Tea Party Update

I actually live in the Northwest, but we are moving down to Texas (hopefully sooner than later - depending on the market & how fast we can get our house finished.) We bought land in New Braunfels, Texas a couple of years ago & took a trip down to Texas last week to visit & relax. So we weren't able to attend our T.E.A. party in Portland, OR - but we were able to attend the T.E.A. party in Austin, TX at the capital (late afternoon). It was fabulous to renew our spirit and to be with other conservatives who value our freedoms. A peaceful, law-abiding and amazing time was had by all! . 5000+ folks attended. After the speeches (from State Senator Dan Patrick, Congressman Michael McCaul, Republican activist Joe Petronis, and Free Market Foundation's Jonathan Saenz.) and songs, we walked from the Capitol to the Lake. The crowds walked down Congress Avenue to ceremonially dump boxes into Lady Bird Lake, the crowd stretched from Cesar Chavez Street to the steps of the Capitol. In response, police had to block off four lanes of the street during rush hour.While marching, the crowd spanned from the lake up to the hill! Very impressive. Crates of tea were thrown in the lake and picked up by wild Indians in canoes.

CNN had some but protrayed the crowds as “angry”. This was definitely not true, we were concerned, worried, fearful and disgusted by what is happening to our country - but it was definitely not an angry, violent mob of protesters.

In an amazing display of free-market ideals, hundreds of thousands turned out for tea parties across the country! It empowered conservatives to continue to fight the good fight. It was a great success in that the rally awakened the silent majority of our country to become involved and to understand that many others like themselves are interested in furthering the prosperity of this nation through adherence to our constitutional principles. I am so glad we were able to be a part of it.

Here are some photos from the day, my husband took tons of all the signs we saw - but here are a few general photos.












Later that evening we watched CNN (now why did we do such a stupid thing like that after such a great day). At those locations where CNN bothered to cover the events, they often-times avoided reporting on the facts. Watch this CNN coverage of the event. If this doesn’t get you upset, I don’t know what will! However, exercising our rights to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble was on full display, and a vivid reminder that we indeed live in the greatest country on earth.



CNN Correspondent Claims Tea Parties ‘Anti-Government,’ ‘Anti-CNN’

After anchor Anderson Cooper made an obscene sexual joke about attendees, CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen rudely interrupted one of the protestors and slammed the event for being "anti-government," "anti-CNN," and "not really family viewing."

Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, "Why are you here today?" The man started to respond saying, "Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right..."

But Roesgen cut him off him, saying, "But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to "let me finish my point." One crowd member was heard to yell "shut up" to the Roesgen.

When the man finished his statement about people having the "right to the fruits of their own labor" and "government should not take it," Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset.

Roesgen backed away claiming that "you get the general tenor of this," tea party. "Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra," Roesgen concluded.

Phillips followed by calling that assessment "a "prime example of what we're following across the country."

Here are some interesting facts about Susan Roesgen:

"An interesting little detail emerged today about new right wing public enemy #1 CNN reporter Susan Roesgen. She twice applied for a job at Fox News. She applied in January and September 2005 and was turned down. Is Roesgen bitter, or is this just business as usual for cable news?

According to Gawker, “Back in 2005, though, according to a Fox News source, Roesgen really wanted to work for that right-wing conservative network. She sent a tape of her on-air work to Fox's then-programming chief Kevin Magee in January 2005, and followed up with another reel to Magee's successor Bill Shine in September 2005. Needless to say, she didn't get the gig.”

CNN is not an American News Station anymore, they stopped being about journalism long ago. They are the start of a socialist media station that is willing to do the bidding of one American party.

Here are some more facts about Susan Roesgen and her "reporting":

Susan Roesgen:

1. Was offended by protestor calling NObama a facist, however, in January 2006 at a protest, she joked about a protester who wore a George W. Bush mask with a Hitler moustache and devil horns
2. Asks a protester a question, but won’t allow the answer.
3. Pay close attention when she pooh pooh’s the tax burden on the American people by saying “but you get a $400 tax credit” followed up with “but the Land of Lincoln got $50 billion in stimulus”

Here are some more examples of the outrageous coverage from the liberal media: (for more example - click the link from the mediaresearch.org)

• Tea Parties = "Group Therapy" for Crazy Conservatives "All of these tax day parties seemed less about revolution and more about group therapy. At least with the more widely known protest against government spending, people attending the rallies were dressed patriotically and held signs expressing their anger, but offering no solutions."-- New York Times reporter Liz Robbins in an April 15 online article about that day's anti-tax "tea parties." The paragraph was taken out of the version that appeared in the Times' April 16 print edition.
• "Cheered on by Fox News and talk radio, the hundreds of tea parties today were designed to protest the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and President Obama's budget....But critics on the left say this is not a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it's actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests....While the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was about taxation without representation, critics point out that today's protesters did get to vote -- they just lost. What's more, polls show most Americans don't feel overtaxed." -- ABC's Dan Harris on World News, April 15.
• CBS's Dean Reynolds: "They came to vent their outrage in big gatherings and small groups over what they see as runaway government spending, and the tax hikes they suspect are right around the corner....While he [national organizer Eric Odom] insisted these events were non-partisan, a fistful of rightward leaning Web sites and commentators-" -- CBS Evening News, April 15.
• "There's been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so-called 'tea parties' around the company, country, hoping the historical reference will help galvanize Americans against the President's economic ideas. But I tell you, the idea hasn't really caught on. The RNC has jumped in. A few other talk radio hosts have jumped in, but it hasn't galvanized the party the way they would hope."-- NBC's Chuck Todd on Today, April 15, hours before the anti-tax rallies began.

(comics from Patriot Post)

This is the American Spirit - The American Dream..

This is a letter from another Joe the plumber - You work hard and risk everything - that is how you become successful, not by sitting on your butt waiting for a Government handout from Obama. Worth reading every bit of it!!

Corey Miller Well Driller
self | 22 Oct 2008 | self

Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:04:07 PM by Vob

"Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me 'Cory the well driller'. I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go 'conquer the world' when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews.. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys’ (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn’t want to take a risk, and wouldn't demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself.. I'm the guy you characterize as 'the Americans who can afford it the most' that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution 'to spread the wealth' to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce “politically motivated”), you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else’s money you are giving to them. I won’t say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don’t you just hate goggle?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American... www.cmillerdrilling.com"

A Nation founded on Christian Principles

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Listen to this audio of Obama below and ask yourself this question: "If this isn't Socialism, What is?????"
This youtube audio shares Obama's socialistic agenda of redistribution of wealth and economic justice -
In the audio, Obama states one of the reasons for political and community organizing is to be able to put together on the ground the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
He also states it is a tragedy that the constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth for African Americans. And it still is an issue today.
A caller asks, if it is too late for that kind of reparative work (redistribution of wealth) economically and is that the appropriate place (the courts) for reparative economic work to take place... or would it be legislation at this point?
Obama states that he doesn't think the courts can do it, but he does think it can be done legislatively. It isn't too late. Redistribution of Wealth is an administrative task. The Courts aren't very good at it. Although you can craft theoretical justification for it legally, the three of them sitting there could come up with an rationale for bringing about economic changes through the courts.

Please Note: This isn't a discussion about whether or not redistribution of wealth is right or wrong. This is a discussion about how best to do it!

And don't forgot Obama famous quote "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

No, it isn't good for everybody. Socialism, Marxism, or Communism has never worked in any society. Redistribution of wealth is actually punishing people for their hard work and intuitiveness. There is no point in working hard, if the ones that are lazy and do nothing get the same amount as you. People stop working hard, the society crumbles.
Do you remember the Soviet Union? Do you remember the Eastern Bloc? China has gone capitalist economy with a communist (socialist) government. If that doesn't convince you, look at the posh luxury of socialist Cuba. We are a highly successful here because of the FREEDOM we have. As far as the infrastructure we have it is because we are not a socialistic government. Don't take away our freedom, if you love socialism so much, please feel free to move into one of the other nations with socialistic government and call me and let me know how great it is. IF THEY LET YOU.

"One Vote" Can Make a Difference

This is an awesome video. Share it with your family and friends.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Republican

Did you know Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican?
Did you know that it was the Republicans that freed the blacks from slavery and fought for their rights?
Democrats started the KKK.
Democrats fought all civil rights legislation.
This is video tells other facts that we should all know.



This article really explains it all:
From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693196/posts
Dr. Martin Luther King a Republican
East Texas Review


Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:55:27 AM by mnehrling

Martin Luther King a Republican
by Frances Rice

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President 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.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former “Dixiecrat” is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970’s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty."

This is another good article about what MKL would say about Jermiah Wright - Obama pastor, friend and teacher.

excerpt from
What would MLK say?
by Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist - 10/21/2008 5:00:00
to read entire article see: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=293350

"Throughout history, much evil has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity. And there is no denying the racism and hatred that black people have suffered at the hands of whites in the past and in my lifetime. Nonetheless I was shocked that in 21st-century America people who called themselves Christians could act in such a way and expect to get away with it. White racists like David Duke are duly villified by the media. Black racists – well, there aren't any I guess.

The sermon was called "Paul's Letter to American Christians," and King would deliver it again a few months later from his pulpit at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church nine days before the Supreme Court declared Alabama bus segregation unconstitutional. In this sermon, King reads an imaginary letter from the Apostle Paul written to Christians in America.

Here is a portion of it:

"There is another thing that disturbs me to no end about the American church. You have a white church and you have a Negro church. You have allowed segregation to creep into the doors of the church. How can such a division exist in the true Body of Christ? You must face the tragic fact that when you stand at eleven o'clock on Sunday morning to sing 'All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name' and 'Dear Lord and Father of All Mankind,' you stand in the most segregated hour of Christian America. They tell me that there is more integration in the entertaining world and other secular agencies than there is in the Christian church. How appalling that is."

"So I would urge each of you to plead patiently with your brothers, and tell them this isn't the way. With understanding goodwill, you are obligated to seek to change their attitudes....Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him."

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's preaching bears little resemblance to the Christian message King was preaching during much more difficult times for blacks in this country. Wright preaches that "white man's greed runs a world in need." Wright preaches that "the government gives them [blacks] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law [and] then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no. Not God Bless America, God d--- America!" Wright declares from the pulpit, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people....Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italians, which means they were European which means they were white!" After the attacks of September 11, Wright preached that "America's chickens are coming home to roost," because "we have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans" and "the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yard." We brought it on ourselves. Wright gives a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, who openly proclaims his anti-Semitism, calling Judaism a "gutter religion" and Hitler "a very great man."

Martin Luther King stood up for blacks, fought against racism and segregation, and ultimately gave his life for those causes. He also preached the gospel of Jesus Christ, not a gospel of victimhood and hatred."

Can a Good Mormon be a Liberal Democrat?

I found this quote:
“In February 1974 Apostle Ezra Taft Benson was asked during an interview if a good Mormon could also be a liberal Democrat. Benson replied: ‘I think it would be very hard if he was living the gospel and understood it'.”

This may be opening a can of worms, but I found some very good explanations for this question: "Can A good Mormon be a liberal Democrat?"
I didn't write the post so don't send me your hate mail. But it does give the liberal Democrat Mormon something to think about.

The post is copied below. Post from and for more info See: http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=855415

Author: Freemarketcoug
Date: Sep 24, 12:00am
Category: Political Discussion

"There is no inherent problem being a Democrat and a Mormon. Elder Faust and Elder Jensen can attest to that. The early Church was solidily Democrat, primarily due to Republican support for ending polygamy. The majority of the Church aligned with the Republican party during President Grant's tenure, due primarily to prohibition and opposition to social programs like Social Security. President Grant said from the pulpit that "no worthy Latter-day Saint would ever take a pension" (regarding Social Security). For many years members were encouraged to send their checks back to the government. Anyway, I digress.

Point #1- Right-wingers are obsessed by money. I would say that the obsession with money is a non-partisan issue. The difference is whether money should be obtained by production (Republican concept) or by confiscation (Democrat). Money is a tool of exchange. We exchange something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (goods, services, etc). You might rephrase point #1 to say: "Republicans are obsessed with value-added production." I would say this is more in line with gospel principles than the opposite. The Savior blessed the servants that wisely turned a profit on their money (or talents) and condemned to hades the servant that buried his talent. The Savior recognized and taught the value of investment and production, so did Joseph Smith.

Point #2- Republicans hate the enviroment. Compare the environment in the US to any third world country. Prosperity leads to greater stewardship of the planet. Just because Republicans don't fall prey to junk science, doesn't mean that they hate the environment. 30 years ago we were on the brink of a global ice age, now it's warming. Who is putting their faith in man and his science?

Point #3- National Security. President Kimball was right that all the nuclear missles in the world wouldn't protect us nearly as much as faithful obedience to the Gospel. But National Security is the one fundamental purpose of government. Education is primarily the responsibility of parents, social programs tend to create dependencies, and humanitarianism destroys third world economies creating neverending dependencies. President Benson said that professional do-gooders have inflicted more harm on the world than all the rapists, murderers and warmongers combined.

Point #4- Spending on the poor. King Benjamin didn't advocate the confiscation of property by the government and redistribution to the poor. He believed as Republicans believe, that is in private charity and individual action. States that vote Republican spend more per capita on donations to the poor. Democrats would rather have the government assume what is their personal moral obligation. The problem with social spending is in taxation. D&C 134 clearly endorses property rights. A man's income is 100% his income. The involuntary confiscation of income amounts to theft, or as Pres. Benson said "legal plunder". Abinadi condemned King Noah's 20% income tax. I wonder what he would say today.

Regardless, I think the 45 million abortions since 1973 would be sufficient to reject the Democratic platform."

I especially agree with that point, how are you going to face God in the end and explain your support of this abominable sin. By supporting 'pro-choice' legislation you are saying that you agree that it is OK for millions of babies to be killed each year, whether or not you are the one that is doing it. It is a practice that not only kills babies but hurts, damages, and scars the women who do this.

Here is some more information below for the Liberal Mormon Democrat to think about. I, again, didn't write this, so don't send me hate mail. Selected quotes below are taken from:
Mormon, shmormon
Democratic party and LDS faith like oil and water
by Marianne M. Jennings
Arizona Republic, Nov. 28, 2004, V3
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1128jennings1128.html

"Liberal Democrat Mormons often state: "Being a Democrat does not mean I support every aspect of the Democratic Party's national platform. It's the party's platform, not my platform."
Democrats who claim membership in the Mormon Church embrace a political party that howls about choice when Republicans propose just a compromise to ban the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.
The judges, activists and members of Congress seeking to expand the definition of marriage to one of "between two persons" are of this party. That view is in direct contravention to the church's "Proclamation on the Family."
The Democrats party's NEA has indoctrinated children in public schools with godlessness, banishing prayer and then even the mention of terms such as Christmas and Easter.
This party, with its "Great Society," enslaved generations in a welfare system that robbed them of their dignity. Such a welfare system runs contra to church principles of self-sufficiency.
The superior welfare system of the Mormon Church, which thrives because it employs embarrassing Republican principles of work and private - yea, private - not public, funding.
How convenient to enjoy the world's acceptance with the trite, "Life begins at conception, but I believe in a woman's right to choose."
The Mormon Church does not take political positions, and wisely so. It teaches correct principles and relies confidently on its members to govern themselves.
We, Republican Mormon can support our party AND its platform.
Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But you can't have it both ways. You are free to choose the Dems, but don't expect us to appease your conscience by joining with you.
Absolute truths and eternal principles are not just for Sundays. They matter in life. They matter more in politics."

Quotes...

Great Quotes to Ponder:

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever
been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by
authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last,
the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest
millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their
rights seem to jar." -- Thomas Jefferson (Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786) Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Lipscomb and Bergh,
eds., 17:8.

“Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they’ve been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as William Ayers, still smarter than God, insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of ‘fairness.’ Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn’t been given a real chance. Well, if Obama is elected, we may get that chance.” —David Limbaugh

“[B]y ‘redistributing wealth,’ as Obama wants the government to do, he’s actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he’s likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.” —Linda Chavez

“It was the Republican Party that demolished the shining city on the hill my father built. It was the Republican Party that was 100 percent responsible for the end of the Reagan Revolution...[T]he Republican Party abandoned the trail leading to that shining city on the hill to become itself a quasi-Left-wing organization which looks at the Democrats’ welfare programs and says ‘me too’.” —Michael Reagan

And some not so Great Quotes:

Endorsements you don’t want: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate... And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you—not financially to help him—we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” —Joe Biden **It won’t be apparent because you won’t be right.

What about the law?: “I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” —Barack Obama

Getting it exactly backwards: “John McCain has been a party to the most significant redistribution of wealth in American history and it has been all the wrong way... [McCain believes in] trickle down, government is bad, markets are right [economics].” —Joe Biden

Speaking of redistribution: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

From the Head Cheerleader: “One hundred percent Barack Obama is going to win! He’s going to be our next president and a great president at that. We’re all excited to work with him.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for clearing that up: “What I said, that indicted everybody, that’s not what I meant at all. What I mean is there’s still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black. This whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” —Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) “apologizing” for calling Western Pennsylvania racist **

“I never said most of the things I said.” —Yogi Berra

Joe the Plumber - The Forgotten Man

These are some exerts from: The Forgotten Man and Election 2008
by Newt Gingrich
to read the entire article see: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29127

"Joe the Plumber has struck a chord in the closing weeks of this election because he represents the Forgotten Man. When he confronted Sen. Barack Obama on the campaign trail with the question of what would happen to his taxes under an Obama Administration should he realize his dream of owning his own business, Joe cast the decision that faces us in this election in stark relief:

Which will be better for our economy: Politicians redistributing our wealth or growing more wealth?

And Sen. Obama gave us an equally stark answer: Under his leadership, America will focus on “spreading around” the Forgotten Man’s wealth, not encouraging him to create more of it.

Joe the Plumber has struck a chord because he reminds us (and should remind politicians in Washington) that government, no matter how well intentioned, has to be paid for and that money comes from guys like Joe. Politicians can either bleed him dry to fund their programs, or they can encourage Americans to create more jobs and more wealth -- and keep government limited and effective.

But in a one-party Washington, completely controlled by Harry Reid with a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi with an expanded Democratic majority in the House, and Barack Obama in the White House, the liberal politicians’ impulse to take your money and use it as they see fit will be unrestrained and unrestrainable.

If Washington politicians bothered to ask, they would know that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to redistributionist policies that limit wealth creation.

Last June, as a matter of fact, the Gallup Organization did ask the American people. Here’s how they reported the results:

“When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.”

Barack Obama is a Socialist

George Bush spent like a democrat and let the government grow too much. He may have had great ideals, but he didn't follow them. He reached so far across the aisle that he ended up moving to that side, and then the lefts moved over further to socialism. Somehow America is missing the fact that we are becoming a socialist nation. We need someone to take us back to the "classic" right. McCain needs to turn things around before it is too late.I agree with the writer below 'McCain needs to quickly reestablish the Republican brand of freedom and contrast this with Obama's clear socialism'. Can he do this? Do the majority Americans want freedom over socialism? or have we all been sold into the 'Obama' belief that somehow socialism is better and the government can spread the wealth around and take care of all our needs better than we can ourselves.
Do we remember what Socialism means?
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism. That is, communism (whose motto is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") is deemed a further development or "higher stage" of socialism (whose motto is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds") - communism being the more "perfect" of two systems that both advocate public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds, or the quality and quantity of work that people perform, stands in marked contrast to the communist principle of distribution according to people's needs. The former, because it accepts deed-based distribution of wealth, is considered easier to implement in a capitalist society without large-scale overhauls of existing political and economic structures. In essence, socialists view capitalism as a viable economic mechanism whose reins must simply be transferred from the currently dominant "oppressor class" that misuses capitalism to exploit workers, into the hands of the "worker class" which could use the system for laudable ends." from: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue

Anyway, this is a link to a really good article. I believe it goes along with Michael's comments on "Reinventing the Republican Party" -see Michael's comments here

For more info and to read the entire article see: OneNewsNow.com
- McCain must state obvious: Obama is a socialist
by Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 10/20/2008 7:15:00
some quotes from the article:

"Apologies to George W. Bush, but time is too precious for tiptoeing around the truth. We've seen the biggest growth of government over the last eight years since Franklin Roosevelt, and the country is in a mess. It's only natural psychology to associate the mess with Republicans...

McCain must disassociate from the mistakes of "new" Republicanism, show that these mistakes are exactly where Senator Obama wants to pick up, and re-establish the "classic" Republican brand....

But he's still not being clear or aggressive enough.

McCain must paint with clarity the starkly different worlds that Americans will be buying into when they step into voting booths in November.

Barack Obama is a socialist. McCain must say it. It's not slinging mud but stating fact.

Perhaps a complicating factor in explaining freedom to Americans today is that when "classic" Republicanism was selling, we all still remembered the Soviet Union and communist China. The difference between the United States and the rest of the world then was clearer than today.

When someone said "socialist" or "communist,'' we could look abroad and know exactly what this meant.

There is nowhere where Senator Obama sees Americans suffering from excessive government. The opposite. He sees all our suffering from not enough.

The collapse of communism and socialism abroad was not accidental. Central planning is both dysfunctional and immoral...

To turn things around, McCain must quickly reestablish the Republican brand of freedom and contrast this with Obama's clear socialism."

No ObamaNation!!

Do you know of someone that is voting for Obama?

Friends don't let friends vote for Obama.

Anyone that loves their freedom and is seriously considering voting for Obama should read the following articles from The Patriot Post. Instead of quoting the articles, and posting them here; I have just posted the links. They are very insightful articles.

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." --Samuel Adams

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

1. Barack who?

2. Disciple of Hate

3. Another Marx brother

Here are some samples below of facts you will learn about Obama from those links:

"Obama displayed his disdain for middle America's faith and values at a closed-door San Francisco fundraiser, he states: 'You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest ... it's not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations'."

"To date, Obama has passed on charm alone, all fragrance, no substance. So little is known about Obama that when it was discovered that his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, the man he identifies as most influential in his life, has discipled him in Afrocentric Liberation Theology for more than 20 years, that presented an excellent opportunity to gain real insight into Barack Hussein Obama. Wright officiated at Obama's wedding, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope. Here is a portrait of Wright in his own words from the pulpit: 'The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, g*d d*** America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. G*d d*** America for treating our citizens as less than human. G*d d*** America for as long as she acts like she is god and she is supreme'."

"Wrights TUC (former) Mission statement (recently changed and removed from its website), "Commitment to the black values system," or as Wright notes, "Similar to the Gospel movement in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement." The statement continues, "Commitment to the black community ... black family ... adherence to the black work ethic ... supporting black institutions ... pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black values system." That is a very dark mission statement."

"Wright was, himself, a disciple of James Cone, one of the original champions of Black Liberation Theology, who wrote the following in his seminal work, Black Theology and Black Power: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love'."

"Wright quotes Cone on TUC's website: 'The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. ... All white men are responsible for white oppression. ... Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil'."

"Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the Weather Underground, a violent group of radical Leftovers from the Revolutionary Youth Movement, a wing of Students for a Democratic Society. Ayers and Dohrn split from the Maoist RYM, insisting that a revolution against the United States and capitalists everywhere should commence immediately. In 1969, Ayers and Dohrn were founding signatories of the Weathermen's declaration of unification with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" vanguards, to ensure "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world Communism." In 1970 the Weather Underground issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States and commenced a campaign of terror including bombings, jailbreaks, and the instigation of riots. Between 1969 and 1975, they bombed the U.S. Capitol twice, the Pentagon, the Department of State and several federal courthouses. They also attacked state and local government buildings and "capitalist targets" such as banks. The terrorist organization began to disband after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and the fall of Saigon, though one of their last acts of violence was a Brinks robbery in 1981, in which two police officers and a security guard were murdered during that robbery. Ayers and Dohrn actually hosted the party to launch Obama's successful 1996 Illinois State Senate campaign at their fashionable Hyde Park home, a campaign endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America."

"In his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama refers to "Frank" repeatedly, and said that Davis "and his old Black Power dashiki self" was still mentoring him as late as 1979, when he was a student in California. Davis warned Obama that college would give him 'an advanced degree in compromise" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that s**t'."

"Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him. He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism. A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign-policy tour that will use cheering Europeans -- and America's top news anchors -- as extras in his campaign. . . . There's no such thing as a humble politician. But when Obama looks into the mirror, he doesn't just see a president; he sees JFK" -- Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi

"There is [a] class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy, and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. ... There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." -- Booker T. Washington in his 1911 book, My Larger Education

"Obama is part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings. Karl Marx said, 'The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.' In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda. Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the 'detestable' people who 'have no right to live.' He added: 'I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves'." --Thomas Sowell

Why the Left Can't Get It Right

Wow, This article really explains it clearly!

from: The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=602)
"Why the Left can't get it Right
by Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 29; Published 18 July 2008

"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." --Samuel Adams

Ask liberals about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example, why they support charlatans like Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, John Forbes Kerry, et al., and they often predicate their response with, "Because I feel..."

Ask conservatives about what they believe, or why they do or don't support John McCain, and they invariably predicates their response with, "Because I think..."

It has always been easier to "feel" rather than "think," and that is why our national culture, and by extension, national politics (see Democrat Party Platforms) reflect only the most rudimentary remnants of the guiding principles established by our Founders. Of course, though Republican Party Platforms are more consistent with our Founding principles, Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president to stand firmly in support of those principles.

Liberalism tends to appeal to the worst of human instincts -- greed, envy, laziness, victimization and every line of economic, social, cultural and ethnic division. Its practitioners appeal to constituent "feelings," and convert emotions into political capital.

There is well established pathology which explains why Democrats fuel campaigns with feelings, and if there is one uniformly defining liberal characteristic of Democrat leaders, it would be hypocrisy.

Liberal politicos advocate populist themes but are consummate elitists. They feign concern for the plight of the poor while hobnobbing with the richest of the rich. They are charitable with everyone's income but their own. They decry school vouchers yet send their children to the finest academies. They hate SUVs, unless they are expensive imports. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They express concern for the homeless yet maintain multiple manors.

Liberals advocate diversity, unless your views don't comport with their own doctrines of moral relativism. They want to preserve nature and the natural order but advocate homosexual "marriage." They oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of criminal sociopaths, but they support the execution of unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims "Little Eichmanns" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They "support our troops" while calling for retreat and surrender.

Liberals call for "change" but are firmly committed to the status quo. They oppose nuclear power production while complaining about "global warming." They call for racial, ethnic and religious harmony, but they rally constituencies by fomenting division and hate. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny.

Indeed, liberals have turned the wisdom of their iconic sovereigns inside out.

Then: "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961 Now: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."

Then: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." --Martin L. King, Address from the Lincoln Memorial, 1963 Now: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin."

Liberals have replaced the original Constitution with their so-called "Living Constitution" so that they can insist on viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens -- except, of course, the "freedom of religion" part, where they opt to censor Christianity while imposing secular atheism. They advocate a "Wall of Separation" between church and state, but they tear down any obstacles between your income and the state. Of course, they also insist on viewing the Second Amendment through a pinhole.

Liberals protest economic recession, all the while suppressing economic growth with evermore taxes and regulations. Most of them are card-carrying members of the ignoble ranks of "useful idiots," those Western apologists for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Of course, that card reads: "Member, Democrat National Committee."

I have no doubt that you've already come up with a list of additional examples of liberal hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there isn't enough bandwidth on the Internet to compile a comprehensive list here. (Feel free to post additional examples on our reader comments page.)

Liberal and conservative worldviews often collide for this reason: Disciplined conservatives put God first, family and country second and themselves third, while liberals tend to put themselves first, their country last, and serve gods made in their image. This is the most defining philosophical distinction between these two groups.

As we approach the next presidential election, Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle -- "moderate" or "centrist." But political researchers are finding that we are in fact a deeply divided nation, with many voters strongly identifying with either conservative or liberal doctrines.

Let's hope and pray that more of our fellow Americans, those guided by their feelings, will think better of this process and vote on right-minded principles. Otherwise, it will be difficult to seat candidates who, in the words of Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of 'wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth"..."

Presidential Character

This article is from: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=615
"Presidential Character
by Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 41; Published 10 October 2008

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams

In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.

However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy's national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, "ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country."

In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?

Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.

This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)

When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, "the Party left me," has never been more true than today.

For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.

Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.

Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we're told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes." This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.

Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation's legacy of liberty and equality.

That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame."

For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let's return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic's Constitution.

Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.

John Adams: "Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. ... If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. ... We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."

Samuel Adams: "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. ... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. ... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. ... No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. ... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ... The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. ... An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

George Washington: "No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. ...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. ... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Sound familiar?

In No. 10, Madison cautions, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm," and insisted in No. 57, "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

Madison's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.

In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!"

We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.

As Adams understood, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, "Freedom is ... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time."

So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?

On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, let's hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.

Let's put country first."

For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.

Please forward these insights to your family, friends and associates.