Always decide for yourself whether anything posted in my blog has any information you choose to keep.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Metaphysical entry again. One of our local metaphysical publications, Aquarius-Atlanta has two very good short articles in their December issue.
"Resetting Your Vibration: The Key to Positive Law of Attraction
"Angels & The Holidays
Sunday, November 26, 2006
This is a meatphysical entry dealing with addictions. Read this about a week or so ago and found it very compelling that when a person takes on negative energy and loses contact with Source, they sometimes fall into addictive behavior to bring about the high they had when they were fully connected with Source. I personally feel we're just beginning to scratch the surface with correct treatments for the problem and that many who are engaged in alternative energy work may also bring about lasting results. With some things maybe we might need to revisit what the the shaman, medicine man or Voodoo priestess did to help people in the past.
Don't claim to have any answers, only a new crumb of information.
"Assisting With Addictions"
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Brings to mind James Bond, but pretty cool nevertheless.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Kind of stuff reminiscent of early Cold War era. Timing very interesting that a Russian journalist is killed, now her friend a spy poisoned and dead ............ only to be followed by an announcement that Russia is supplying Iran with missiles ..... which President Bush was unhappy about.
Putin, former KGB may not have changed his spots after all.
Oh, and let us not forget Victor Yushchenko a couple of years back.
"Who Poisoned Yushchenko? (Ukraine's President)http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1995.cfm
"Spy's death-bed Putin accusation
Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of involvement in his death, in a statement dictated before he died.
Mr Litvinenko, 43, who died in a London hospital on Thursday evening and is thought to have been poisoned, said his killer was "barbaric and ruthless".
Protest from around the world "will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life," he said."............." 'Barbaric and ruthless'
In the statement, read out by his friend Alex Goldfarb outside University College Hospital, London, Mr Litvinenko said he had a "message to the person responsible for my present condition".
"You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed."
"The howl of protest from around the world will reverberate Mr Putin in your ears for the rest of your life," the statement added.
The statement was dictated on 21 November, when Mr Litvinenko realised he could die. "......
........"Mr Litvinenko had recently been investigating the murder of his friend, Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, another critic of the Putin government.
Russian dissident Oleg Gordievsky, a former KGB colonel and friend of Mr Litvinenko, maintained that the poisoning had been the work of the Russians.
The Russian security service had "sent a man with a poisonous pill to Britain", put a pill into Mr Litvinenko's tea and killed him, he told BBC News. " ..........
"'The bastards got me, they won't get us all'
"Poisoned spy defiant in final interview before his death
"The poisoned Russian spy breathed defiance at the Kremlin as the effects of a mystery tail pushed him towards his death last night.
“I want to survive, just to show them,” Alexander Litvinenko said in an exclusive interview given just hours before he died.
Too weak to move his limbs and visibly in great pain, the former Russian intelligence officer suggested that he knew he may not win his struggle against the lethal chemicals destroying his vital organs. But he said the campaign for truth would go on with or without him.
“The bastards got me,” he whispered. “But they won’t get everybody.”
Mr Litvinenko, 43, uttered his last defiant words to Andrei Nekrasov, a friend and film-maker, who had visited him in University College Hospital in London every day this week.".......
....."“Sasha was a good-looking, physically strong and courageous man,” Mr Nekrasov told The Times. “But the figure who greeted me looked like a survivor from the Nazi concentration camps.” "Russian Nuclear Cheif to Visit Iran
Moments after he saw his friend pass away, Mr Nekrasov said: “I have been through a few things in Russia and Chechnya, but this is one of the most horrible crimes I have witnessed in my my life.”
“It was sadistic, slow murder. It was perpetrated by somebody incredibly cruel, incredibly heartless. It had no meaning whatsover.”
...."Andrea Sella, a chemistry expert at University College, said that it had become increasingly difficult to identify the poison. “They have to find some unspecified poison. They don’t know whether it is a single substance or a mixture.” ....
....."Mr Nekrasov revealed that Mr Litvinenko’s British citizenship had come through on the day of a service at Westminster Abbey for Anna Politkovskaya, a friend and critic of the Kremlin murdered in Moscow.
“We discussed the likelihood of another killing. Sasha warned me not to go back to Russia because it was too dangerous,” Mr Nekrasov said. “Very sadly he turned out to be the next victim, attacked in the perceived safety of Central London.” ...
"Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran."
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Effeminate congress .... cut and run ... Failure is their benchmark.
"DEMOCRATS UNVEIL THEIR IRAQ PLAN
"Senator Barack Obama gave a speech yesterday calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He used the Democratic code phrase for surrender: "phased redeployment." Sounds like the insurgency in Iraq has a new best friend. But really, it's the same story over and over again. The tune from the Democrats on Iraq hasn't changed one bit since the 2004 election. They simply want us to cut and run in Iraq. In some corners that might be known as surrender.
Other than criticizing the administration and saying President Bush wasn't prosecuting the war in Iraq right, not a single Democrat has stepped forward with a solution to Iraq. Obama is no different. Do they really think total surrender is a policy? Is the United States going to somehow be better off with Al-Qaeda running the show in Baghdad?
And sadly, the media will never call them on it. They're being given a pass on Iraq. Democrats are allowed to criticize the war without offering an alternate plan. It's the worst possible criticism: telling somebody what they're doing is wrong without offering any possible way to make it better. But that's been the media double-standard on Iraq since the fall of Baghdad.
So it doesn't matter if the Democrats pick their best orator to deliver the same tired policy. It's still a bad idea. But if they've got any ideas on Iraq...we're listening. They just haven't had any yet.
In the meantime ... the Islamic fascists are smiling. The great Satan is turning yellow. "
Monday, November 20, 2006
Oh yeah, this'll really work!!! Wonder what they have planned to combat global warming?????????
Anti-War Activists Plan 'Global Orgasm For Peace'
(CBS/AP) SAN FRANCISCO Two peace activists have planned a massive anti-war demonstration for the first day of winter.
But they don't want you marching in the streets. They'd much rather you just stay home.
The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Cartoon from Townhall.com funnies.
"Nancy's first mistake
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, November 16, 2006
WASHINGTON -- As the new House majority caucus prepared to pick its leadership today, Democrats were trying to make the best of the inevitability of Nancy Pelosi as the party's first speaker in a dozen years. They have put out the word that she was not serious in endorsing Rep. John Murtha for majority leader. How much effort she has exerted for her longtime ally is irrelevant, but she has actively solicited votes this week.
The damage to her was irrevocable when she wrote her colleagues last weekend urging them to pick Murtha over Rep. Steny Hoyer. Close associates of Hoyer say her letter stunned him, and he was not alone. While Pelosi had made clear she would vote for Murtha, the public endorsement was unexpected."........
.........."This is a no-win situation for Pelosi. If Murtha wins today, she will be accused of personal vindictiveness in derailing Hoyer, who is more popular in the caucus and better qualified for leadership. If Murtha loses, as is much more probable, she will be seen as bumbling her first attempt to lead the new Democratic majority. Pelosi could have avoided this dilemma by standing aside as Speaker-presumptive Newt Gingrich did when he voted for his ally Robert Walker as majority whip but did not ask members to oppose Tom DeLay.
Pelosi's mistake confirms longstanding, privately held Democratic apprehension about her abilities. Their concerns do not reflect the Republican indictment of her as a reflexive San Francisco liberal. Some of her most trenchant congressional critics are on the left wing of the party. These colleagues worry that her decision-making may be distorted by personal considerations.".....
........." For a party that effectively stressed a Republican climate of corruption in the recent campaign to consider placing Murtha and Hastings in its leadership astonishes a wide range of Democrats. They do not believe Murtha can defeat Hoyer, but the imminence of Hastings stuns them. Well-placed Democrats have told Pelosi she cannot permit this to happen. What they hesitate to contemplate is what lies ahead based on Pelosi's performance before she has taken the oath."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
By the time the Dems finish us off in '08 and it's time to elect a new president I wish Rudi Giuliani would run on the Libertarian or Independent ticket. Many far right conservatives don't care for him due to his views on certain issues, but I personally feel he could be a uniting force for people disenchanted with extremes in both parties.
BTW in my world Herman Cain rocks!!
"No Political Santa Claus
By Herman Cain
"If you think Santa Claus came early this year by delivering liberal majorities in the House and Senate, you had better check your stocking again. Liberals and the political parties will continue to play us like the kid who asked Santa for a pony, but woke up Christmas morning to find a big box of horse manure.
At first blush, Congressman Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) comments last week about Mississippi are merely the latest exposé of Northeast limousine liberal elitism, similar to Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) remarks before the election disparaging our brave military personnel. Rangel was quoted in the New York Times saying, "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"
Rangel's quote not only describes many liberals' contemptuous view of Middle America, but also illustrates how liberals, regardless of party affiliation, view the role of federal government. Peel back Rangel's rhetorical onion further, and you can see the degenerative influence of the political parties on Congress' ability to solve our most serious fiscal crises.
The coming Senate Democratic majority means that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) will likely become the next chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Sen. Byrd has sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1959. Over 30 federal projects in Sen. Byrd's home state bear his name. During a March 15, 2001 speech on the Senate floor, Byrd stated, "One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment in West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done."
Not that anyone will notice much change between Byrd and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the current Senate Appropriations chairman. Stevens' home state of Alaska leads the nation in receipt of taxpayer dollars for earmarked pork projects. Alaskans per capita receive more than $611 of our money for earmarked appropriations. The national average is $19 per capita.
In the House, Transportation Committee chairman Rep. Don Young (R-AK) doesn't seem too upset about ceding the majority to the Democrats. Young, architect of the bill to fund the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, will likely hand his golden gavel to Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN). According to the Anchorage Daily News, Young "changed the way funds were allocated to increase the amount controlled by minority Democrats to 45 percent." Young, who will remain on the committee as ranking minority member, claims Oberstar told him, "I'll treat you as good as you treated me, and that was great." Bipartisanship - it's a beautiful thing.
The liberals' goal is not to shrink the growth of government, rein in Social Security and Medicare entitlement spending, tax us less or allow Americans to pursue their own economic freedom. Rather, their clear objective is redistribution of tax receipts to potential voters in the form of tax credits, earmark - spending projects and social engineering programs.
The two major political parties are attempting to convince voters that ideology and policy prescriptions are no longer relevant. Election contests are no longer a forum to discuss individual candidates' solutions to the big issues of the day. Instead, candidates receive their talking points from the party leaders, reducing the election and public policy process to little more than a popularity contest. We the voters are rendered tailgaters in the parking lot, waving our red or blue flags in support of our favorite team.
It is little wonder policy discourse was noticeably absent throughout the 2006 election season. The Democratic strategy was to make the House and Senate elections a national referendum on President Bush and his oversight of the war in Iraq. Republicans played right into the Democrats' hands. Few Republican candidates discussed their plans to restructure Social Security, fight the global war on Islamic terrorism, simplify the tax code or cut federal spending. Instead, the Republican strategy was to scare their base to the voting booth with the threat of a "Speaker Pelosi." Hope and optimism, not fear, motivate and inspire voters.
We arrived at this bipartisan assault on common sense because most members of the House and Senate are in permanent campaign mode. Save a handful of principled conservatives in both chambers, liberals in both parties long ago abandoned their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Government cannot and will not solve our problems or the problems Congress itself created. Despite the countless platitudes toward bipartisanship, the hard work of solving the hard problems will remain in two years for a new president and a new Congress.
Congressman Rangel's comments should offend not just Mississippians, but any American concerned about the future of a political system that places pork over fiscal discipline and party over policy. "
Herman Cain is host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Bottom Line with Herman Cain and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com. "
Monday, November 13, 2006
Credit to FreeRepublic for heads up on this gem.
"Republicans Propose Halting Stem Cell Research Until Osama Bin-Laden Dies From Whatever Disease with Which He is Afflicted
"Washington – Adding a further spark to the debate about stem cell research, Republicans have proposed halting the practice until it is confirmed that Osama Bin Laden has died from whatever disease with which he is infested, Underneath Politics has learned.
“There have been multiple reports that Osama Bin Laden is sick and possibly even on his death bed,” White House Spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. “Why would we want to use stem cell research to cure his disease so he can go on terrorizing the world for many years to come?”
Democratic Pundit Lanny Davis has criticized the move, saying it is just a way for Republicans to appeal to their base after the midterm election debacle. “They’ll stop at nothing to end stem cell research,” he said. “Using the hope that ending the practice could possibly lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden is plain and simply dirty politics,” Mr. Davis said.
However Conservatives point to the Democrats opposition to letting Bin Laden die as another example of their inability to be strong in regards to the war on terror. “All the Democrats have to do is not proceed with stem cell research and the monster dies,” Mr. Snow said. “But they can’t even do that. I seriously doubt Democrats will go hunt down Bin Laden now that they are in charge, therefore letting him die is our only option. Unfortunately, through stem cell research, those on the left will keep him alive as long as possible.”
New Democratic Majority leader Nancy Pelosi, who is considered farther to the left than most of her colleagues, wants to take it one step further. “Hopefully, through stem cell research, we will be able to find a cure for hangings and death by firing squad so Saddam Hussein can be cured of however we murder him and rule Iraq with an iron fist for many years to come, Praise Allah,” Congresswoman Pelosi said."
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Came in email this morning.
Time for Fair Tax which totally eliminates all federal payroll taxes and allows you t bring home all of your paycheck.
Prices drop because there are no embedded taxes and cost of compliance .... you pay the same for goods at checkout and you don't have to pay to have your taxes done by April 15th.
Best part is ILLEGALS ARE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE INTO THE TAX SYSTEM.
What Happened?At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Marriage License Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usa ge surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class
in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
And I still have to "press 1" for English
I hope this goes around the world 10 times
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Follow up to a point made by Floridian on another blog post.
"What do Islamist terrorists want?
"The answer should be obvious, but it is not.
by Daniel Pipes
"A generation ago, terrorists did make clear their wishes. Upon hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. Upon attacking the B'nai B'rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God," $750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader's family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.
Such "non-negotiable demands" led to wrenching hostage dramas and attendant policy dilemmas. "We will never negotiate with terrorists," the policymakers declared "Give them Hawaii but get my husband back," pleaded the hostages' wives.
Those days are so remote and their terminology so forgotten that even President Bush now speaks of "non-negotiable demands" (in his case, concerning human dignity), forgetting the deadly origins of this phrase.
Most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators' identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.
But the reasons for the violence go unexplained. Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives. These can relate to terrorists' personal grievances based in poverty, prejudice, or cultural alienation. Alternately, an intention to change international policy can be seen as a motive: pulling "a Madrid" and getting governments to withdraw their troops from Iraq; convincing Americans to leave Saudi Arabia; ending American support for Israel; pressuring New Delhi to cede control of all Kashmir.
Any of these motives could have contributed to the violence; as London's Daily Telegraph puts it, problems in Iraq and Afghanistan each added "a new pebble to the mountain of grievances that militant fanatics have erected." Yet neither is decisive to giving up one's life for the sake of killing others.
In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."
Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.
Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.
Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker he had just assassinated, "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth."
Interestingly, van Gogh's murderer was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."
Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often fail to hear them. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that "Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism."
What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge."
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Wow, just what I've said here on my blog before at least a couple of times. A planting aid, hydro-gel polymer mixed into the soil absorbs water and holds it to the roots of seedlings while they become established. I use it even with house plants and it does work.
Now that a Nobel Prize winner says it perhaps people will actually do it.
"Kenyan Nobel Winner: Fight Global Warming, Plant a Billion Trees
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
NAIROBI, Kenya — A Kenyan environmentalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner called on people around the world to plant 1 billion trees in the next year, saying Wednesday the effort is a way ordinary citizens can fight global warming.
Wangari Maathai, who in 2004 became the first black African woman to win a Nobel in any category, urged participants to ensure the trees thrive long after they are planted.
"It's one thing to plant a tree, it's another to make it survive," said Maathai, who founded Kenya's Green Party in 1987 and focused on planting trees to address the wood fuel crisis here.
Maathai said the campaign is meant to inspire ordinary citizens to help the environment.
"This something that anybody can do," Maathai said Wednesday at the U.N. conference on climate change, which has drawn delegates from more than 100 countries to Kenya.
Scientists blame the past century's 1-degree rise in average global temperatures at least in part on the accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel burners. "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228198,00.html
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
"World Financial Markets Rattled by US Elections
November 8, 2006
"LONDON (AFP) - Global finance markets have wobbled on fears that a Democrat victory in the US Congressional elections could prompt less market-friendly policies in the world's biggest economy.
Photo: Dealers keep an eye on money trading at a Tokyo's foreign exchange brokerage. The dollar has wobbled in Asian trade as traders fretted that a Democratic victory in the US House of Representatives could usher in less market friendly economic policies, dealers said. (AFP/File/ Kazuhiro Nogi)
Investors watched nervously as jubilant Democrats seized power in the US House of Representatives for the first time since 1994 and edged closer to taking the Senate, pushing European and Asian equities lower and weighing also on the dollar.
European indices eased off fresh five-year highs struck the previous day, while Japanese shares tumbled by more than one percent, as investors also feared that a split in power in Washington would create legislative gridlock.
"The European market started slipping lower (on Wednesday) with the Democrats taking power from the Republicans, traditionally thought of as more business friendly," said Michael Davies, an analyst with the Sucden brokerage firm in London. "...........
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
"Hamas urges attacks on U.S. targets
By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
A CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas' military wing called Wednesday on Muslims around the world to attack American targets following reports that an Israeli tank strike killed 18 people in the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Live links. Just a little background.
"Meet the New Speaker
By Joseph Farah
Source World Net Daily.com
"Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader certain to become the next speaker of the House, served for years on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.
Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, ( http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14542 ) the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
(Story continues below)
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
In the last several years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.
"The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries," the group's statement of purpose explains.
Most of the members of the Progressive Caucus, including Pelosi, opposed authorizing the war on Iraq.
Pelosi represents a liberal congressional district, taking in most of San Francisco. Her votes against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and in support of such domestic initiatives as needle exchange programs for AIDS sufferers may not be far out of step with her district constituency. But some suggest the nation's pulse may be another matter.
Pelosi was 47 before she won her first election, after raising five children with her businessman husband, Paul. But she has been involved in politics all her life. Her father was a New Deal congressman from Maryland and later the mayor of Baltimore. Her brother also served as Baltimore's mayor. She was hand-picked to run for Congress by the dying Rep. Sala Burton, whose seat Pelosi won in a special election in 1987.
She has never lost an election. "
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
"Idaho state senator's sons arrested, cited in flag damage incident
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The adult sons of an Idaho state senator are in hot water with authorities in Idaho's capital city after two American flags dedicated to soldiers killed in Iraq were vandalized.
Twenty-four-year-old Michael Burkett was arrested and 22-year-old Thomas Burkett was cited for allegedly damaging flags and flagpoles on the grounds of the Idaho Capitol building this morning.
Police say Michael Burkett also resisted and obstructed officers." .................................
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Please get out and vote ...... or live with the decision someone else made for you.
Monday, November 6, 2006
Great song ..... nails it.
lyrics by Don Henley
"I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em all around
We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry
You dont really need to find out whats going on
You dont really want to know just how far its gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre stiff
Kick em all around
Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybodys pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry
We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry! "
Monday, November 6, 2006
I smelled a decomposing rat and found it.
"Behind the call for Rumsfeld's head
Military Times editor accused of 'treason' at Stars & Stripes
Source World Net Daily
WASHINGTON – It makes for powerful imagery – an editorial appearing in the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Times and the Air Force Times calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Many assume these publications are official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches, while they are actually under the same ownership as USA Today and under the management of an editor who has had his share of run-ins with the U.S. military in the past.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president has shrugged off an editorial by the Military Times Media Group to fire Rumsfeld. Bush feels it is merely "grandstanding," he added. The editorial says Rumsfeld has "lost credibility" with top officers.
Snow called the editorial "a caricature" and a "shabby piece of work" filled with inaccuracies. He said it implied the administration's made nothing but "rosy" predictions about Iraq. Snow said that isn't true, leading the president to "shrug it off."
Shortly after Gannett bought the papers in 1997, the media giant installed as editor Robert Hodierne. He is best known for teaming up in 1969 with then-Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett in Vietnam to bring attention to a small group of American soldiers who refused to fight.
As he tells the story himself: "During that late August battle, A.P. reporter Peter Arnett and photographer Horst Faas filed a story about five G.I.s who, for a brief time, refused to fight. A few days later I arrived at the battle to write stories and shoot photos for Pacific Stars & Stripes.
"The story and photos that follow enraged the top brass in the Army. Its chief spokesman, Col. James Campbell, calling Stripes 'the Hanoi Herald,' said my writing gave aid and comfort to the enemy, adding, 'such stories do not border on treason, they are treason.'"
The editorials were timed to come out in all four publications simultaneously today – the final Sunday before the midterm congressional elections. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52790
Monday, November 6, 2006
Obsession video was yanked from Google videos shortly after I posted it. Explains fully and graphically by people who are experts in the Middle East exactly what radical Islam's intentions are. Also shows some subtitled speeches given by clerics spewing lies, inciting hatred toward anyone not of their belief calling for death to the US.
It's worth anyone's time no matter how busy your schedule to view it in its entirety to get a graphic picture of who the enemy is and exactly how much evil is embodied within a totalitarian political system carefully cloaked as "religion" ... which is one reason we in the west have trouble wrapping our minds around it.
It's virtually impossible to fathom evil which all encompassing and there is nothing in recent history which can equate to it except Hitler's Nazis from which radical Islam sprang. Don't believe me? Do a search on Banna Nazi and see what you find.
Dr. Wafa Sultan in her debate with clerics on al Jazeera video posted here
Wafa Sultan noted in my blog here
From Powerlineblog.com this morning.
Sunday, November 5, 2006
Boortz discussing the 2000 presidential election said to the effect..... at 7 PM Eastern time the MSM announced that George Bush had won the election. That was 7 PM in eastern Florida. There was a military base (can't remember which one) in the pan handle where people were lined up to vote and when they heard that announcement by the all knowing news services, went home and did not cast their ballots ...... why because Bush had already won and their votes were not needed.
However, Neal said he spoke directly with the person in charge of voting on that base and was told that due to the announcement Bush had won, at least 10,000 votes from that base which could have counted ..... did in fact not vote which would have removed all doubt about the results.
Moral of the story don't believe anything the Lamestream Media says without checking it and rechecking it for yourself.
Oh yeah and to get an early jump on a Democratic talking point ...........
"CRANKING UP THE VOTER FRAUD OUTCRY
"There seems to be a slight change in the fortunes for the Democrats in the last day or so. Even Dick Morris, who was predicting a blow-out of the Republicans last week, is starting to hedge his bets.
Well ... if the Democrats fail to at least win control of the House in two weeks, they're certainly going to need an excuse. They can't simply admit that they had no agenda that truly appealed to the American people.
So ... why not get a head start on the excuse-making? How about voter fraud! That's it! They'll claim that the voting machines in key House races were all rigged! Someone, probably Karl Rove, hacked into the voting machines and threw the whole election to the Republicans?
Original? Not really. Democrats have used the voter fraud excuse in the last three elections. In the final analysis it may be that, or admit you're just not all that appealing any more. "
Sunday, November 5, 2006
From Powerline, Kerry the gift that keeps on giving.
At last night's Army-Air Force football game, someone unfurled this banner. It's reported that cadets on both sides cheered wildly. Click to enlarge:
John Kerry is a gift that hasn't stopped giving yet.
Via BlackFive, one of a number of excellent milblogs that we haven't linked to as often as we should.
UPDATE: And don't miss Austin Bay's superb meditation on military service, John Kerry and honor.
It's lengthy and multi-faceted. An excerpt: "...............
Saturday, November 4, 2006
"The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker. "
"Government in Time of War
By Josh Manchester
Source Tech Central Station Daily
"Recently President Bush met with a select group of opinion columnists. Their reports paint an image of a White House that is operating at a very different level than most news stories and Democratic critics have otherwise intimated. Even though the majority of the country still leads peacetime lives, and the majority of the opposition does not comport itself as though we are at war, President Bush is unmistakably fighting a war, day in and day out.
Daniel Henninger quoted Bush and described the atmosphere in his weekly column for the Wall Street Journal:
"I'm campaigning like mad, and I'm looking at people in the eye and saying, you better have a government that does everything in its power to protect you from attack. You're right here in the office where I get briefed every morning and I'm telling you it's on my mind, and I can't keep it off my mind. I was affected deeply by the attacks of September the 11th. It became clear to me that day that we were at war. I know we're at war . . ."
Admittedly, it is difficult to convey in public the urgency about the war on terror that Mr. Bush conveys in private. But it is obvious that he regards the threat to the American people as palpable.
"My biggest issue that I think about all the time," Mr. Bush says, "is the next attack on America, because I am fully aware that there are people out there that would like nothing more than to have another spectacular moment by killing American people. And they're coming. And we've got to do everything we can to stop them. That's why we need to be on offense all the time." This, he insists, is the justification for the terrorist wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the interrogations and the Iraq war.
Both the Republican Congress and President Bush have long been condemned for not living up to their conservative credentials, or for other errors that just didn't sit right: by letting spending grow; by not getting a Social Security reform bill passed; for nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court; and so on. Perhaps such critiques, well-founded though they might be, are a little too swift to ignore the central feature of this Presidency: it's at war, and in such times, other considerations quite frequently fall to the wayside.
Some would probably place the blame for this at Bush's feet himself. "After all," they might argue, "he didn't take the entire nation to war. He asked us to go on shopping as usual." Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that in any endeavor and in any organization, leadership can only grasp hold of so many goals at a time, whether attempting to maintain situational awareness, developing a policy and creating a consensus around it, or rallying the public to a cause. In short, it is not absurd to think that one reason for the GOP Congress' seeming malaise is that the Presidential leadership, which often plays a very important role in congressional goal-setting and consensus-building, is entirely consumed with preventing the next attack on America.
Will anyone really care about Social Security reform the day after the next attack? Or how big the federal budget deficit is? Capable politicians, of whom the president is one, realize that such considerations, while important, will sink to the bottom the moment the next bombs detonate. Marine General Al Gray was once asked why he spent so much of the Corps' money on training, and not on quality-of-life initiatives like better housing. To paraphrase him, "the best quality-of-life is having one," - meant to imply that training keeps men alive.
Is it too much to think that Bush and most key members of his cabinet are so focused on preventing attacks and prosecuting the war that all other functions of government are on auto-pilot? Bureaucracies have an inertia of their own that allows them to function for a good bit of time even without detailed guidance. And Congress can certainly keep itself occupied without the President submitting new legislation, or rallying them to it - though it doesn't hurt to note that the main legislation Bush did work on in the last three months was that dealing with interrogations - in other words, he was focused on the war.
How long can this go on? Bush implies that the next President will be just as busy as he is in preventing attacks on the United States. If it's true that the presidential attention span will be concerned primarily with security for the foreseeable future - say ten or fifteen more years - this does not bode well for those who are most eager for large-scale domestic reforms. It might even augur an age of diminished capabilities for the federal government. Simplification of the government's role in life might make it easier for it to more effectively accomplish its remaining core competencies: those largely related to security.
Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His blog is The Adventures of Chester (www.theadventuresofchester.com).
"Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America
By Aaron Klein
JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."
They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.
They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege."...........
................" Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal." .................
........."WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam." ..........
John Kerry ...... Democrat Party's nomination for President in '04 ......... the one who best represents their PARTY PLATFORM. [insert red star]
Telling, indeed especially that the dinosaur media is totally complicit.
I personally wonder who or what is the real background funding source for the MSM.
Sure makes you wonder considering al Reuters photos of the green helmet guy awhile back.
"What The MSM Doesn't Know And Doesn't Care To Find Out
By Hugh Hewitt
"When unique visitors to HughHewitt.com crashes through 125,000 on a single day, I know the public is engaged.
That's what happened yesterday, and my guess is that Townhall.com traffic was also off the charts.".....
....."And yesterday's numbers were no doubt helped along by lefties eager to read my interviews with Mark Halperin of ABC News. (Interview one here and interview two here.) Halperin and co-author John Harris have written a book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008, and was eager to promote it while talking politics with me. We disagreed sharply on many issues though the long conversation was for the most part very civil, and the left was as a result feverish beyond belief and fired with rage against Halperin. Generated a lot of traffic too.
But that doesn’t explain the Wednesday surge. The surge was Kerry's doing.
During the day I posted often on Kerry's slander of the military, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and finally here. So did Dean Barnett, here and here."..........
.........."Even as the men and women in uniform heard the sneer and felt the slur, they also watched as elite media dismissed their anger and participated in the diminishment of their right to be incensed."
.............." Within the Manhattan-Beltway media machine there was utter cluelessness as to opinion about Kerry's statement, Kerry's refusal to apologize, and then Kerry's non-apology apology, a cluelessness so profound as to be easily mistaken for contempt.
No other group would be treated with such casual disregard than the American military. They were the target of the barb, but their opinions about it and the man who hurled it were not consulted, and indeed, positively avoided. Much more important in the eyes of the MSM is what elite pundits and prestige reporters thought of what Kerry said and what Kerry did.
Why were so many so eager to defend Kerry instead of the troops?
A handful of Democrats instantly understood that Kerry had crossed an unacceptable line, though many including Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Ohio's Sherrod Brown rushed to defend their patron as opposed to the military they soon hope to represent.
In MSM, there were almost no voices willing to recognize the slander and demand an apology.
New media moved to make sure the military's view was heard, but it was the military itself that ultimately settled the issue."..............."
One picture -- now a famous picture-- utterly routed the MSM. It did so because it came from the military that had heard and understood what Kerry had said, and what he had not apologized for. Whether or not the old media carries the picture on front pages today (which would have been an obvious decision in any newsroom not deeply biased against the military and in favor of Democrats) most Americans will have seen it and laughed and laughed at John Kerry. Ridicule is the best revenge, and the troops have it.
But the American electorate also has a very clear example of how the media has been covering the war, the 2006 campaign, and, yes, the military for the past few years. The big MSM names want another Vietnam, and they pursue that storyline with a relentlessness that isn't deterred even by plummeting circulation and declining viewership.
It is surpassingly strange to watch an industry will its own destruction. But stranger still if the culture within which it lives does not object to the design."
Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books
Anyone who owns a home or hopes to own one needs to pay close attention to this socialist scheme to redistribute income and assets via siezure through taxation.... and we do know the foundation of the current DemocratSocialist party is FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO OWN EVERYTHING. They do not believe in private property ownership, period.
"WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU. TODAY'S INSTALLMENT
"Again .. .do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued permission to control both the House and the Senate in Washington? Not only no, but hell no. The best that can be said of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they cam. Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome next week only because the alternative is so much worse.
This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control that they think is their birthright.
Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political power they so ardently desire. It's called "imputed income." If you are a home owner, pay attention. This concerns your wallet and your bank account.
Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you will dispute. Democrats are the party of big government. Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats want to make more and more Americans dependent on government because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the weaker the people and the stronger the government. It goes without saying that the stronger and more powerful government becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who control that government become. This isn't rocket surgery here.
Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to their personal independence. Independent people don't need politicians. Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence. Democrats love this scenario. They want you to be dependent on government. To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state. This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases.
To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base. Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government. Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition. To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt.
Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the so-called "rich." Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase plans. But here's a warning. If you happen to fall below that "rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well. They have various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the "rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial tax increases.
One such scheme targets homeowners. It's called "imputed income," and its a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home ownership.
Here's how it works.
Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember, it's a 220-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.
The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats. They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher. Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month. It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low. Well, where there's an economic benefit, their must be a tax!
Enter the concept of imputed income!
Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street.
Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math. You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits!
The Democrat plan is simple. Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership. The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak. Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same. After all ... it's only fair, right!
Just remember this. Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good." They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt. A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself.
In tomorrow's Nuze ... what would you think about a proposal to limit where you can invest your retirement funds ... a limit based on political correctness. "
Interesting .... Boortz has been advocating allowing Dems to take the House this election to hopefully pound some sense in Republicans for allowing RINOS (Repub in name only) to overspend, expand government, etc.
However it seems the Poodle did it for him along with many blogs I cruised last night.
Kerry now calls his remarks a "joke and aimed at the Bush Administration" but the only joke is liar Kerry himself.
" TURNING POINT --- AT LEAST FOR ME
"OK ... all bets are off.
Don't get me wrong ... I still have this deep felt desire to see the Republican's get punished by the electorate in next week's midterm election ... but suddenly the stakes seem to be too high.
What turned the tide for me? John Kerry, that's what. That insipid, haughty, pretentious jerk uttered another one of his absurd statements about our men and women in uniform ... and in a flash my fear of Democrats and their disdain for our military services overcame any desire I had to put Republicans over my knee.
You did hear what Kerry said, didn't you? Come on now .. surely you have. [refresher] For the few of you who might have been in a 48-hour coma, The Poodle was talking to a group of college students in Pasadena, California (where else?) on Monday when he said: "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
So there you have it. There's your choice. According to Mr. Band-Aid Purple Heart, you either become smart, or end up serving in our armed forces.
John Kerry seems to have a deep-seated disdain (bordering on hatred) for those in uniform. Remember, please, that it was John Kerry who, many years ago, talked about our troops in Vietnam regularly committing atrocities against innocent women and children. It was also John Kerry who remarked earlier this year about American troops in Iraq "terrorizing" women and children. How dare that pompous ass suggest that it is our troops who are doing the terrorizing over there?
For the record, Kerry is dead wrong. Not that he cares. Just four days ago The Heritage Foundation issued a report by Tim Kane entitled "Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003-2005." ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm )You have the link, go and read the report for yourself. If you do you will find that a higher percentage of military recruits have graduated from high school than the general population. In 2004 82.7% of recruits were high school graduates while another 7.03% had their GEDs. The national high school graduation rate that year was 79.8%. Even today, in 2006, the high school graduation rate for recruits is still higher than the high school graduation rate for the civilian population. Looks to me like the recruits are doing pretty well. You'll also find that "the Department of Defense reported that the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population."
Clearly John Kerry had no idea what in the hell he was talking about .. the arrogant putz.
So .. the firestorm erupts, and here comes Kerry to the microphones to set the record straight. Did he apologize for his insult against our troops? Are you kidding? Not only did he not apologize, but he actually had the stones to try to tell us he wasn't talking about our troops, he was talking about Bush! I would ask just how stupid Kerry thinks Americans are --- but the very fact that he thinks we should have made him president indicates what his answer, were he to be truthful, would be.
These men and women are on the front lines, giving up their lives, to defend us from Islamic fascism -- and Kerry is back here talking about what intellectual failures they are. Intellectual failures that terrorize women and children in the night.
Do we hang the sins of John Kerry around the necks of all Democrats? Well, let me ask you. Did you hear of one single Democrat .. just one .. anywhere .. stepping forward to repudiate what Kerry said? Maybe some Democrat did, but I sure as hell haven't heard anything about it. Have you? A Democrat congressional candidate in Iowa has gone so far as to say Kerry's words were "inappropriate." Hardly an apology .. but he did ask Kerry to cancel a planned campaign visit to his district.
In other words ... these gutless wonders who just love to tell us how much they truly do support our troops won't even stand up to be heard when our soldiers are slandered by this rich woman's boy toy.
This is such a gift to the Republicans. It's as if Karl Rove himself paid John Kerry a large amount of money to read from a script. It couldn't be better. Here we are, on the even of the 2006 mid-term elections...in which the Democrats are poised to take over the House and maybe the Senate. Now here comes John Kerry, standard-bearer of his party in the last presidential election...to slander our troops. Bad move....even the most anti-war politician never blames the troops. It's political suicide.
So .. that's it. We're six days out, and I've come unglued. Sure, the Republicans have become just another party of big government and pork barrel spending ... but at least they don't slander the very men and women who are shedding blood every single day to defend our country.
Give me the big-spenders who support our troops over the big-spenders who slander them any day.
I'm voting Republican.
We'll just have to figure out another way to take these Republicans miscreants to the woodshed. "