand the problem of our enemies: America and the freedoms it represents is the only thing standing in the way of a complete world takeover by this Marxist ideology.

In their minds we are the problem and we are the enemy!

This conflict was prophesied in God's Word and the fulfillment is in the process of unfolding before our eyes.

It was only a matter of time before the Cultural Marxism, liberal political correctness lies, and the one world socialist mentality would make a formidable attack on America and it's core beliefs.

We are a special nation, our freedoms are unique and when we stop teaching this to our children and instead teach this united nation world citizenship babble, what do we expect.

If and when a majority of America's young adults buy into this anti-American philosophy, the USA as we know it is as good as over. Spending taxpayer dollars to allow Marxists to teach hate for America is ignorant and counter-productive.

It is sort of like have a class on how to become an atheist at a church Sunday School meeting.

For America to remain the number one country in the world, our citizens must believe that we are the best and know why they believe it. They must understand the principles of truth, justice and the American Ways ... upon which America was founded.

And those principles are not only found in our history and our constitution, but also in God's Word which was the driving force in the hearts and minds of the majority of those who founded and fought for our freedom over the past two hundred years.

God bless America ... Always!

Guns And Freedom

Vermont has long stood behind it's right to bear arms ...

boasting some of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws in the country.


Currently the only state that allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, it may soon be the first to require a permit for the unarmed in its ranks. In what could be the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment's tricky syntax yet, a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine.

Representative Fred Maslack proposed the bill not to encourage Vermonters to protect themselves against crime (Vermont's crime rate is very low), but to demand that citizens do their part in defense of liberty. According to Maslack, "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

But defend the state against what? Vermonters, Maslack told me, have a constitutional obligation to respond to "any situation that might arise." Federal tyranny? Yup. Abuse of power by other states? Sure. "There could be a natural disaster that would send thousands of people into the state." Maslack's implication seems to be that in the event of such an influx, Vermonters ought to be able to shoot anyone coming over the border on sight. Good thing New Hampshire's tsunami season is short.

It's true that the Vermont constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and that those persons "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." And Vermont does have a proud history of citizen militias, going back to the days of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. But citizens' armies have not been needed in Vermont since the early days of this country's founding, when they were occasionally called upon to send New York State tax collectors back over the state line. To refresh Vermonters' dormant militia expertise, Maslack has also introduced a bill requiring compulsory military training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma in the state.

More important to Maslack than safeguarding against excesses of government, though, is upholding the letter of the law. With Vermont in the spotlight over gay marriage, Maslack says members of his state should look more carefully at the rights and obligations spelled out in the Constitution. If homosexual couples can sue the state because they are denied the benefits that accompany legal marriage, he says, then surely someone can sue over the unheeded militia mandate. "You can't ignore the duties and invoke the privileges."

Given that Second Amendment enthusiasts speak as much about individual freedom as they do about the joys of hunting, it's unlikely that a bill requiring mandatory gun ownership will find a groundswell of support. Determining whether everyone possessed a gun would require some form of gun registration, something NRA types staunchly oppose. reprinted from:
"Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms" by Joanna Mareth; Prospect.org
*************************************************

I know this all sounds very tongue in cheek, and perhaps over the top. But it is a clearly established fact that those who would like to force their socialist Marxist views on America, see gun ownership as a huge wall that stands in front of their desired ability to confiscate America.

It has been estimated that America has as many as 300 million privately owned guns which represents potentially the world’s largest militia, and freedoms last line of resistance. An armed citizenry is in all Americans best interests. In these troubled times, all Americans need to own a 12 gauge shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun; plus a minimum of 500 rounds of ammunition.

America’s freedom has never been more in jeopardy than it is today. Police protection will be greatly diminished during times of crisis. Should the financial markets crash; the ability for average citizens to purchase a gun or ammunition to protect their family will become much more difficult and costly.

Hopefully most will never need to use their guns. In that event, the value of this investment will surely be as good as gold.