Flashback January 2008: December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth.

Next time someones tells you it is “all Bush’s fault” or that “tax cuts can’t work” just remind them of this.

Allbusiness January 4th 2008:

More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

WASHINGTON — Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.

The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation

* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent – an average of more than $3,550 per person – since President Bush took office.

* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

* The Federal budget deficit is down to 1.2 percent of GDP (in FY07), well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to the highest tax revenues on record and a $250 billion drop in the deficit over the last three years.

* U.S. exports in October 2007 were 13.7 percent higher than exports in October 2006.

* The Administration will continue working to prevent tax increases on families and small businesses. The President’s tax relief cut taxes for everyone who pays income taxes and must be made permanent to prevent hard-working Americans from facing a massive tax hike.

* The President urges Congress to complete work on legislation to help American families keep their homes. Congress took one positive step by voting to pass the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. Now they should complete work on the President’s FHA modernization bill and pass a reform bill that strengthens the regulation of government sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [Editor’s Note – The Democrats used the filibuster threat in the Senate to stop mortgage reform, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, once again; reform that President Bush and Republicans in Congress were trying to get passed since 2001. The Democrats insisted that there was no problem while taking almost $200 million from Fannie/Freddie in campaign funds, donations to their party, 527’s, think tanks, and other partisan groups. We now live with the result.]

Salon Publishes MULTIPLE Calls for Torture, Murder of Sarah Palin

Is anyone surprised? Our friends at Big Journalism caught only one of these, there are more. Below is what we found just browsing for about five minutes. There are thousands of hate screeds against Sarah Palin and Republicans in general on Salon,  many of which contain violence and rape imagery; the few we picked out were some of the most… shall we say… colorful.

By the way THIS is what we mean by Palin Derangement Syndrome…

Via BigJournalism.com:

Liberal online political magazine Salon.com published a letter to the editor Friday that called for the murder of 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The letter was written in response to a mocking article at Salon titled, Good Morning America’s painfully friendly interview with Sarah Palin by Alex Pareene.

Pareene snarkily sums up the GMA interview:

“The interview was basically split into a couple of distinct sections: How awesome is your family, how bad is Barack Obama, how awful are people who criticize you, and how awesome is America?”

The first letter published in response to the article calls for Palin to be electrocuted by a cattle prod by convicted dog abuser Michael Vick:  “Vick gets a pet to torture and we get rid of Palin. A win-win for everyone!”

Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, is a convicted felon who spent time in prison for dog fighting and animal cruelty.

That letter has apparently sat in the pole position under the article in the Letters to the Editor section since it was posted “Friday, December 17, 2010 12:33 PM ET.”

The Letters section for the GMA article lists 65 letters published over four pages. Each letter has a “flag” button to call attention to Salon editors about objectionable comments. It seems no one at Salon finds it objectionable for the site to publish an explicit call for murder.

Salon’s Editor at Large  Joan Walsh is a regular on MSNBC and CNN. Will Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or Wolf Blitzer attack Walsh for prominently publishing a call for the murder of Sarah Palin? Will Walsh do the right thing and publicly apologize to Palin and pull the letter?

How soon will the Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America come along and slurp up this large chunk of vomit from Salon?

So I went to Salon and started looking at the comments – WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK –

Friday, December 17, 2010 01:24 PM ET

Palin Will Likely Be Assassinated

If she gets anywhere near the Presidential nomination, she will probably catch a bullet in the head.

I seriously doubt that the corporations who really run America want this stupid twat fucking up shit in D.C.

They prefer a smoother kind of criminal like Obama.

Friday, December 17, 2010 04:23 PM ET

I Shit In Sarah Palin’s Foul Cunt.

Fuck her and fuck her retarded family.

Fuck the GOP.

Fuck Ronald Reagan’s maggot-ridden corpse.

Fuck their evil Jesus and their sick Bible.

Fuck John Wayne and his tiny dick.

Fuck Rush Limbaugh and his cancerous soul.

Fuck George W. Bush and his cocaine-addled peabrain.

Fuck Dick Cheney and his tiny mechanical heart.

Fuck Karl Rove and his self-hating homosexuality.

Fuck Condosleeza Rice and her self-hating racism.

Fuck G.I. Joe, Captain America and The Girl Next Door.

Fuck Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Joseph Smith and every other batshit crazy Mormon huckster.

Fuck Miss America and all the Ships at Sea.

Fuck Barack Obama and his cowardly sellout ass.

Fuck anyone who ever supported our troops.

Fuck our troops.

Fuck God.

Fuck The Flag.

Fuck Apple Pie.

Fuck The Golden Arches.

Fuck Bank of America.

Fuck General Motors.

Fuck Joe Lieberman, Joe McCarthy and Joe the goddamn Plumber.

Fuck the South.

Fuck Texas. Twice.

Fuck the KKK.

Fuck John Birch.

Fuck Barry Goldwater.

And fuck any motherfucker who disagrees with me.

Saturday, December 18, 2010 01:39 AM ET

Calif Mike: The main stream media should stick to the old proven strategy of tearing her apart. There is no real entertainment without blood.

I hear you, brother.

I tried to convince the networks to have that obnoxious dumbass bitch torn apart and eaten alive by starving dogs, but their pussyhole executives wouldn’t buy it.


Dr. Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions

Dr. Sowell describes the critical differences between interests and visions. Interests, he says, are articulated by people who know what their interests are and what they want to do about them. Visions, however, are the implicit assumptions by which people operate. In politics, visions are either constrained or unconstrained. A closer look at the statements of both McCain and Obama reveals which vision motivates their policy positions, particularly as they pertain to the war, the law, and economics.

This is also a great exploration of the difference between constrained realists and unconstrained visionaries, traditionalists vs. central planners, the empirical world vs. the normative.

PBS’ Tavis Smiley Wins Pinhead of the Year Award: Tells Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Christians in America Blow Up People Every Day

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under a death mark. She needs security 24/7 and likely will for the rest of her life. She made a film with Theo van Gogh about the status of women is Islamic countries. Van Gogh was killed out in the open during the day and  the knife driven through his chest had a note addressed to Ali essentially saying that she was next. Radicalized Muslim communities that function as a state within a state are popping up around Europe and the Western Europeans do not have the will to stand up to it.

Ali escaped a life of forced marriage and virtual slavery from her Islamic family. She escaped, got educated, and became a Member of the Dutch Parliament. When it became clear that her security needs could not be met she came to the United States.

She writes about her experiences and how the West should stand up to preserve our freedom and our culture. Reflexively the progressive secular left in the elite media, which has been taught in American Universities that Western Culture is “the oppressor” and that Christianity is evil, often attacks her and throws the most outrageous false premises at her in an effort to embarrass her. They end up just embarrassing themselves. Watch the following exchange between PBS  Tavis Smiley and Ali.

How can anyone be this deranged, this foolish, this plain stupid? It is not uncommon among the far left folks. I saw this level of idiocy frequently among the campus left. By the way, 162 Muslims have been arrested in the United States in the last two years for plotting against America. How many Christians have been? It happens every day according to Tavis so how about he produce just 100? Anyone care to take that challenge?

With that said, nothing he said is true and anyone with  access to a search engine can find that out in pretty short order. Post offices are not blown up every day. In fact, using Google to search only two threats of blowing up post offices in the US appear; one from a homeless man who wanted money and another from a man who was likely  mentally disturbed as he false reported about an alleged bomb threat to a post office.

No one was called the N word in front of the Capitol Building. The event was being recorded from many angles by a sea of new media recording devices that captured every moment of the event which demonstrated that nothing of the kind happened. A $100,000 reward for evidence of it happening was offered by Andrew Breitbart with no takers. Of the two Democrat politicians who made the false claim, one back-pedaled and the other is the same politician who compared John McCain to Democrat Governor George Wallace  in October 2008.

The only  known acts of violence at Tea Party events have been carried out by far left extremists and paid union thugs who showed up to physically attack the participants. All of this has been reported in detail on this site (see our violence category).

So what do you think? Is Smiley mentally challenged, delusional, as ignorant as the day is long, or just a liar? In any case he has won the coveted title of “Pinhead of the Year”.

“It’s always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it’s the victim of violence who is ‘really’ inciting it” Christopher Hitchens writing about how the elite media, in its reflexive defense of Islamic extremism, uses the most outrageously bogus moral equivalences to try and discredit Ayann Hirsi Ali.


Liberal Talker Alan Colmes: Muslims aren’t the terror problem, white males are…..

Lesson for Journalism Students: Leftist Media Attack Fox News for Memo Reminding Reporters to Always be Skeptical

[Another great piece that I wrote on my old college blog.]

There are two predominant philosophies of journalism taught in this country. The “Walter Lippmann (so called) ‘objective’ model” and what one of  my J-School profs called the “Looking out for the folks” model. The former is usually presented as the preferred model at most universities (especially the Ivy’s)

The Lippmann Objective Model is anything but objective. The Lippmann model says that journalists should associate themselves with an elite technical class of people so that these experts via/with the journalists can give the “proper” information to the public so that they can “vote the right way”.

At first, the Orwellian nature of the Lippmann Model  is not so pointedly explained, but as time goes on reporters get it and the coverage of the elite media shows it. [If you doubt me I challenge you to follow this LINK and scroll down to the quote from Dr. Rahe and the excerpt from Lippmann’s book – Editor]

For example, the reporter and/or editor has a point of view he wishes to present. So he opens his rolodex and contacts an “expert” he knows will give him the sound-bite he wants and presents him as just an objective expert who they found at random. Or said reporter will have a man on the street section, but the reporter will call a few people he knows to be on that street, complete with the narrative that the reporter knows will present.

Oh? You think I’m kidding? OK just a few examples:

CNN Debates: Unbiased and Undecided Voters Turn Out to be Democrat Operatives (most of whom had appeared on CNN before)

Of course this is a trick commonly used by PR operatives:

Washington Post: Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Ringers

Obama’s Photo Op with Cheering Troops Staged

BUSTED: Democrats putting campaign ringers in town halls falsely claiming to be doctors!

Of course the Associated Press knows this goes on, but only appreciates it when leftists do it:

AP praises Obama for using military for public relations. FLASHBACK: AP condemned Bush accusing him of using the military for public relations.

The “looking out for the folks” model is often quoted by Bill O’Reilly, but Bill, as he will tell you, is more of a commentator than a straight news man. The spirit of the kind of journalism O’Reilly did when he was a straight news man is closer to this model. The “looking out for the folks” model certainly resembles more of the ethical ideal in what people expect from journalism and is what “Lippmann Objective Model” media outlets claim to be on their face.

Enough with the preliminary goodies and on to the meat.

Washington Examiner:

Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be ‘skeptical’

By Mark Tapscott

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.

Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?

There is also the factual nature of Sammon’s statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn’t demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.

Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?

The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while.

So how long you think it will be before Sammon’s critics claim my comments here aren’t credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure.

So here’s something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center’s Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I was among a bunch of very smart people for whom I have great respect – even though they came predominantly from the liberal side of things.

But I don’t recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.

NYC Communists: We Prefer to be Called Progressives

Of course they do.

[By the way the reason the media report is so glowing is because RT = Russia Today – Editor]

The first “great” progressive thinker is Walter Lippmann. He is the founder of modern American journalism and advisor to President’s Wilson and FDR. He wrote this:

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. They believe in what Mr. Stuart Chase accurately describes as “the overhead planning and control of economic activity.” This is the dogma which all the prevailing dogmas presuppose. This is the mold in which are cast the thought and action of the epoch. No other approach to the regulation of human affairs is seriously considered, or is even conceived as possible. The recently enfranchised masses and the leaders of thought who supply their ideas are almost completely under the spell of this dogma. Only a handful here and there, groups without influence, isolated and disregarded thinkers, continue to challenge it. For the premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide.

The first great thinker of the “progressive movement” openly states that progressivism and American liberalism are simply flavors of communism designed to control men and the economy by ever increasing the role of the state in our lives. This is not extremism folks, or fear mongering, it is simply the objective truth by their own words.

The Blaze:


Those who doubt the connection between the communist party and the unions need only to read accounts of a recent awards ceremony to see how both groups view each other.

On Sunday, December 5, the Communist Party USA gave awards to a pair of labor leaders and a former state legislator and assistant attorney general.* Among the recipients was Connecticut AFL-CIO head John Olsen, who not only gladly accepted the award, but garnered “loud applause” when he said he stands with CPUSA.

CPUSA’s webzine People’s World reports Olsen was given the award at the Voices for Jobs, Equality & Peace – People’s World Amistad Awards Concert celebrating the 90th anniversary of the CPUSA.

“James Hillhouse High School auditorium was filled with the fabulous jazz sounds of Jeff Fuller & Friends, labor songs by Bill Collins of the Rabble Rousers, and poetry by Baub Bidon and Ken Brown,” the article describes the event. But besides offering a mental picture, it also gives a glimpse of Olsen’s acceptance speech, in which he says he will stand with the Communist Party:

“Anyone who stands with me for workers’ rights, I stand with them,” said John Olsen to loud applause as he acknowledged the Communist Party and took a strong stand against fear mongering and baiting, including the anti-socialist baiting of President Barack Obama.

The article goes on to praise the union for its work, and explains how important the union is in fighting for CPUSA causes:

The AFL CIO and local unions are now developing their legislative agendas.  For the first time in 22 years, a Democratic governor was elected in Connecticut.  It is widely recognized that union members made the difference in voter turnout.

Related – AFL-CIO Head Calls For Government Takeover of All Business

Does U.S. Foreign Aid Make a Difference? Should It Be Stopped?

[Editor’s Note – While I think that the foreign aid program should be re-examined just as every program should, Greg Hilton makes some points here that are difficult to dispute. The aid, when done wisely, aids the diplomatic credibility of the United States. That diplomatic credibility has saved lives that none of us will ever know about, including American lives.

Let us just focus on Israel for a moment. Our aid to Israel, some of which is obviously military, sends a message to the world that there will never again be another genocide against the Jewish people if we have anything to do about it. While Israel has had hard times, think of how much harder the years would have been without the fear and credibility of the United States as her ally? We saw the reaction of Arafat after 9/11. He was scared white as a ghost in fear that somehow 9/11 could have been tied to the PLO.

The jihadists see Israel as the “little Satan” and the USA as the “big Satan”. This means that Israel’s security is our security.

We cannot have a one size fits all – “all or nothing” foreign policy and that is what a ban on all foreign aid is. While I am glad to see Senator Paul take spending cuts and waste very seriously, I believe this particular policy position stems from ignorance. It is my hope that after a few intelligence briefings Senator Paul will moderate his view on this issue.]

By Gregory Hilton:

The Senate Tea Party Caucus was officially launched yesterday with a two hour meeting open to the public. The Caucus includes Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Tea Party candidates such as Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have decided not to join the group. Senator Paul participated in numerous media interviews to mark the debut of the Caucus.

Rand Paul confirmed his opposition to the entire foreign aid program (which is 0.19% of the budget), and said America should eliminate all the assistance it provides to Israel. Foreign aid has never been popular, and this is especially true when the nation has a $1.5 trillion deficit this year as well as a $14 trillion national debt. Senator Paul wants to abolish all aid because “nothing has changed in the poorest parts of the world.”

Senator Paul wants to abolish all aid because “nothing has changed in the poorest parts of the world.” He believes the money is being wasted, and that certainly did happen in the past.

Problems and Opportunities

Many Americans are not interested in the Third World or failed states which have been impoverished for years. Besides, the United States has plenty to worry about on its own.

African nations are far away and have so many problems. They are still beset with civil wars and strife. In the 1990s, Africa had more wars than the rest of the world combined.

During the Cold War, the United States was in competition with the Soviet Union, and foreign aid then went to dictators such as Mobutu in the Congo, Bokassa in the Central African Republic, Duvalier in Haiti and Stroessner in Paraguay. Mobutu alone stole at least $5 billion, and other problems include:

■Corruption remains a problem and in recent years the presidents of Zambia and Malawi have both been charged with embezzling millions in aid funds.

■The governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe are today letting their people starve.

■There have also been mistakes. Over $2 billion was spent to construct roads in Tanzania, but transportation did not improve because there were no funds to maintain them.

■From 1970 to 2002, over 70% of total government spending came from foreign aid in Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Mauritania and Sierra Leone. Progress has not been made in those nations, and they are unable to maintain their schools and clinic without aid.

■The policy of donor nations has been to give these failed countries the basics. Food and medicine have been distributed and governments have not been asked to do anything. That has created a dependence on more aid. It is far better to have programs based on the power of markets, but that requires a long commitment.

Critics point to the failed states to demonstrate that foreign aid is useless, and poverty will never go away. Millions of people are still dying from disease, and Senator Paul and his allies now want Americans to give up.

What they will not acknowledge is that millions of people have been saved. The aid failures in the past decade have been relatively small, and the victories have been huge. African poverty and inequality is falling fast, and the continent is on track to halve poverty by 2020.

Foreign Aid Often Helps The American Economy

Foreign aid is from the American people, but it is also for the American people. It is far more than charity, and it has proven to be a smart investment. There is substantial evidence demonstrating that foreign aid helps to create new American markets.

Long time aid recipients such as India, Indonesia, South Korea and Poland, are now major markets for American goods and services. The competitiveness of the United States is based on trade. One example of our changing economy is that Buick sales this year will be six times greater in China than in America. This is excellent news because the American taxpayers now own GM.

One out of five U.S. jobs now depends on international trade. Half of U.S. exports (almost $600 billion) are now going to developing counties. Almost 90% of those sales are from small to medium sized companies, and for every 10% increase in exports there is a 7% decrease in America’s unemployment rate.

Foreign Aid Helps Our National Security

Many people view foreign aid as a moral obligation to help the poor and feed the hungry, but the national security community supports the program because it helps to keep Americans safe and secure. That is why foreign aid is part of America’s official national security strategy. In addition, George W. Bush placed development aid alongside defense and diplomacy as a third critical pillar of national security.

America’s foreign assistance team works hand and glove with its military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, and Central America. For example, by improving agriculture in Afghanistan we are helping to defeat the Taliban.

The home base of the Taliban in Kandahar is now exporting food for the first time in 40 years. The schools the U.S. has refurbished have replaced the Taliban’s extremist madrassas. Foreign aid has also moved farmers away from coca cultivation in nations such as Afghanistan and Colombia. In the regions of Colombia where the U.S. is involved, coca cultivation has dropped 85%. This is an essential part of the war on drugs.

The linkage between national security and foreign aid dates back to the Marshall Plan which helped in the post WW II recovery, but it also stopped the spread of communism to western Europe. JFK’s Alliance for Progress helped to stop the export of communist revolutions in Latin America.

As we have recently seen, impoverished states have been spawning grounds for terrorism, trafficking, environmental devastation, and disease. Foreign aid is an important part of the mix because the military can’t secure a society alone. We learned this again in Iraq where we had to shift to a counterinsurgency strategy in 2006, and we had to do the same thing in Afghanistan in 2009.

Full Support From The Joint Chiefs of Staff

The most effective lobbyists for foreign aid have been the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who have also emphasized how it bolster’s America’s national security. The JCS Chairman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he considers the education of women and girls important to our military goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and consequently to our security here at home.

Many studies support their observations. They have noted that a key to alleviating global poverty and its attendant ills such as fundamentalism and extremism is by empowering women and girls. The countries we are having the most trouble with are the ones who marginalize their females.

George W. Bush Completely Changed Foreign Aid

Senator Paul’s real target is President George W. Bush who quadrupled foreign aid. Bush increased the program from $2 billion to $8 billion where it remains today.

At the same time, Bush was successful in encouraging America’s allies to increase their aid, and they now provide $22 billion on an annual basis. This does not include assistance from non-profit and international organizations. The U.S. has the largest foreign aid budget, but as a percentage of our GDP, nations such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are far ahead of us. Almost 60% of U.S. aid goes to Israel, Egypt and Colombia.

Bush completely changed foreign aid by numerous reforms and creating the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in March 2002. The program was designed to give millions of people the tools they need to build a better future.

The nations which receive MCA aid are those who have made a new commitment to fighting poverty by working in partnership with America to educate their people, encourage economic productivity and fight corruption. The only countries which receive aid are those who govern justly and meet a well defined set of requirements.

The 40 nations which have met the MCA or poverty reduction strategy requirements have an average growth rate of 5.9%. The Bush approach has been effective and amazing progress has happened.

It is also demonstrated in the declining number of child deaths, the advances made against HIV/AIDS, and the number of children going to school. A 2009 World Health Organization report credited the Bush administration with saving over 10 millions lives.

Foreign Aid is Making a Huge Difference

Significant problems still remain in the foreign aid program, and prior to the Bush administration billions of dollars were lost due to corruption. Nevertheless, significant progress was made by previous administrations.

The post World War II Marshall Plan gave $13 billion to Europe, which would be the equivalent of $100 billion today. It is still regarded as a tremendous success. Foreign aid also helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in South Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, Indonesia and Tanzania.

In the past 50 years, infant and child death rates in the developing world have been reduced by 50 percent, and life expectancy increased by about 33 percent. At the same time, smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, and polio will soon join that list. There has been enormous progress in fighting river blindness, guinea worm, diarrheal diseases, and others.

Without the top three U.S. aid recipients, America has about $4 billion to distribute on an annual basis. The world will not be saved with that modest investment, but progress is being made and foreign aid should continue. Some of the milestones are:

■In the past 20 years, the number of the worlds chronically undernourished has been reduced by 50 percent.

■More than 3 million lives are saved every year through America’s childhood immunization programs.

■Five and a quarter million people worldwide have a new lease of life since 2002 because of AIDS treatment.

■Literacy rates are up 33 percent worldwide in the past two decades, and primary school enrollment has tripled.

■In sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion of primary school age children enrolled in school increased from 56% in 1999 to 73% in 2009, the fastest increase of any region. Fifteen African countries have achieved gender parity in primary education, meaning they have an equal number of boys and girls enrolling.

■The United States has brought safe drinking water to 1.3 billion people.

■U.S. agricultural technology and practices have led to the most dramatic increases in crop production in the history of mankind, helping to feed a billion people.

■98 million less people were going hungry in 2010 compared to in 2009. Hunger is down in Ghana by over 75%. The decades of military rule are over in Ghana, and a pro-free market government has been making steady progress.

■23 African economies are now growing individually at 5% or more a year. In total 18 non-oil producing African countries have averaged growth of 5.5% during the past decade. Mozambique has had an amazing fifteen-year record of nearly 8 percent growth. Elsewhere, Egypt and Pakistan have tripled their incomes.

■TB deaths are down from 1.8 million in 2007 to 1.3 million in 2010.

■Measles deaths have fallen by 89% over the past decade after a massive vaccination program carried out by the United States in partnership with African governments, UNICEF and the American Red Cross.

■The U.S. government and America’s non-profit organizations have distributed 122 million bed nets to protect families from malaria. Malaria incidences in west Africa have decreased by 49% since 2003, and the disease is no longer a major concern in Vietnam or Thailand.

■During the past two decades, under-five mortality rates have declined by an average of 52% in Eritrea, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger and Ethiopia.

■Forty-five years ago, Botswana was one of the poorest nations in the world. Then a free market was established and for three decades Botswana had the highest average economic growth rate on the planet.

■Five years ago Liberia appear to be a failed state basket case because of civil war, corruption and poverty. Some people thought an aid program was not worth the effort. Liberia is still a poor nation, but it has made significant progress in all areas.

■Foreign aid is not a never ending dole, and seven more nations have made enough progress to be removed from the assistance roles over the next three years. The first to go will be Montenegro in 2012. Countries which have been past recipients of aid such as India and Brazil are now donors.

Can America Afford Foreign Aid?

Over the past half century many people have claimed a foreign aid program was too expensive. Prior to George W. Bush, the aid program was cut repeatedly, and America does have a big deficit today.

Nevertheless, the critics are wrong in claiming the United States is carrying the world development load. Excluding the top three recipients, aid is only 0.09% of the budget. This is less than $4 billion and a considerable amount of that is helping security programs and the war on drugs.

The United States has received an excellent return on its foreign aid investment. In addition, we have never claimed aid is the only answer. The U.S. strategy includes trade, improved governance and business practices which foster private investment. Everyone also realizes it is essential to stop corruption.

All of these aspects are important, but aid is critical. U.S. assistance goes well beyond delivering food and medicine. It is a partnership with governments such as Ghana. We encouraged their transition to a free market economy and the result so far has been a 75% reduction in hunger.

Many people don’t care if millions of foreigners die, but what they don’t realize is that we are not saving any money by cutting back on foreign aid. If we stopped our aid programs, our allies would also stop or cut back.

The first victim would then be the growth of U.S. exports and the many transitions which are now taking place to a free market economy. Tens of thousands of American jobs would be sacrificed.

U.S. foreign aid goes well beyond food for peace. American aid programs have changed the world during the past decade by encouraging the establishment of fair business codes, viable commercial banks and reasonable tax and tariff standards. These reforms have allowed numerous American companies to enter the export market.

This isolationist strategy is what critics urged after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. We listened to their advice, and ignored Afghanistan in the 1990’s. We did next to nothing and the Taliban took hold. The subsequent military spending was a thousand fold of what any foreign aid program would have been. Once again, foreign aid is from the American people, but it is also for the American people.

Can we afford to do it? I think we can’t afford not to do it. Foreign aid today is a hand up, not a hand out. America is now encouraging economic growth policies. That did not happen in the past, but it is now an integral part of our development strategy. The Bush administration understood that good business is good development.

Hilton previously served as Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Fund; Director of Public Affairs for the National Republican Congressional Committee; and as the Republican National Committee’s liaison to the White House Political Affairs Office during the Reagan Administration. Hilton also wrote a full page political column for the conservative weekly Human Events. Hilton served as Executive Director of the American Security Council for 23 years and has helped to raise $100 million for non-profit organizations.

Reagan vs. Obama

Related:  Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy


For those of you who are too young to know. The media glowingly comparing Obama to Reagan is revisionist history. The media loves Obama, hates the Tea Party and while they laud Reagan now, it just goes to show that success has many fathers. The truth is that the elite media hated Reagan. They slandered him and Nancy regularly. For several years after Reagan gave his farewell address the elite media and the left blatantly tried to rewrite history of the greatest presidency of the 20th century. The same can be said of the first Gulf war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The left, along with their lackey’s in the elite media, insisted that it was a war designed to steal Iraq and Kuwait’s oil. Of course none of that happened and now the left claims credit for it.

American Thinker gets the story correct:

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the former president has been in the news once again. One way he has been used is to boost the image of Barack Obama.

Some presidents have been used to degrade the image of others. Herbert Hoover was a convenient whipping boy to tar various Republicans through the years. Nixon was the epitome of evil in the White House. The fate of Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, has been a curious one. The punditry that savaged him before, during, and after his years in office are now trying to burnish Barack Obama’s image by comparing the two presidents.

This is just the latest gambit to try to boost the appeal of Barack Obama. He has gone through many image makeovers over the last couple of years. He has been Lincolnesque (an image he stoked by making his presidential announcement in Springfield), and then TIME Magazine morphed his image into the image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and now the latest incarnation in a sense compares him with Ronald Reagan. They are paired together with a friendly Ronald Reagan placing his hand on the shoulder of Barack Obama.

The comparison alone is a not-too-subtle way to enhance Obama’s appeal. The man has gone through as many shape shifts as has the man in the new Old Spice campaign.

How did the pundits treat the man they now pair with Barack Obama?

Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

Clark Clifford, advisor to a string of Democratic Presidents and a major league elite, called Reagan “an amiable dunce.”

The Chicago Tribune called Reagan ignorant and said his “air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limits of tolerance and have become an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace.”

Washington Post columnist David Broder (still on the beat and front and center in the Obama cheering section) said the job of Reagan’s staff is to water “the desert between Ronald Reagan’s ears.”

Henry Kissinger said that when you meet Reagan, you wonder: how did it ever occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less president?’

Jimmy Breslin, the columnist, said Reagan was senile and then insulted his supporters by saying they were proof that senility was a communicable disease. For good measure, he called Reagan “shockingly dumb.”

Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift said that “greed in this country is associated with Ronald Reagan.” Joining in this common slur was USA Today’s White House reporter Sarah McClendon, who said that “it will take a hundred years to get the government back into place after Ronald Reagan. He hurt people: the disabled, women, nursing mothers, the homeless.”

Lesley Stahl of CBS News (and now “60 Minutes”) said, “I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man.”

Hollywood director John Huston (not a pundit as such, but illustrative of a mindset in Hollywood — a major source of Democratic donors) said Reagan was a “bore,” with a “low order of intelligence,” who is “egotistical.”

Tip O’ Neill (the powerful Speaker of the House) said Reagan’s mind was “an absolute and total disgrace” and that it was “sinful that this man is President of the United States.” Steven Hayward reminds us in his recent “Reagan Reclaimed” column that O’Neill said that “the evil is on the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

John Osborne in the New Republic magazine wrote that “Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus.”

After his election, columnist William Greider said, “[M]y God, they’ve elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown.”

The Nation warned “he is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency” and that “he is a menace to the human race.”

When, in his first term, the country faced some economic weakness and Reagan’s poll numbers turned down, pundits were celebrating as they wrote his political obituary. Kevin Phillips, political pundit, wrote that “it didn’t take a genius to predict on Inauguration Day that Reagan would unravel” and that it was foolish to think that Reagan could solve the nation’s economic problems with policies based on “maxims out of McGuffey’s Reader and Calvin Coolidge.”

The New York Times joined in: “the stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House.”

When Reagan delivered his famous “evil empire” speech (that, by the way, also was critical of America’s own historical failings), New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was apoplectic, deriding it as “simplistic,” “sectarian,” “terribly dangerous,” “outrageous,” and in conclusion, “primitive…the only word for it” (then why did he use all the other words, one might ask — a little overkill goes a long way).

I could go on with more examples of the invective and personal insults hurled at Reagan by the chattering classes and opinion-makers over the years. Even when he died after a long struggle with Alzheimer’s, the derogation continued; he could not escape the obloquy even in death.

When Reagan was still alive, he brushed it all off with aplomb and good cheer. He was known as the Teflon President for the best of reasons. He did not stoop to the level of his critics, but instead stood above them.

He did not let them divert him from what he saw as his role: restore our sense of pride and spirit after Jimmy Carter had ground them down and boost the economy (despite some waves, he stayed the course and allowed “supply-side” economics to work its “magic”).

But he did more, much more.

For years, Reagan felt sorrow and anger that hundreds of millions of people suffered under Communism. While experts counseled détente and working with the Soviets, Reagan saw the immorality of accepting the “status quo” that deprived those enslaved by Communism of their freedoms and liberty. He thought it was shameful that such an abominable system persisted. Many were content with the Cold War. Reagan was not. He told Richard Allen, his National Security Advisor, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose. What do you think of that?” I suppose the likes of Anthony Lewis might characterize that goal as simplistic or primitive.

But after decades of Soviet slavery and expansionism, Reagan not only contained the Soviet Union, but brought it to its knees — giving the Russian people themselves the opportunity to deliver the coup de grâce. He beseeched Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but all the walls crumbled. Those revisionists who refuse to give Reagan his due and credit Mikhail Gorbachev with the mercy-killing of Communism are wrong. They would do well — as would we all — to read about the detailed and multifaceted strategy Reagan designed and promoted to implode the Soviet Union. The story is superbly told in Paul Kengor’s The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Reagan was a hero to the people being smothered by the Iron Curtain — to Russians such as Natan Sharansky, imprisoned because he wanted freedom, and to Polish laborers who tore his black-and-white photo out of a newspaper and used it to rally protesters. He earned a Nobel Prize for Peace — and, of course, was denied one.

Despite all that he accomplished, the pundits and media mavens slandered and insulted Reagan — time and time again.

And now the pundits have the temerity to resurrect him to help Barack Obama’s political future?

Haven’t they spent the last three(-plus) years extolling Barack Obama — from the “sort of God” comment by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to the “tingle up the leg” thrill he gave MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to the New York Times columnist David Brooks, who succumbed to the Obama cult and wrote of Obama that “I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I’m thinking a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president”? I could go on and on regarding how often Obama has been described as an intellectual giant with God-given talents, so brilliant that he is bored by the rest of us yahoos. Obama even joked that all of the White House correspondents voted for him. They were his cheerleaders. They had “the vapors” for Barack Obama.

The media has been biased in favor of Barack Obama for years. He got rock-star treatment as a candidate (the obsequiousness was even satirized on “Saturday Night Live”) and has had the media fawning and fainting in the newsroom for most of his term.

However, Obama has not been completely immune from some criticism. The economy is still weak, with millions unemployed. His poll numbers started falling in 2009 and took a nosedive in 2010. The Democrats took a shellacking in November that some pundits pin on Obama and his policies.

How does Obama deal with criticism? Does he have the character and strength of Ronald Reagan and let it roll off him? Need one ask? He takes it personally.

Reagan had Teflon coating; Obama has thin skin.

Reagan laughed off criticism — it came with the job. Eugene McCarthy, a liberal icon whose 1968 run for the presidency was eclipsed when Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsed Ronald Reagan for the presidency. When he was asked why, he answered, “It’s because he is the only man since Harry Truman who won’t confuse the job with the man.”

Reagan was focused not on himself, but on the rest of America — and the world. That was the “rest of him,” and it mattered far more than the abuse heaped on him.

Does Obama respond with the same graceful equanimity? Or is he more focused on himself and his ego? (He is addicted to the word “I,” said he has a “gift” when it comes to oratory, said he would make a better political director than his political director, and on and on.)

Barack Obama whines about being “talked about like a dog” (whatever that means). His peevishness towards the press and the punditry has emerged as one of his least attractive qualities. He won’t listen to criticism and does not want us to hear it, either.

He has all but counseled us to ignore Fox News and the internet, he has cast unjustified and blatantly false aspersions regarding foreign money and the Chamber of Commerce political ads that took him to task for his policies and performance, and he has called for less incendiary language in political discourse (this from the guy who can’t take it but can sure dish it out — as in “get in their face,” “bring a gun to a knife fight,” “fat cats,” “sit in the back,” “punish our enemies and reward our friends” — that is some heated rhetoric for a Nobel Peace Prize winner).

The media spin job that Barack Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan — that Ron and Barack would be pals, that Barack Obama can hold a candle to Ronald Reagan — not only misses the mark, but willfully ignores how unfairly and disgracefully the media treated Ronald Reagan when he was alive. To use him now that he is dead compounds the insult.

Black Heroes of the Great American Revolution.

By The Founders:

For many years the actions of black men, women, and children in our nation’s founding has been largely ignored. The enslavement of black Americans was prominent, not their contributions. We read about those slaves who joined the British Army to gain their freedom. But what of the thousands of blacks who served this country in her hour of need? Their deeds were no less important than those of their white neighbors. They fought and died on the battlefields. They road the countryside as couriers. They held office. The wrote in support of independence. The led their communities.

Below are some short biographies of some of these Black Founders and Patriots. This list is by no means exhaustive, and quotes and pictures are not always available. However, these people and the service they rendered this country do not deserve to be forgotten.


Continental Army

Many black men served as soldiers in the American Revolution. The number is between 12,000 and 15,000. Some were slaves fighting for the promise of freedom. Others were free blacks fighting for their country’s liberty. They served in an integrated army, the last one until the Korean War. By 1779, 15% of the Continental Army was black. These men fought in the very first Battles of Lexington and Concord all the way to the final major battle at Yorktown. They saw action in every major engagement including Ticonderoga, Monmouth, and Princeton. They suffered at Valley Forge and crossed the Delaware with Washington. Every colony except South Carolina and Georgia sent black men with the white men to fight.

In addition to the integrated units, there were also three all black units that served: the Rhode Island First regiment, who fought with distinction at Newport, Monmouth and Yorktown; the Black Bucks of America, a Massachusetts regiment whose banner is still on display at the Massachusetts Historical Society; and the Volunteer Chasseurs, a regiment from Haiti brought over by our French allies. The latter unit took the ideas of liberty back to Haiti with them. Those ideas were used to overthrow their French masters and create the second republic in the Americas.

Phillip Abbot

Abbot was a servant to the family of Nathaniel Abbot of Andover, Massachusetts. When Nathaniel Abbot’s men were called to the Battle of Bunker Hill, Phillip Abbot fought and died along side them.

Jack Arabus

Jack Arabus was a slave of a wealthy Connecticut merchant. As was common in those days, a person could pay someone to take their place in the military. Arabus’ owner offered him his freedom if he would fight in the place of the merchant’s son. Arabus accepted the offer and found in the American Revolution. Sadly, upon his return from war, his master changed his mind.

Arabus decided to take matters into his own hand and ran away. He was not free for long. He was captured the next day and put in jail in New Haven. His master sued for his return, but Arabus had a defender. The Yale educated lawyer, Chauncey Goodrich, took on his case. He won. The judge ruled that Arabus was free the moment he went to fight. The agreement did not matter. This case enabled hundred of enslaved black patriots to win their own freedom as they had won their country’s

Caesar Augustus

Augustus was the last colonist wounded in the Battle of Lexington. He was from Dorchester, Massachusetts.

Charles Bowles

Bowles was born in Boston in 1761. He was mixed race, his father was an African and his mother was the daughter of Colonel Morgan. At the age of 14, Bowles enlisted in the Continental Army. Her served during the entire length of the war. His first two years he spent in the service of an officer, but then reenlisted to fight. After the war, he moved to New Hampshire and became a farmer. There is a story that he had been a slave to a Tory family, but that would not be correct if his mother was white. He might have been a servant.

Seymour Burr

Seymour Burr, also spelled Seymore, was the slave of the brother of Colonel Aaron Burr, also named Seymour. Burr was from the colony of Connecticut. During the American Revolution, Burr ran away to join the British Army who was promising freedom to slaves who enlisted. Burr was found by his master before he could enlist. His master offered him his freedom if he would enlist in the Continental Army instead. Burr enlisted in the Massachusetts Seventh Regiment, led by Colonel John Brooks. He served at the siege of Fort Catskill, suffering cold and starvation.

Cyrus Bustill

Cyrus Bustill was born in Burlington in 1732. His father was an English lawyer and his mother a slave. Because the status of the child follows the status of the mother, this meant that Bustill was a slave. He was trained to be a baker by a Thomas Prior, who was a Quaker. At the age of 36, Bustill got his freedom. During the American Revolutiion he helped the army with something it had a great need for, bread. He was commended for this service and received a silver piece for General George Washington.

After the war, Bustill and his wife, who also mixed race – the daughter of an Englishman and a Delaware Indian, moved to Philadelphia. There they and their eight children attended Quaker meetings. Bustill was also an early member of the Free African Society which began in 1787. This is the society established by black Founders Richard Allen and Absalom Jones. When Bustill retired as a baker, he opened a school. He dies in 1806.

Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell was born in the colony of New Jersey, near Burlington. There seems to be some confusion on his birth date. One source has it as May 24, 1753, while another puts it in 1752. He was light skinned, a farmer, and was raised by the family of John Hutchin. It is possible that he was born a free black.

He served in the second New Jersey regiment under Captain Lowery and and Colonel Israel Shreve. He served in the battles of Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He made the famous crossing of the Delaware on December 25, 1776.

George Washington personally signed Cromwell’s discharge papers at the end of the war. Washington also designed a medal which was presented to Cromwell. He later applied for a pension as a veteran. He could not read or write, but he was very well liked in the community of Burlington. Local lawyers, judges, and politicians helped him to get the pension of $96 a year. Cromwell purchased a 100 acre farm, fathered 14 children, and moved into Burlington in his later years. He outlived 8 of his children, and died when he was 100 years old. He is buried in the Methodist churchyard in Burlington, where some of his descendants still live.

Prince Easterbrooks

Prince Easterbrooks was also known as Estabrook. In the very first battle of the American Revolution, the Battle of Lexington, there were no fewer than ten black patriots. Easterbrooks was one of them. He served under Captain John Parker, the first to engage in the war. He was wounded when the British forces fired upon the citizens of the town. He was mentioned in the Salem Gazette or Newberry and Marblehead Advertiser for April 21, 1775, as a “Negro man” who was “wounded (Lexington) .”

Fraunces Tavern

Samuel and Elizabeth “Phoebe” Fraunces

Samuel Fraunces was a mulatto, a person with one whie and one black parent, from Jamaica. His was most likely born in 1734, though it could have been as early at 1722. At some point in his life he immigrated to the colonies and settled in New York City, eventually becoming the owner of a tavern. It was rumored that during the Revolutionary War, his tavern was used as a meeting place for Patriots. On December 4, 1783, George Washington delivered his farewell to his officers at Fraunce’s Tavern. Apparently Washington and Fraunces had a personal and business relationship. The two dined together at the Old 76 House in Tappan, New York, and Fraunces cooked for Washington at the DeWint House, which is also in Tappan. Fraunces also served a steward to President Washington in New York City, and in Philadelphia from 1791 to 1794. George Washington Parke Custis, Martha’s grandson, remarked on Fraunces at a state dinner, “Fraunces in snow-white apron, silk shorts and stockings, and hair in full powder, placed the first dish on the table, the clock being on the stroke of four, ‘the labors of Hercules’ ceased.”

Fraunces is also known to have helped feed the 13,000 American prisoners of war kept around New York City, including those kept on the notorious prison ships.

Fraunces and his wife, Elizabeth Dailey, had seven children, one by the name of Elizabeth, but called Phoebe. During the Revolution, Washington came to stay at a place called Mortier House in New York Cith. He wrote to ask Fraunces to find for him a housekeeper. Fraunces sent his daughter Phoebe. It is possible that he sent her because he had heard a rumor that an attempt was to be made on Washington’s life, or it may be that Phoebe discovered this plot while working at Mortier House. Either way, one of Washington’s body guards, Thomas Hickey, was executed for attempting to poison the general. Phoebe and her father are credited with discovering the plot, and Fraunces is credited with removing the poisoned peas intended for Washington’s dinner. Phoebe was ten years old at the time of Hickey’s execution in June of 1776.

The plaque showing Freeman stabbing the British officer

Jordan Freeman and Lambert Latham


In 1781, at the Battle of Groton Heights near New London, Connecticut, 185 Patriots, black and white, tried to hold off the 1,700 British led by that turncoat, Benedict Arnold. So heavily outnumbered, the Americans had no chance for victory, but refused to just surrender. They retreated to nearby Fort Griswold. The British stormed the fort. The Patriots ran out of ammunition and began fighting with bayonets, the butts of their muskets, and pikes. During this last stand, Jordan Freeman speared Major Montgomery who was leading the bayonet charge on the fort. About the same time, Lambert Latham picked up the American flag which had been shot off of its poll, and held it above his head.

Finally, the British were able to capture the fort. A British captain asked who was in charge of the fort. Colonel William Ledyard answered, “I did once. You do now.” As he stepped forward he offered his sword to the British officer, a sign of surrender. The officer took Ledyard’s sword and thrust it into his body to the hilt. “Lambert . . . retaliated upon the [British] officer by thrusting his bayonet through his body. Lambert, in return, received from the enemy thirty-three bayonet wounds, and thus fell, nobly avenging the death of his commander.”

The British response to the death of their captain and other officers was to slaughter every man, including Freeman. A plaque at the fort honors these men for their bravery.

Freeman had been the slave of Ledyard, but had been freed. Freeman stayed living near his former master, married, and enlisted when the fighting began, serving side-by-side with his former master.

Primus Hall

Hall was the son of Prince Hall, the founder of the Masonic lodge that bares his name. He was born in 1756. Primus Hall served as the servant of Colonel Pickering. Pickering and Washington were friends and this brought Hall and Washington together. A story goes that after one visit, Washington decided it was too late for him to return to his own camp. He asked Hall if there was enough straw and blankets to make him up a bed for the night. Hall answered that there was. When the officers retired for the night, Hall busied himself until they were asleep. Then he sat himself down upon a stool and slept. During the night, Washington awoke and realized that Hall had given up his own bed. Washington then assisted that Hall join him for the rest of the night. Hall resisted, but Washington won out. Note, it was not unusual during this period for men to share a bed while traveling.

Prince Hall

Prince Hall was born in 1735 in Boston, Massachusetts. He was the slave of William Hall. He father his son Primus by Delia, who was the servant of another Boston family. In 1762, when he was 27, he joined the Congregationalist Church. He also married a slave by the name of Sarah Ritchie. When Sarah died eight years later, Hall married again, this time to Flora Gibbs of Gloucester.

A month after the Boston Massacre, Hall was freed by his master, his certificate of manumission stating he was “no longer Reckoned a slave, but [had] always accounted as a free man.” Hall then worked as a peddler, caterer and leather dresser. He was even listed as a voter and a taxpayer. He owned a small house and leather workshop in Boston.

Did he fight? There were six men in Massachusetts named Prince Hall, but it is believed that he was the Prince Hall that served in the Battle of Bunker Hill. He also supplied leather drum heads to the Continental Army, as a bill he sent to Colonel Crafts in April of 1777 shows.

Before the war began, Hall and 14 other free black men had joined the British Army Lodge of Masons. When the British retreated from Boston, these men formed their own lodge, the African Lodge #1, which was later renamed in Hall’s honor. it took 12 years to get the official charter. Hall was the first Grand Master. This lodge was the first ever black lodge.

Hall became one of Boston’s most prominent citizens and a leader in the black community. He spoke out against slavery and the denial of the rights of blacks. After years of complaining of the lack of schools for black children, he set one up in his own home. In his last published speech, at the lodge in 1797, he spoke out against violence.

“Patience, I say; for were we not possessed of a great measure of it, we could not bear up under the daily insults we meet with in the streets of Boston, much more on public days of recreation. How, at such times, are we shamefully abused, and that to such a degree, that we may truly be said to carry our lives in our hands, and the arrows of death are flying about our heads….tis not for want of courage in you, for they know that they dare not face you man for man, but in a mob, which we despise…”

He died in 1807. It was a year after his death that the lodge he founded decided to honor him by renaming itself The Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Lemuel Haynes


Haynes was born a free black in 1753 in West Hartford Connecticut. He was abandoned by his parents who were “a white woman of respectable ancestry” and a black man. At the age of five months, he was indentured to a David Rose of Middle Granville, Massachussets. His indenture was until the age of 21.  According to Haynes, “He [David Rose] was a man of singular piety. I was taught the principles of religion. His wife . . . treated me as though I was her own child.” Part of the agreement for his indenture was that he would receive an education, which he did. “I had the advantage of attending a common school equal with the other children. I was early taught to read.” He developed a passion for reading, especially theology and the Bible. While just a teenager, he began giving sermons in the town parrish.

When his indenture ended in 1774, Haynes enlisted as a “Minuteman” in his local militia. Though he did not fight in the Battle of Lexington, he did write a ballad-sermon about it. The poem dicussed the conflict between slavery and freedom but did not address black slavery. He took part in the Siege of Boston and the expedition to Fort Ticonderoga led by Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

After the war, Haynes had an opportunity to study at Dartmouth College. He turned it down. Instead he took up the study of Latin and Greek with a Connecticut clergyman. By 1780, he was able to receive his license to preach. His first congregation was a white one in Middle Granville. He eventually presided over white and mixed congregations in four different states, including New York and Massachusetts. Later he married a white school teacher by the name of Elizabeth Babbitt. He was ordained in the Congregationalist Church in 1785, the first black to be so by a mainstream protestant church.

For more than 30 years, Haynes presided over a mostly white church in Rutland, Vermont. During his time there, he developed an international reputation as a preacher and a writer. In 1801, he published a track called “The Nature and Importance of True Republicanism.” This contained his only published statement on race and slavery. He did argue for the abolition of slavery by arguing that it denied black men their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He also said, “Liberty is equally as precious to a black man, as it is to a white one, and bondage as equally as intolerable to the one as it is to the other”. In 1804, he became the first black man in America to receive a masters degree, earning it from Middlebury College. He was also a friend and counselor to the presidents of Harvard and Yale universities.

Haynes left Rutland in 1818 due to conflicts over politics, Haynes was a fervent Federalist, and style. Sadly, after living and working with the people of Rutland for 30 years, there was speculation that the departure was due to his race.

Haynes final appointment to a church was in Manchester, Vermont. There he counseled two men who were condemned to death for murder. Their convictions were overturned when their victim reappeared quite alive. Haynes wrote a best seller about the seven year ordeal. The book stayed a best seller for a decade.

During the last decade of his life, Haynes ministered to a church in New York. He died in 1833, at the age of 80. His tombstone read,


“Here lies the dust of a poor hell deserving sinner, who ventured into eternity trusting wholly on the merits of Christ for salvation. In the full belief of the great doctrines he preached while on earth, he invites his children, and all who read this, to trust their eternal interest on the same foundation.”

Haynes was a great admirer of George Washington. He was a member of the Washington Benevolent Society, and every year he would preach a special sermon on Washington’s birthday.

Benjamin Scott Mayes


Benjamin Mayes, nicknamed Daddy Ben, was a royal prince in Africa. He was brought to America and sold to a Colonel Scott. During the Revolution, the British wanted to find Colonel Scott. They could not find him, but they did capture Mayes. In an attempt to get him to reveal the whereabouts of Scott, the British hung Mayes and cut him down before he was dead. They did this not once, not twice, but three times. Despite this torture, Mayes refused to divulge his master’s hiding place. For his bravery and loyalty, Mayes was awarded a gold medal and the admiration of the people of what is now Maury County, Tennessee. He died in 1829.

The flag presented to the Black Bucks by John Hancock

George Middleton and the Bucks of America


George Middleton was a Colonel in the Continental Army. He lead one of only three all black units in the Continental Army. His unit, the Bucks of America, was based out of Boston. The dates that the Bucks were formed and disbanded and their record of service have been lost. However, their actions during the war earned them recognition from one of the leading citizens of Boston, John Hancock, who presented the unit with a special silk flag. The flag resides at the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was also a member of the Prince Hall Freemasonry Lodge, as it is believed were many members of the Bucks. He was appointed Grand Master in 18809. After the war he founded African Benevolent Society in 1796. He was also instrumental in quelling a riot in Boston. He was also a master at breaking horses, worked as a coachmen, and played the violin.

“Freedom is desirable, if not, would men sacrifice their time, their property and finally their lives in the pursuit of this?” ~ 1808

Jordan B. Noble

Jordan Noble was born in Georgia around 1800, so he did not serve in the American Revolution, at least not the first one. He moved to Louisiana, whether on his own or not is unknown. At the age of just 13 he served as a drummer boy during the War of 1812, sometimes called our second revolution. He served under General Andrew Jackson with the Seventh Louisiana Regiment. During this time, musicians were a vital part of the military. They would communicate commands with their instruments. Noble beat his drums in many famous battles and events.

Noble also served in the Seminole War in Florida in 1836. He also was one of the few blacks to serve in the Mexican American War.

The stamp created in Poor’s honor

Salem Poor

Salem Poor was born in the 1740s. He had purchased his freedom in 1769 for 27 pounds, which was a year’s salary for a working man. He married a free black woman by the name of Nancy. Before the war began, they had a son. When the war began, he left behind his family to serve the Patriot cause.

Poor fought in the Battle of Bunker Hill in Colonel Frye’s Regiment and is credited with shooting British Lt. Col. James Abercrombie. He conducted himself so well during the battle, that no less that 14 officers, including Colonel William Prescott himself, petitioned the legislature of Massachusetts declaring that Poor had behaved like an experienced officer and brave soldier and  “a reward was due to so great and distinguished a character.” Of all the men who served in the battle, Poor was the only one singled out for such an honor. What he did specifically to earn such praise is unknown, as the petition states, “to set forth the particulars of his conduct would be tedious.” Some historians think this indicates that Poor’s acts of bravery were too numerous to lay out.

Poor also fought in the Battle of Saratoga, which was the turning point of the war, and at the Battle of Monmouth.

He was honored with a U.S. postage stamp.

John Redman

John Redman served in the First Virginia Regiment of Light Dragoons. A dragoon is a mounted soldier who fights with sabers, pistols, and carbines. Not much else is known about Redman, except that on June 11, 1823, he applied for a veteran’s pension as a veteran of the American Revolution. He was awarded his pension one week later. He was one of the few black men to be a member of a cavalry unit.

Rhode Island First Regiment

During the harsh winter at Valley Forge, a new regiment was created, the Rhode Island First. They were an all black regiment of 125 men, some free and some enslaved. There first engagement was at the Battle of Newport in 1778. At that battle, the Continental Army was forced to retreat. The Rhode Island First put itself between the retreating Americans and the British. They were able to hold the line against no less thant three British attacks. In these, the British suffered heavy casualties. There bravery saved lives and led to the transfer of a Hessian officer. After the battle the officer requested this transfer because he feared for his life. He thought his own men would kill him because of the heavy losses they took.

Again in 1781, the Rhode Island First came to the rescue. At the Battle of Croton River, their commander, Colonel Greene was mortally injured. William Nell, who published a book in 1855 about the black Patriots, wrote,

“Colonel Greene, the commander of the regiment, was cut down and mortally wounded: but the sabres of the enemy only reached him through the bodies of his faithful guard of blacks, who hovered over him, and every one of whom was killed.”

Even though there the wound was fatal, some of the men of the Rhode Island First formed a barrier around him, choosing to die with their commander rather than abandon him to the enemy. The rest of the unit continued the fight and the war. A remnant of the original regiment was present with Washington at the Surrender at Yorktown.

“The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill.”
Salem is at the far right

Peter Salem

Salem was a slave and a celebrated marksman. After the Battles of Lexington and Concord soldiers from all over Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island assembled outside of Boston to confront the 5,000 British troops stationed there. That confrontation, the Battle of Bunker Hill, began well for the Americans until they began to run out of ammunition. At that point, Major John Pitcairn, who had lead troops at the Battle of Lexington, mounted the hill and called “The day is ours!” The day may have been a victory for the British, but it came at a dear price. Salem raised his musket and shot Pitcairn, throwing the British into confusion.

Salem did not serve alone in this battle. Salem Poor, Prince Hall, and Philip Abbott also distinguished themselves in this battle. Salem is considered one of the heroes of Bunker Hill. He had 14 accommodations that day for his acts of bravery and was acknowledge as a great leader of men. He received his honors before Washington himself.

“A negro man belonging to Groton, took aim at Major Pitcairn, as he was rallying the dispersed British Troops, and shot him through the head, he was brought over to Boston and died as he was landing on the ferry ways. It has long been known that Pitcairn was killed by a negro, but this is the first time perhaps that he has ever been connected to Groton.”

~ Groton Historical Series by Dr. Samuel A. Green, Vol IV, 1899, p. 259

Salem joined the Fifth Massachusetts Regiment and served in the battles of Concord and Saratoga. He served for seven years, a length of time few other soldiers could match. Though a slave at the beginning of his service, he was a free man by the end. At the end of the war, in 1783, he married.

In honor of his service, Salem was given a wool bounty coat.

Prince Sisson and the Commandos


In December of 1776, Washington’s second in command, General Charles Lee was captured by the British. The only hope of getting him back was a prisoner exchange. But the Americans did not have a British prioner that was equal to Lee. Lt. Colonel William Barton formed a plan. He would take some men, slip past the British pickets at Newport, Rhode Island and capture General Richard Prescott.

Barton selected 40 of his best men, black and white, for the mission. He warned them of the danger and asked for volunteers. Every man stepped forward.

The group waited until the middle of the night before climbing into rowboats. They wrapped fabric around the oars to muffle the sound and rowed right past the British gunboats anchored in the harbor. When they reached the shore near the generals’ head quarters, they quickly over powered his guards and entered his house. His door was locked.

At that moment, one of Barton’s men, Prince Sisson, threw himself at the door, hitting it with his head. Sisson was a large and powerful man. The door gave and Sisson entered the room and grabbed the general. Barton’s men quickly made their escape with their prisoner. Prescott was subsequently exchanged for General Lee.

Prince Whipple


Prince Whipple may have been a member of a royal family in his native Africa. He was from a rich family. When he was ten years old, his family sent him to America to get an education. But rather than arriving in America to attend school. he was sold by the captain of the ship into slavery in Baltimore. He was then bought by the Founder William Whipple of New Hampshire, who was also happened to be a ship’s captain.

William Nell, in the 1852 book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution said,

“As was customary, Prince took the surname of his owner, William Whipple, who would later represent New Hampshire by signing the Declaration of Independence. . . . When William Whipple joined the revolution as a captain, Prince accompanied him and was in attendance to General Washington on Christmas night 1776 for the legendary and arduous crossing of the Delaware. The surprise attack following the crossing was a badly needed victory for America and for Washington’s sagging military reputation. In 1777, [William Whipple was] promoted to Brigadier General and [was] ordered to drive British General Burgoyne out of Vermont.”

An 1824 work provides details of what occurred after General Whipple’s promotion:

“On [his] way to the army, he told his servant [Prince] that if they should be called into action, he expected that he would behave like a man of courage and fight bravely for his country. Prince replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, but if I had my liberty, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” The general manumitted [freed] him on the spot.”

True to his word, Whipple enlisted as a soldier in the Continental Army. Besides serving during the famous crossing of the Delaware on Christmas in 1776, where he has been depicted as an oarsman for Washington’s boat, he also fought in the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 and the Battle of Rhode Island in 1778. He also served as a high ranking aide on Washington’s general staff.

Peter Williams


Peter Williams was a clergyman living in New York City. When the British invaded New York, Williams moved to the town of New Brunswick in New Jersey. After the war, his son wrote of Williams actions against the British,

“In the Revolutionary War, my father was decidedly an advocate of American Independence, and his life was repeatedly jeopardized in its cause…He was living in the State of [New] Jersey, and Parson Chapman, a champion of American liberty of great influence throughout that part of the country, was sought after by the British troops. My father immediately mounted a horse and rode round his parishioners to notify them of his danger, and to call on them to help in removing him and his goods to a place of safety.”

A statue in honor of the black soldiers of the American Revolution

Black Rights and the Constitution

‎”When the Constitution of the United States was framed, colored men voted in a majority of these States; they voted in the State of New York, in Pennsylvania, in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and North Carolina; and long after the adoption of the Constitution, they continued to vote in North Carolina and Tennessee also. The Constitution of the United States makes no distinction of color.”

~ The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution by Wm Cooper Neil & Harriet Beecher Stowe 1855

In fact, a number of state constitutions protected voting rights for blacks. The state constitutions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania (all 1776), New York (1777), Massachusetts (1780), and New Hampshire (1784) included black suffrage. In 1874, Robert Brown Elliot, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina and a black man, stated “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.”

However, no state allowed slaves to vote and in South Carolina no free blacks could vote. When it was brought to the state for ratification, our Constitution was voted on by white and black citizens. In Baltimore, Maryland, more blacks voted than whites. Besides the right to vote, blacks in many of the states could hold office as did Wentworth Cheswell. The blacks used their votes well, working along side white abolitionists to end slavery in several states. These included Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York.

It has also been suggested that the Constitution was a proslavery document. Is it? There are only three references to the institution of slavery in the Constitution. The first is in Enumeration Clause in Article 1, Section 3. This is the famous 3/5 clause which some have pointed to as proof that the Founders viewed blacks as less than white. That may be true of some individuals, but not of the clause or the ideas behind the Constitution. Some delegates to the Constitution, especially those that were against slavery, argued that since slaves were considered property, they should not counted at all. The southern states wished them to be counted as a full person since their large slave populations would give those states greater representation and more power in Congress. A compromise was reached, the 3/5 clause. The effect of that clause was to reduce the number of representatives in the House for states with large slave populations and thereby reduce their power. This makes the clause antislavery.

The second mention is in Article 1, Section 9. In this section a date was set to end the importation of slaves. This was another compromise. It allowed the slave trade to continue for a period of twenty years, but then end it. It would be difficult to consider the ending of the slave trade as a proslavery clause.

The final mention of slavery is in Article 4, Section 2. This is the Fugitive Slave clause. That section of the Constitution deals with the states, their citizens, and extradition from one state to another. It holds that people who are bound in service in one state, cannot be excused from it because of the laws of another state. This is the most proslavery section of the Constitution since it allows owners to retrieve runaway slaves from other states, even those that outlawed slavery, but it alone does not make the Constitution proslavery.

Federal efforts against slavery did not end with the Constitution. In 1789, Congress passed a law which banned slavery in all federal territories. Five years later, in 1784, another antislavery law was passed. This one forbade exporting slaves from any state.

Sadly, this progress did not continue. As many of the generation of the Revolution passed away, so did many of their ideals. Beginning in the early 1800s, new laws were passed that limited the rights of blacks and women. This was in part, a political move by one party to limit the influence of the other, but it also reflected a loss of the revolutionary ideals. In 1809, Maryland disenfranchised black voters. Other states followed suit, such as North Carolina in 1835. Even before they were formally denied the vote, many blacks and women were prevented from voting by their white neighbors. This foreshadowed the treatment blacks would receive following the end of Reconstruction.

In 1820, with the passage of the Missouri Compromise, the few remaining Founders began to fear that slavery would destroy the country. Elias Boudinot said it would be “an end to the happiness of the United States.” John Adams went further by saying that removing the prohibition against slavery in the territories would bring an end to the United States. Thomas Jefferson lamented,

“I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”

At this time, Congress also enacted the Fugitive Slave Law which allowed slave owners to enter free states to find their runaways. It also enabled the kidnapping and enslavement of many free blacks by claiming they were runaways. The Kansas-Nebraska Act pushed the country farther along the road that would take us to war, where finally, the slavery question would be settled.

Baltimore Passes Soda Tax, Pepsi Closes Plant in Baltimore.

Baltimore Sun:

The Pepsi plant in Baltimore will no longer make soda, and the company plans to lay off 77 people as officials have decided to stop manufacturing operations — a decision they blame in part on a controversial new beverage tax in the city.

The last cans and 2-liter bottles of Pepsi-Cola, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew and other sodas ran through the production line Monday morning. Executives at Pepsi Beverages Co. told workers in meetings later in the day that production would be halted for good. Pepsi officials said they would work out details regarding the layoffs, including potential severance, with the local Teamsters union.

Kristine Hinck, a company spokeswoman, said, “Given the climate, making a beverage in a city where there is a beverage tax certainly doesn’t help.” – Ya think?

You would have thought that Maryland would have learned its lesson after the state lost massive revenue after it imposed its now infamous “millionaire’s tax”.

I am going to go buy a case of Diet Pepsi today.

Obama Administration implemented policy to have political appointees review all FOIA requests….

Those who understand politics and corruption know what this means. This gives political appointees time to destroy documents, collude to “get stories straight” and time to plan prior restraint and/or retaliation against those trying to gain information. This is the administration that promised unprecedented transparency. … If Bush had done this….

Yahoo News, with some editorial comments in red:

WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama’s administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa’s letter, Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of “significant and potentially controversial requests.”

Mary Ellen Callahan told them that political appointees reviewed the agency’s FOIA response letters for grammatical and other errors and did not edit or delay their release, the letter states. She also told the committee that Homeland Security abandoned the practice in response to the AP’s article, according to Issa’s letter. [WHAT!!. LOL – Political appointees are not going to have grammar nearly as good as a secretery/PR pro in a federal department. This reasoning is laughable. Appearently the practice was not abandoned as the administration indicated – Editor]

On Sunday, Oversight panel spokesman Frederick Hill said Issa sent the letter “because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the veracity of DHS officials” on the matter. He did not elaborate.

Issa asked the agency to provide the documents by Jan. 29.

Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.

The agency’s directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for “awareness purposes,” regardless of who had filed them. The AP reported that the agency’s career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked. [This is disturbing because what we have seen from the NYT, Washington Post, CBS,NBC.ABC,CNN.MSNBC is that in unison, within minutes of the shooting in Arizona these elite media outlets immediately using the same spin blamed Sarah Palin and other conservatives. Several of these same outlets talking heads chastised Sarah Palin for not speaking out, and when they did they in unison said that she was injecting herself into the news. This reminds me of the 2000 election when G.W. Bush picked Dick Cheney fro VP  the news in unison said that Cheney was picked because he had “gravitas” (implying that Bush had none). Why have a state run media when the so called legit media is willing to act as the PR arm of the Democratic leadership? A reporter is looking into something he shouldn’t, so the administration leans on said reporter’s bosses and bye bye FOIA. – Editor]

According to the directive, political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.

Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released, but they can be distributed without those officials’ approval.

FLASHBACK – Video: Obama’s Halftime Report card

Another great piece from my old college blog…


1 – Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts – Well you already know about this, but what you might not know is that Democrats do not propose really going after the rich at all. After all how will George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry fund the Tides Foundation and all the Democrats 527’s? Instead their tax hike proposals target productive wage earners and small businesses who take in over $250,000 on paper, but in reality most of that is put back into the business so these people are usually not wealthy at all. I will be posting an article soon that will prove to you that Democrats do not and have not had any real intention of taxing the very rich, but instead are very interested in sticking it to the productive. You class envy warriors are going to freak when you see it.

2 – Repeal the Patriot Act – as we said in number eight below, not only was this not repealed, the Democrats doubled down on it. Now we get to ask you if Obama is spying on YOUR library book list!

3 – Cap & Trade – Obama decided to let this die in the Senate without much presidential support. He decided to attempt to legislate on his own by abusing the supposedly highly limited regulation authority given from previous laws (unconstitutional: see Justice Scalia on “junior varsity Congress”).

4 – Illegal Immigrant Amnesty within one year – He had the majority and could have passed it, but knew that he didn’t have the political capital to pull this off and ObamaCare so bye bye.

5 – Close Gitmo – Another dumb idea and when they saw how bad some of the guys there were… well see number 6 below.

6 – Civilian trials for terrorists – A bad idea to begin with. The administration and a few less than sharp legal minds on our current court got a fresh lesson in why JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER was good case law and should never have been tinkered with.

7 – Sign the Freedom of Choice Act – Umm this bill is no longer a legislative priority…..

8 – Put an end to warrantless wiretapping – Where are the so called “far left privacy advocates” now? The Obama Administration (along with a willing Democratic Leadership in Congress) has consistently (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,)  pushed for more domestic spying ability and extended the Patriot Act. More spying includes including wanting more wire taps on the internet and arguing that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in email or cell phones or… well I think you got the point. Of course who was the first TV personality to speak out on these privacy violations. Clue: He’s the new Oprah.

9 – Limit the influence of lobbyists – Wow. Well here is a list of about 20 links to press reports that remind us why under Obama Big Business Loves Big Government.

10 – Cut income tax for seniors – Well actually even though the deduction rate tables were reduced for one year for many people. Come tax time everyone had to pay up. HERE is a list of the new taxes that have been passed by the Democrats under Obama ($670 billion worth).

F. A. Hayek – How Union Overreach Causes Unemployment

Indeed when the price of labor is artificially increased beyond the value of that labor several things happen:

1 – Since there is only so much of the percentage available from variable costs for labor therefore union over reach causes there to be less employees.

Think about it. How often do you stand in line at Kroger when they obviously have a shortage of cashiers? So the result is not management vs. employee, it becomes employee vs. employee; which employee will get whacked because there is only so much available for labor?

2 – At first this causes companies to be more efficient, but eventually that efficiency comes at the cost of labor. For example: have you noticed that self checkout machines came first at union grocery stores?  The stores will increase technology to eliminate positions.

Ford Motor Company has a new high tech plant that can make five cars on a single production line. Since union rules do not allow workers to use that technology and make so many different lies Ford has made these new plants in Canada, Mexico and Brazil.

3 – When is the last time you went to a gas station and got service by a young apprentice? Why do you think that is?

David Horowitz smashes a far left talking point on “American hegemony” handed to a student…

…and you can believe  he didn’t write that himself.

The “American forced cultural hegemony” talking point is a textbook example from the Marxist polemic. I had at least three different classes where this subject was covered with zero attempt at balance at all, with the possible exception of me letting the teacher know my objections.

David gets upset because he knows the damage that is being done to young people in our universities.

Gas prices up 55% under Obama

It must be because all of Obama’s ‘oil buddies’ at BP ….


Obama says in video that $4.00 a gallon gas is fine as long as it is gradual

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

My take, Democrats have been saying for 20 years that we should not go after our own oil and natural gas because it could take 5-10 years to get to use it. For not trying to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy, they sure are doing a great job of implementing it. Had enough yet?

Heritage Foundation:

Fact: President Barack Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.
Fact: Since taking office, President Obama’s entire energy agenda has made a gallon of gas more expensive:

All of these policies raise gas prices at the pump by either: 1) decreasing the availability of domestic energy supplies, or 2) increasing regulatory costs on gasoline production.

President George Bush was no saint when it came to free market energy policies either. He mandated the use of ethanol, put off opening up the Outer Continental Shelf till the end of his second term, supported the expansion of renewable energy tax credits, tried to subsidize the nuclear power industry, and caved into environmental pressure by allowing the EPA to begin the global warming regulation process.

But as two time Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcells says, “You are what your record says you are.” And the facts are these: during the first two years under President Barack Obama, gas prices have risen 55%. You can compare that to the 5% drop in gas prices during the first two years of President Bush’s term or the 2% drop under the first two years of President Clinton’s term. Neither President Bush nor President Clinton had perfect energy policies. But neither of them appointed an Energy Secretary who wanted Americans to pay $9 for a gallon of gas either.