Perplexed

Perplexed
Kevin Bryant

I know I am in control of my fingers, but I really have no clue how this piece is going to turn out. This has been on my mind for quite some time and I still don’t know how to put it down in writing. So please bear with me if I ramble.

I have heard President Obama and some members from both houses of congress are willing to risk losing their bids for re-election in order to pass healthcare reform. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I can kind of see where the senators and representatives are coming from because they will get to keep their premium healthcare plans and get a nice “retirement” from serving but just the thought of Obama willing to lose an election is scary to say the least. This sort of statement coming from a man that until he decided to run for President used mob style tactics to suppress and destroy his opponents to the point that they chose not to oppose him in an election. This man is a narcissist with the biggest ego I have ever witnessed anyone having. To risk an election is totally out of character for anyone with his mentality of “self”. It’s like he is intentionally setting himself up to be a dismal failure as a President.

A majority of the public was against the closing of Gitmo yet he is closing it. The public was against the TARP bailouts but he helped push them through. Now we have Obamacare and Cap & Trade and those are not very popular items with mainstream America and more Czars advising him that no one seems to know much about than we had actual states fighting in the Civil War. I’m certain that during his first term he will also attempt to shred some more of the constitution by limiting free speech and further restricting gun ownership. In a way I feel sorry for Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. He is the lone swing vote on the court and you just know there are going to be so many court challenges coming down the road that the final outcome is going to rest on his shoulders. Does he apply the law as it is written in accordance with the Constitution or does he interpret the law based predominantly on personal beliefs? I refuse at this point in time to believe that he is a socialist at heart.

OK, so we know that Obama is willing to sacrifice a second term in office to push his agenda through. We know he has radical liberals at the head of the Senate and House of Representatives. We know that some but not all of the members of house houses of congress are radical and the democrats control congress. We know that from the onset, Obama had no intention of being transparent or keeping any of the promises that were made while he was trying to convince the people that he was a moderate and not a radical leftist. We now know that the Apollo Alliance and not congress or even the President wrote that absurd porkulus thing called the Stimulus Bill that to date has not saved a single job or stimulated anything. We know he has spent more money and borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined. This man is not going to be re-elected and he knows it. He’s not that stupid.

So what is the end result he is trying to achieve? Seriously, no one sets out to fail. I haven’t and I doubt anyone reading this has ever intended to start something with the intent of failing. This President defies all logic yet he is methodical in all aspects of his actions as President. He does nothing randomly so there has to be an ultimate goal there somewhere. There has to be some grand achievement he is trying to attain yet I don’t think anyone other than a small circle of people know what that is. I doubt even Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton know what exactly what it is that he has set out to achieve. If you know or think you know or even have a suggestion as to what it might be, please post your comments and let us know what lead you to your conclusions. I really do want to know what it is and welcome any ideas you might have.

Like I said in the last paragraph, I think only a small circle of people know what lies ahead and what the ultimate goal is. I have stated in several other opinions that I do not believe that Obama is stupid; however I do not think he is smart enough to have put all this together by himself. So, who stands to benefit should we become a socialist, government ran country? Someone or ones with great power has to be pulling the strings. Even George Soros couldn’t be doing this alone. He may be pulling on a few of Obama’s strings but he would even need vast amounts of help in order to be the puppet master.

If we take Obama at his word and look at the people he has surrounded himself with, we see, Socialist, Communist, believers in a one world government, Muslims, Fascist, Black Theologist, Militants, Marxist and only God knows what else. You can see bits and pieces of all these in his actions. We have seen various signs of his actions resemble those of almost every radical group in American & world history. I don’t understand it, but I know it scares me to think of what the consequences could be.

I watch Hannity, O’Reilly & Beck almost daily. I know Beck has been doing a series this week on some of the same things I have listed here but these have been on my mind for several weeks now. Tonight is his final show of his week long series and perhaps I may find an answer or two in there but I doubt it.

What are your thoughts?

Lion of the Left

"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Teddy Kennedy
Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won't be my own!)

I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.

On that note, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy (22 February 1932 -- 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77. Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator -- behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) -- in that chamber's august history.

Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy's life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator's life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.
Let's take a look at both.

Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father's considerable political machinations. But, the mainstream media's reference to TK's life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.

Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father's heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.

In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted's sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of "mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home." The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.

Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.

Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon's 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK's victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.

The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.

On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.

In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to "the island" (Martha's Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy's moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.

On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4x4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water -- but then, I was not intoxicated.)

Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water's edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.

Mary Jo Kopechne
Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne's body had already been discovered.
With the help of Father Joe's connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, "I almost tossed and turned... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail -- sentence suspended.
With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of "immoral conduct and drunk driving" were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.

Kennedy's political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.

In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.

Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family's Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman's charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.

In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy's public life, his success as a legislator?

According to Barack Obama, "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, "No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."
Oh, really?

Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath "to support and defend."

Kennedy's long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.
For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy's advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.

In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."

Who can forget Kennedy's outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy's vote was among the Senate's unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy's vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito's character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, "If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right."

Of course, Kennedy was an expert at "borking" judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork's confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." Despicable.

No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the "Despotic Branch" stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called "Living Constitution".
But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label "Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or "rich guilt" if you will.)

And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.
Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, "[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. ...[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area..."
How did that one turn out?

Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan's hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.
But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.

At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, "There are those who seek to divide us. ... America needs a genuine uniter -- not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer."
Fortunately, the American people weren't buying his rhetoric -- at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama's "hope 'n' change" chorus: "I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America.... For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope. And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege."

Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy's grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator's misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn't authorize this either.)

As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.

First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.
In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you," and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.
Second, a man who can't govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.

One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. ... In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character."
In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of "government" is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.

Despite the Left's insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in "public service" (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.

Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life..."
I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy's eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.
I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.

Mark Alexander

Reprinted from the http://patriotpost.us

When Is Racism Not Racist?

When Is Racism Not Racist?
Kevin Bryant

As I am sure plenty of you are now aware of, many advertisers are demanding that FOX to not air their commercials during the Glen Beck Show. Beck made some comments about Obama’s comments right after Obama’s radical left racist buddy, Louis Gates got arrested by a white police officer whom Obama stated that he did not have all the facts but yet threw in the comment that the officer acted stupidly. This is the Beck comment:

This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep seated hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know what it is.
Later, "Fox and Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade said to Beck, "Listen, you can't say he doesn't like white people. David Axelrod's white, Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, is white. I think 70 percent of the people that we see every day are white. Robert Gibbs is white."
I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem; this guy is, I believe, a racist.

The left is celebrating these comments as the victory that they have been seeking that proves that conservative talk show host and the FOX channel are racist. Am I the only one that actually sees racial overtones in Obama’s original statement about cops acting stupidly? What was his comment during the campaign when asked about reparations to blacks because of slavery? Obama stated that he was against reparations because they did not go far enough.

You always hear Obama refer to his “white” grandmother, but has anyone ever heard him acknowledge the fact that he too is half white? He sat in a church and listened to a racist radical preacher for more than 20 years then claims he never heard any racial comments being made? Is it possible that the President of the United States is too “stupid” to know when a fellow black person is making racial comments?

His own wife, Michelle, has made comments with racial overtones and again, just as the President, she too gets a pass from the media. She also sat in that same church and for 20 years listened to reverend Wright give his racial hate speeches and promote black theology. What is worse, they both subjected their children to it. What is the difference between a child attending racially charged church sermons and a child going to KKK meetings? In my opinion, there is no difference yet because of political correctness and the fact that a majority of the population has been brainwashed into thinking that racism can only come from heterosexual white people, the poor kid that is dragged to the KKK meetings will be called a racist and the ones who are subjected to white hate speeches and told repeatedly that all straight and Christian white people are racist will be considered socially normal.

Tolerance, compassion, understanding & acceptance are being taught daily in our schools and churches and various organizations. Why is it that many believe that these lessons are only to apply to white heterosexuals? Why does it seem lately that the first amendment only apply to those who promote leftist or racial ideas and agendas?

Glen Beck has a right to state his opinion just like every other citizen. Unlike most, he gave specific reasons for which is opinion was based upon later in the show and in several commentaries on his radio show yet is punished by the press for them. I don’t see the Obama’s giving specific reasons for their racially stated comments? All I see are free passes given by the press.

The bible states that God made man in his own image and the constitution states that all men are created equal with equal protection under the law, then it’s to make allowances for each man to equally share his or her opinions if asked. It’s time to tolerate differences because everyone is created differently. The rules of society must be equal for everyone regardless of race or creed. If someone’s feelings get hurt, so be it. Hurt feelings are too a part of nature, so deal with it and get over it.

Is Barack Obama a politician first?

In the first six months of Barack Obama’s Presidency we have gotten a pretty good picture of his modus operandi. Some people have the idea he is nothing more than a ruthless Chicago Politician. They think he honed his trade in the community organizing field, and has fashioned his policies in the image of the socialist theme.

Well they are right in a way, but this only nicks the surface of what he really is. The political actions are only his altruistic view of how the world should look. We need to delve deeper into his psyche to see what drives him, to see what “makes him tick.”

I say this because I lived with someone who had exhibited the very same traits that Barack Obama shows. I lived under the shadow of a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. For 27 years I observed the very some patterns of behavior, the same rationalizations, the same bizarre denials, the same claims of self importance.

Some people will see Obama say one thing, and then usually do the exact opposite in the next move, and see it as bizarre behavior, but it follows a pattern that only a victim of this disorder, or a psychiatrist trained in this disorder can see. Narcissistic behavior is not someone who is in love with themselves; it is a person who is in love with the image they portray. Unfortunately that image is never the real person. False grandiose self importance is the main trait. Most victims see this disorder as a malignant affliction that never calms over time, but instead increases in intensity. Lying and distorting the facts is standard fare for him, and when caught in the act he simply denies. A narcissist never apologizes, he would rather spend 5 hrs to explain the rationalization to his action than to say two simple words….”I’m sorry.” He always thinks his way is best, nobody has the knowledge or experience he has, and he is willing to force his actions on others. He is a slick manipulator; he can sell an Eskimo ice, and then make them look forward to the next sale. He uses up people at an accelerated rate, he makes friends for one purpose, to use them at a later date, and then discards them when they become a liability. He has no limits who he will use to his advantage, family members, and children; there is nobody he considers off limits. He works without conscience, but knows that most people do, and therefore uses that against them.

These are but a few things to describe the very complex character of an NPD. Everyone he uses is considered “supply” and with a supply of 300 million people, he will not run out soon. I will make a few predictions though.

He will pass the Health Reform Act even at the cost of his approval rating; he will force it through on the reconciliation vote if forced.

He will then attack Cap and Trade with a renewed vigor.

After the vote and the passage he will revert to his campaign mode to rationalize why he did what he did.

He will constantly claim any program he wants is “what is best for America,” regardless of continuing polls showing the public doesn’t approve.

Politicians understand re-election plain and simple, they never want to give up power; they understand that if they keep voting against the will of their constituents, they will be voted out. Politicians like that are politicians first and foremost. Barack Obama is not a politician first, he is a narcissist first, and a politician second, and the sooner the public sees him for what he is, the sooner our country will be returned to the people.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd

http://samvak.tripod.com/obama.html

The Militia Is Rising

The Militia Is Rising
Kevin Bryant

Our dear friends of the Southern Poverty Law Center recently concluded another completely bias research and fact finding report on the rise of Un-American Right Wing Extremist Militia Groups and reported that they are growing in alarming numbers. http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392

This is the same group that was a major driving force behind the creation and eventual signing of the Brady Bill into law. The Southern poverty law center was very proud of this accomplishment but even they were disappointed with the final draft of the bill. It was too soft and it allowed everyday average law abiding citizens to continue to own handguns and various types of semi-automatic weapons.

Having grown up in the south and believe me…I grew up in poverty, I grew up in one of the top 5 nicest houses in the neighborhood and when my parents sold the house in the early 90’s, it sold for less than $25,000 and it was in really good shape. I just love the name Southern Poverty Law Center. That would seem like something I could easily support, but nope, not me, I have no use for these clowns and I know many in the south that don’t have a use for them either. Real southerners and not the northern transplants in Atlanta, absolutely love the second amendment and they exercise that right regularly. Growing up, there wasn’t but a handful of houses within a 5 block radius of where I lived that did not have at least 1 rifle, 2 shotguns and a pistol in the house and not a single one was locked up and you can safely bet that the pistols in those houses were loaded and ready to fire. Parents didn’t need trigger guards back then. The thought of a parent pulling a belt across your bottom was deterrent enough for children to leave them alone. At the age of 4, I already knew not to accept or hand a gun to someone unless I checked it to see if it was clear and to check it in front of the person I was handing it to or getting it from.

These jokers at the SPLC want more government control on gun ownership because of the rise of the militia types here in the United States. Guess who the militia types they are referring to are? They are you, me and everyone else who is exercising our first amendment rights and speaking out against the actions of our government. That’s right ladies and gentlemen, according to the SPLC, we – the law abiding citizens of this nation, need to be further restrained by the nanny state because we are perceived as a threat by these pinheads. We are a threat only because we stand in the way of their extreme leftist agenda. They can say we are a threat and the media will eat it up. If conservatives were to publicly announce that the SPLC or any other group was a threat to our rights, our liberties and our way of life, which by the way would be a true statement, the media would crucify us and just give the left more ammunition to push their socialist agenda.

Anatoliy Golitisyn was a very senior member of the KGB in the 50’s and 60’s. In the late 50’s he turned on the old Soviet Union and because a mole for the United States. We didn’t recruit him, he came to us. The CIA could not believe that such a high ranking officer in the KGB would willingly give information to the United States. They tested him for years. They tried every way possible to prove this man a fraud but they couldn’t.

In the latter half of the 60’s, we had copies of every plan the Soviet Union had for invading and defeating the United States. In every scenario, the Soviet Union could penetrate our country and destroy our military but the ultimate conclusion in every scenario was the Soviet Union losing the war. The Soviets did not fear our military and why should they. They had as many troops tanks and transports as we had. They had a variety of ways to invade undetected and could be in place to take out a multitude of military bases within hours of the first shot being fired. What they did fear was our civilian population. In their eyes and by the genius forethought of our founding fathers, America could not be defeated on its own soil because almost every home in America had at least one gun inside and that made every civilian a soldier and that they could not defeat.

The old Soviet Union is dead but anyone not fearful of the new Russia of today is living in a dream world. China would love nothing more than to see America in a war with Russia just as Russia would love nothing more than to see America in a war with China. If either were to take place, then at the conclusion the neutral country wouldn’t be neutral for long and either could defeat the U.S. & other country’s military with ease. Both china and Russia love Obama’s attempt to socialize our country. They would be ecstatic if the left gets it way and repeals the second amendment or have the courts decide that the second amendment does not apply to the citizens of this nation but to the government for military purposes as the left already claims.

Watch for another serious push for greater gun control by the left in the coming weeks and months. The Brady Bill passed under Bill Clinton. This President and this congress is even more radial leftist than at anytime in Bill Clinton’s time as Governor or president.

Put a hat on an 800lb gorilla, but it’s still a gorilla

We have recently heard a new term that was brought to us by Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as if the word was something new to call conservatives. The word is “astro turf,” but in reality it’s just a new word for a decades old practice.

We have all heard “astro turfed” words, “refuse collection engineer” to describe a garbage man, and “undocumented worker” to describe illegal migrant aliens.

There are individuals, and companies paid to come into a situation, and mold the public opinion from bad to good on a subject that they ordinarily would not want. They approach the situation with thesaurus in hand, take private polls, and then attach new more palatable words to a subject that previously bored and turned people off.

You think to yourself, oh come on Al; nobody can do that for a living, much less in this day and age. Enter ASK Public Strategies. While the main purpose of astro turfing companies is to mold public opinion, this company specialized in political astro turfing. Finding a way to make social issues more palatable is what this company did.

In a TV commercial, constructed by ASK, warned of a ComEd (Chicago Electric Company) bankruptcy and blackouts without a rate hike: "A few years ago, California politicians seized control of electric rates. They held rates down, but the true cost of energy kept rising. Soon the electric company went bust; the lights went out. Consumers had to pay for the mess. Now, some people in Illinois are playing the same game." CORE, which describes itself on its Web site as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations," was identified as the ad's sponsor. After a complaint was filed with state regulators, ComEd acknowledged that it had bankrolled the entire $15 million effort.

Similar ad campaigns were done by ASK on behalf of companies such as Comcast, AT&T,Children’s Museum in Grant Park, on the request of long time friend Richard M. Daley, Mayor of Chicago.

People in the know, are already chuckling, because they know who this man is. His fingerprints are all over the air right now. The administration doesn’t use words such as “socialized medicine,” “socialized healthcare,” or “government run healthcare.” Whether those terms are used or the terms, or the terms, “private option,” “public options,” “co-ops,” or “single payer healthcare,” the system being described is the same. The facts remain, the system will insert a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, to make decisions on your healthcare based on age and cost, the wording in HR 3200 can’t be astro turfed!

Oh yea, by the way, the man who owned the astro turfing company? He is none other than David Axelrod, Senior White House Advisor to President Barack Obama. Name sound familiar? Of course it does, he is the person that keep sending “updates” from the White House on healthcare as spam! So the next time he refers to a recycled human by product on organically grown wheat bread, you will know it's nothing more than a crap samdwich.

http://alspoliticalview.blogspot.com/2008/10/dangerous-tactic-of-astroturfing.html

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

Democrats want to blame Republicans for all the atrocities against African-Americans, and for the lazy masses this argument may ring true. Unfortunately history plays the Democrats as the ones behind the slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

For 150 years Democrats have hidden behind the policies of Congress, and recently Congress offered an apology for the actions of America, when in fact the Democrats themselves perpetrated the atrocities.

From 1792 to 1865 the Democrats through their racist agenda cited “states rights” as the contributing factor in the continued and partially expanded slavery into the Northern States. In 1854 the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery, and to champion the civil rights for blacks.

In 1861 a group of anti Civil War Democrats called “copperheads” for the poisonous snake sought to form a confederation of southern states and a negotiated agreement to keep slavery.

In 1856 Democrats instituted fugitive slavery laws, known as the “Dred Scott vs. Standford”, which legally classified slaves as property, and expanded slavery. Further laws included the Missouri Compromise, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which moved slavery into 50% of the northern states.

In 1863 anti-civil war Democrats in New York participated in what is known as the “4 days of terror” against the city’s black population.

It was President Lincoln who in 1865 issued the “Emancipation Proclamation” which was later morphed into the thirteenth amendment that was ratified by Congress and essentially ended slavery by law. As a reaction to this legislature the Southern Democrats issued state laws intended to deny blacks the same rights as whites, known as the “black codes of 1865.”

In 1866 the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party formed the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1866 the Republicans signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 in an effort to establish a new style government in the south to make laws more fair for blacks.

In 1868 and 1870 respectively the Republicans passed and ratified the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to give blacks, voting rights. As a knee jerk reaction in 1875 the Democrats passed the “Jim Crow Laws” denying blacks the same access to public facilities. Later the same year Republicans passed the “Civil Rights Act of 1875” to prevent racial discrimination in public facilities, thereby reversing the Democrats actions.

The Hayes-Tilden Act in 1877 by Republicans sought to stop the lynchings and respect the rights of blacks.
Shamefully the Democrats regained the majority in Congress and overturned the entire Republican’s anti discrimination laws. The Supreme Court even issued a ruling in the “Pleesy vs. Ferguson” case in 1896, allowing “equal but separate doctrine” which claimed it wasn’t against the Constitution to have separate public facilities. It would be 6 decades before the Republicans could regain enough power to challenge the Democrats on civil rights.

On February 12, 1909, to celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, Republicans formed the NAACP. Republicans also started the HBCU’s (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), because of the Democratic actions to keep black out of colleges.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to stop Democrats from denying civil rights to blacks. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican as has been affirmed by his niece, Dr. Alveda C. King.

Martin Luther King Jr. couldn’t support the very party that for 100 years had sought to hurt the Republicans attempts to gain civil rights for blacks. All the racist Democrats remained Democrats until the day they died as they were known for the statement, “would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks.

Unknown at the time but the Democratic Party supported the School Board in the 1954 case of “Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education.” Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by President Eisenhower) ruled in favor of Brown and thereby ended segregation in the school system. He went on to declare the 1896 “Plessy vs Ferguson” ruling violated the 14th amendment, and thereby reversed it.

Little known is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan who is still in Congress. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is also lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. Dr. King criticized Kennedy for ignoring civil rights issues. This criticism was one of the reasons that Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

The fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican was no secret to those close to him, but the history of the oppression of blacks has been kept a carefully guarded secret among powerful Democrats. In 2007 the North Carolina Democratic Party State Executive Committee unanimously passed a resolution acknowledging the Democratic Party of 1898’s role in the bloody massacre in Wilmington in which dozens of African Americans were killed. The resolution apologized to those affected by the riots and their repercussions and renounces these actions. The Committee, comprised of more than 700 Democratic Party leaders and activists from all 100 counties, is the governing body of the Party.

As the great Paul Harvey used to say, “now you know the rest of the story.”


http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Democrats%20Owe%20Blacks%20an%20Apology

Shut Up & Go To Your Room

Shut Up & Go To Your Room
Kevin Bryant

How many times when we were all kids did our parents say to us: “Shut up and go to your room” or “Go to your room and be quiet”? I know I got that a few times growing up. Some more parental favorites: “Because I said so”, “I can do it because I am an adult”, “This conversation is over”. There are many more that we have experienced or witnessed in our lives. Now that we are adults, we don’t have to listen to that anymore, but that is exactly what the President, his administration and democratic congressional leaders are telling us to do.

Democrats and the liberal left were whining and crying non-stop starting at the beginning of 1995 and did not shut up until they got their majority back in congress and their community organizer President in the white house. From January 95 to January 09 all they did was whine and cry about this or that. They used ACORN and its many branches as their puppets to disrupt meetings, protest their causes in front of the willing media, bully those that opposed their agenda, stage rallies and community functions so make the liberal left appear that they are “for the people”. In some of these instances, it has been proven that the DNC & George Soros paid ACORN for their services. This makes ACORN nothing but a Thugs for Hire organization.

Now that the left has hit serious opposition to Cap & Trade and Health Care Reform, they have again went back to their old ways of whining and crying and telling everyone packs of lies and the media is spreading those lies for them like wildfire. Obama is losing his popularity and the DNC has realized that if they don’t do something drastic and soon, then all their gains in the 2008 elections will be lost. So, with the help of ACORN and the unions, they have resorted to staged (phony) town hall meetings, intimidation and have even resorted to hiring their own protesters by placing ads on Craig’s List for protesters and paying them $12 – $16 an hour. Ladies and gentlemen, this is desperation in its truest definition.

What is the left afraid of, the truth? Why would they feel the need to go to such drastic and underhanded methods to shut average citizens up who are freely and peacefully exercising their first amendment rights? From 1995 to 2007 these same individuals wanted people out protesting the actions of their government. They repeated that it was the duty of every American citizen to exercise their right to free speech. Now those same ones are the ones trying to block free speech simply because mainstream America disagrees with them.

Several, but still unconfirmed reports have stated that in the coming census, it will be required that illegals will be counted as well and those numbers will be used in determining the next round of districts represented in congress. This is just the latest of desperate attempts by the DNC to hold on to their fading power.

It’s funny when you think about this; many who want to silence us are the same ones who were out protesting the Vietnam War and shouting from the rooftops for the impeachment of President Nixon. Those that more or less remained silent during those protest are now the ones leading the charge in protesting Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade. This is the first administration I can remember being literally afraid of the over 50 crowd in America.

Continue to let your voices be heard. Continue to exercise your right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Remind those in Washington that they work for us both vocally and with your vote. Conservatives are starting to make a difference and the left is worried. To give up now just because the left wants to use thugs to try to push us around and silence us is just greater reason to be more visible and more vocal.

When we were little, our parents had the power and right to tell us to be quiet and to go to our rooms. This congress and this administration do not now nor will they ever be our parents or have that much power over our lives so long as we continue to fight for our rights and our freedoms.

Angry Opponents ???

Angry Opponents ???
Kevin Bryant

On the very warm summer morning of August 8, 2009 the less than illustrious and not so good Rev Emanuel Cleaver decided to give what turned out to be nothing more than lip service to some of the people he represented. I attended this farce of a meeting:

LEE'S SUMMIT, MO - A normally quiet monthly chat session with constituents turned into a overflow crowd as hundreds of people on both sides of the health care debate gathered at a Lee's Summit coffee shop to meet with U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver on Saturday morning.Cleaver did not take questions from the crowd assembled at JP Coffee, instead meeting privately with about 75 people. The line of people stretched around the building and for several blocks, with many in the crowd holding signs both for and against President Barack Obama's health care proposals.There were many vocal arguments from both sides of the debate, but the crowd was generally sedate in comparison to similar gatherings in other states where there were loud disruptions from angry opponents.In a statement, the Democratic congressman praised the constituents for discussing the issue in a civil manner."Our district showed that we can disagree civilly in middle America," said Cleaver.
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/politics/wdaf-story-cleaver-coffee-crowd-health-080809,0,5318886.story

Is this what we can expect from every democrat during this congressional break? Let me tell you what is missing from this article. The total amount that showed up for this pretense of a meeting that actually supported a government health care plan was less than ¼ of the total crowd.

Even though I wasn’t carrying a sign or loudly voicing my own opposition, I still had the “angry left mob” in my face with cameras and signs trying to get footage of myself and others who oppose Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s idea of health care reform provoking them. I do agree with the article that the crowd was peaceful and that was only because the “angry left mob” was unable to provoke any violent acts or explicit vulgar language responses. Believe me when I say it took a lot of personal restraint not to slap a few of those cameras out of my face.

Now, the same so-called reverend who stated how hard it is to oppose Obama because and I quote: “He is more popular than God” did show up, half the people in this tiny coffee shop that has about enough standing room for about 75 people when you remove the tables, was run out because he had to get his staff and entourage inside. From what I was told by security, almost all that were told they would have to leave were opponents of government health care.

A few minutes after the whole thing started, it was quite aware that Cleaver had no intention of allowing the hundreds outside to listen to what he was saying even though there is an outside PA system already in place and is used very night for people who wish to sit out on the patio and drink wine, coffee, tea and other assorted beverages JP’s offers. How do I know all this about JP’s coffee shop? I frequent the place on average at least once a week and usually spend a minimum of an hour there on each visit. They have EXCELLENT coffee.

So, little to no opponents of the administration’s health care plan were allowed inside. No one outside was allowed to listen. The only mob like antics came from those who support the plan. I forgot to add, those 75 or so that he met with afterwards to discuss issues were the same ones initially allowed inside so little to opposition would be displayed.

This was no meeting. This was nothing more than a staged Cleaver media moment. Since they can’t shut conservatives up, they will shut us out instead.

Labeled as an ‘angry mob’

Specter, who faced an antagonistic crowd at a Sunday, Aug. 2, 2009, health care town hall, says the experience could be a sign of the tough road for overhauling the nation's system.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Our country was founded on dissent, so to label any portion of the citizens of this country as an “angry mob,” is nothing more than a policy of division. A policy of demonization and ridicule to those who don’t agree with the Administration is not a policy to unite the country.

Contrary to what the DNC says, they adhere to the very principles that they want to distance themselves from, socialism. Barack Obama has in six months followed almost every single idea Saul Alinsky professed in the “Rules for Radicals.” The most classic rule being used now is Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

They accuse us of manufactured anger, and that the Town Hall disrupters are all paid by the insurance companies. They refuse to believe that this can actually be individuals that don’t agree with them. They want to make you believe in their little short sighted conspiracy theories.

Yesterday two of my articles were attacked on the Examiner.com. An “ad hominem” attack was perpetrated by a deranged left winger, which intended to hi-jack the whole article to give him an earpiece to the internet, ignoring normal manners, he used sexual innuendo, and personal insults to be heard. I must admit I was. He posted under many different names, and even tried to disguise him or herself as one of my loyal readers, and even multiple times posing as the Examiner administration unit.

Every situation to me acts as a “learning situation” and I have after this issue! At first I deleted the whole article, falsely assuming I would eliminate the problem. That wasn’t to happen, as he then invaded other articles. You might think……well either you or the Examiner could just delete the offending posts. Well that is true, but the offender was on a mission to destroy the message and the credibility of the article. I personally removed over 140 comments in less than 4 hours, so his obsession is obvious! This will not keep me from speaking my piece, or watering down my article to appease him/her. I will try my best to separate his comments from the real comments, even if they are ones that disagree.

This clearly shows the intent of the left wing. I post articles on here that include 80% news and then include my personal feelings and comments, based on those news articles. For those who have no clue, we call these COMMENTARIES. I know you don’t see the procedure involved in posting an article on here, but you need to make a declaration as to what type of article you intend to post……everyone of my articles are self declared as COMMENTARY.

I for one am damned tired of being referred to as part of an “Angry Mob.” I am an angry individual, I am angry because of where our country is headed. I am angry because the government sees it necessary to call the right a bunch of crazies. I am tired that the talking head of the Obama Administration, Robert Gibbs, who laughs constantly at anyone who criticizes the Administration, and belittles them. All this bad behavior seems to be spurned by the similar behavior of the President, and gets carried like the plague to articles like mine, and some deranged individual thinks it’s ok to bash me personally, because his President does the same thing. (“The police acted stupidly”)

We won’t be laughed at Mr. Gibbs; we are the other side of the aisle, not a leper colony! We have a voice; we can string 10 words together without saying……Uh, uh, uh, uh.

I know that I for one am not giving into the new status quo, when I have a question or a point I don’t agree on I will ask it, and I will NOT be silenced.

Another Case of Red vs Blue

Another Case of Red vs Blue
Kevin Bryant

I wake up some days and miss not serving on active duty but no matter how much I miss the military, I would not want to give up my freedoms again. One of the hardest pills for me to swallow while being on active duty was the loss of free speech. Ask anyone who has served in the military and they will tell you that the constitution does not apply to them while they are serving on active duty. Now that I have all the liberties and freedoms that the Constitution provides citizens of this country, I would not want to give them up again. Only when you lose something can you fully appreciate its value.

Our buddy, our pal, Barack Obama has narrowed his choices down to Ft. Leavenworth prison in Kansas and some prison in Michigan as the future home for all the Gitmo detainees. Kansas is a solid red state, Michigan is a solid blue state, and just who do you think is going to get them? Hint: it’s not the blue state.

I may live in Missouri, but I work in Kansas and I live 45 minutes from Ft. Leavenworth federal penitentiary. So his decision still affects me. Why not send them to John Murtha’s district. I hear there is a lovely prison there and everyone knows how sympathetic he is to these terrorist. One of Maryland’s senators stated that he wouldn’t mind having them in the prisons there. But no, he would never send them there. Pennsylvania and Maryland are blue states and voted for Obama in the last election.

I’m sure Michigan would love to have them. They have one of the largest Arab / Muslim populations in America. They have many stores that cater to Muslims only. Their Muslim population stood and cheered while 3000 innocent victims were dying in the twin towers in New York.

By sending them to Michigan, Obama could also use this as an excuse to hire a ridiculous number of extra prison guards to put on the federal payroll to boaster his “job creation” numbers. Perhaps there, these terrorist could convert all the Crips and Bloods to the peace loving Muslim religion. If they fail then perhaps the Crips and Bloods could do the world a huge favor and send them on their way to their 72 virgins. Oh wait, they would not have died in battle…..sorry Akmed, no virgins for you today. I’m so heartbroken over that fact. Oh well.

Take a poll in Kansas and I am quite certain that 85% plus would not want these terrorist in their state regardless of the fact that they would be locked up in maximum security.

Kathleen Sebelius stated before she resigned as Governor of Kansas and became the HHS Secretary that she would not allow the terrorist to be placed in Leavenworth. Now that she is on the national scene, we’ll see how much pull she has with Obama and just how much she cares about the people of Kansas and just how much her word is worth.

Position has its privileges

She is paid nothing for her position, she has no specific role in government, but yet she has a staff. Not just a small staff, but a staff of over 20, with an annual salary of over $1.2 million.
Who is this person, and why is this much government money being spent? Her name is Michelle Obama, the President’s wife, a woman from the privileged inner circle of Chicago Politics. Her feeling of grandiose self worth is only over shadowed by that of her husband Barack.
With the present economic crisis, nobody has had the nerve to tell Mrs. Obama about the need to “scale back.” It just isn’t in her nature, and this will be no exception. Her entourage is in a constant state of evolution, but not once has it been scaled back.
This list was compiled by the Canada Free Press and explains the entourage, and what they make. Must be nice to have such a staff to help a woman with no direct job in government, but then again, her husband created jobs for some 32 “czars” with no real job descriptions either.

1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
18. Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652