The true meaning of Thanksgiving is no longer taught in public schools.
A review of the history shows that it starts with a search for religious freedom, a rejection of collectivism and thanks to God Almighty for his blessings. Governor William Bradford’s journal and other documents reveal it all.
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Via The Daily Caller:
See the video HERE.
President Barack Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
In the passage, Obama also reveals that he personally feels “patriotic resentment” when he sees Mexican flags at immigration rallies.
In case you are unaware, the Declaration of Independence as well as countless writings from the Founders state that human rights are God given and thus man and government have no authority to deny them. This kind of mistake is no accident.
Via EAG News:
FAIRFIELD, Ohio – According to a citizenship lesson for 8-year-olds, rights are given to Americans by their government.
Parent Andrew Washburn posted a picture on Facebook of a handout titled “Being a Good Citizen” by Phyllis Naegeli.
“So Emma brought home a very interesting handout from school the other day. So informative! I didn’t know that our rights come from the government! Thank you, government!” he sarcastically wrote.
“And thank you, (Butler County school district), for teaching my eight year old daughter all about her rights!” he added.
Washburn tells EAGnews his daughter attends a Butler County, Ohio district.
Among other things, the worksheet claims:
* Rights are special privileges the government gives you.
* Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.
* Someday you will be given the right to vote.
Washburn posted the entire worksheet on the social media site.
Continue reading HERE.
Elbert Guillory’s ad blasting Kay Hagen for being a do nothing Senator who made herself rich.
Elbert Guillory: “Why I became a Republican”
This is a great example of why so many universities do not teach American History well, virtually ignore American Studies and why Common Core dedicates all of a few lines of text to George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
What we see below is a textbook example of attitude change propaganda in action. It cherry picks certain facts and partial facts way out of context and strings them together with an attitude to create a narrative and an attitude that is entirely false. This kind of lying is no accident. It takes a very deliberate mind to come up with propaganda this sophisticated.
If students were well educated in civics as well as the history of Western Civilization they would not fall for nonsense like this from the FaceBook page of “Being Liberal” which I saw cross posted on the timeline of a recent high school graduate:
Forcing a whole country to abide by the laws of one religion leads to persecution and oppression. We see this not only in the U.S. but other countries. Keep religion out of the Constitution – let everyone choose their own belief system..coexist. – Kelsie Ferguson
It’s important to remember history accurately.
Since we are remembering history accurately today….
The Constitution was meant to be a short and simple framework for government, it was never intended to be the guidebook for governance. This is why honest judges look at the Declaration of Independence (which says that our rights come from you know who), the Federalist Papers, letters and notes from the Founders, early docs that influenced the Constitution like the Virginia Declaration of Rights etc.
It might be important to point out that all 50 state constitutions mentioned God – http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm
Also, one does not need to have God to have persecution or oppression. Shall we tally up the number of the dead by regimes hostile to the notion that human rights are God given?
People’s Republic of China 1949-present
Body Count: 73,237,000
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000
1922-1991 (69 years)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000
Cambodia under Pol Pot
Body Count: 2,627,000
Vietnam (Note: this number excludes the 1,062,000 from the Vietnam War)
Body Count: 1,670,000
People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Body Count: 1,343,610
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Body Count: 1,072,000
People’s Republic of Mozambique
Body Count: 700,000
Socialist Republic of Romania
Body Count: 435,000
This list continues for a long way. It is also important to note that Islamic regimes do not recognize God given human and political rights as we know them.
I see the mention of James Madison. GREAT! The Founders were virtually unanimous in their belief that the state should not create a state church as most every European power had done. In each case a European power cherry picked one denomination of Christianity over the others. The Founders were virtually unanimous in their opposition to that behavior.
That being said most of the Founders, James Madison especially… well take a read:
First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:
[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
Madison even desired that all public officials – including Bradford – would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. 
Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:
It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. 
Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. 
(Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates. )
Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains. 
Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. 
Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. 
 Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884).
 Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).
 The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the “Declaration of Rights” passed June 12, 1776).
 1 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789).
 1 Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789).
 1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).
 Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)
 1 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).
by Chuck Norton
UPDATE – Aside from the comment section below which has several links, videos and comments, Mark Levin went more in-depth into the BLM’s deliberate abuse of power, creating a legal quagmire to destroy the lives of ranchers, coal miners, small farmers, and commercial fisherman. The audio is here:
UPDATE II – Fox News’ Sean Hannity reported today that the Chinese Solar plant Sen. Harry Reid broke ground on is not 213 miles from Clive Bundy’s ranch, it is 35 miles.
Levin explained in his April 11th broadcast how Bundy had agreements with the State of Nevada before the BLM claimed jurisdiction.
Originally Bundy and the other ranchers in the area cooperated with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They negotiated water rights and grazing rights, building of roads and irrigation all with the approval of the state and BLM.
BLM was collecting fees from Bundy and the other ranchers in the area when BLM reneged on their earlier agreements [including agreements with Clark County H/T Michele Fiore]. BLM began a systematic and deliberate campaign to drive ranchers out of Southern Nevada. Levin said that while the BLM had granted itself the power to behave in such a way to make it “legal”, BLM’s war on local ranchers is a deliberate abuse of power.
Among the tactics used by BLM was a mandate for “environmental” reasons that Bundy and the other ranchers in the area decrease their cattle herd to 150 head, which would put every rancher out of business and did, including 52 ranchers in Clark County alone, leaving Cliven Bundy the last rancher standing.
BLM demands that ranchers sign a contract agreeing to new terms before they take payment. While BLM was successful in driving every other rancher out Cliven Bundy refused to agree to the new terms, stopped paying BLM and a 20 year legal battle began, with Bundy not being able to afford attorney’s for a drawn out legal battle (so much for due process). [NOTE: Cliven Bundy’s English is so bad and so broken that he can barely manage to express himself.]
Another tactic that BLM engaged is was to declare much of the land off-limits because they said that the Desert Tortoise was endangered, while at the same time the population of Desert Tortoises was so abundant that the government initiated a program to hunt them.
Levin’s entire April 11th broadcast can be downloaded at the following link:
Late on April 11th, bloggers searching public documents discovered that Nevada Senator Harry Reid, whose former long-term aid now directs BLM, has been negotiating a deal with a Chinese energy firm to build a $5 billion solar energy facility on the land near the Bundy Ranch. Harry Reid’s son represents the Chinese firm looking to develop said land.
[NOTE: While the ground zero point of the Chinese Solar facility is
200 miles from the Bundy Ranch, it is within the area of the many dozens of ranchers the BLM has driven out in recent years as well as the associated public grazing land. Also water rights can easily be affected by such a large development 200 35 miles away (See Update II above). In any case, the overpopulated Desert Tortoise means that horses and cattle can’t graze, but a massive solar facility ….well that is great for the so-called “endangered” tortoise?]
After the news of Harry Reid’s involvement in plans to seize and develop these lands with the Chinese had begun to go viral on the internet, the following morning the BLM agreed to pull its 200 armed men out and return seized cattle to Cliven Bundy. At the time of this writing the BLM had not indicated if the arrival of nearly 2000 (many armed) citizens was a factor in their motivation to stand down.
Has the political class has taken lands in the West much the same way they stole the land from the Indians and slaughtered them? What politician ran on “I am going to seize control of 86% of Nevada”?
They did it by a thousand cuts, incrementalism, and before you know it they have taken control of 86% of the land for no other reason other than they got away with it.
This is the problem, the Congress over time has handed so much “regulatory” authority to the executive branch that they can make up and change “the law” as they go at a whim. We have witnessed the wholesale breakdown of separation of powers.
Is not civil disobedience, the First Amendment right to protest, parts of Article V, and the Second Amendment all checks against the deadly power of lawmaking under such circumstances?
It is important to keep in mind that one of the government’s tactics in takings cases is to drag out court proceedings and make your legal bills so high that you run out of money and give up, which is why Cliven Bundy represented himself in court. Can one honestly say that Cliven Bundy got his due process in federal court with no legal team to help him?
By Chuck Norton
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. – 17th Amendment to the US Constitution
One might think off the cuff, what is so bad about that? You mean we didn’t used to directly elect our own Senators?
Before the 17th Amendment Senators served at the pleasure of your state legislators and could be recalled at any time should the Senator work against the interests of your state. So how did changing that take power from you?
What they didn’t tell you is that the way the political parties have structured themselves in the Congress, the direct election of Senators made political party leadership virtually all powerful.
In the Senate today the Majority Leader, Harry Reid holds that position, is near all powerful. He can hold up any and all legislation, he can stop the approval of any executive appointees, he can make rules to allow or restrict any amendments to bills, he can have debate ruled out of order by controlling the rules committee, and by using the power of the Majority Leader position he can change the Senate Rules to almost anything he wants. In the case of Harry Reid, he has shirked his constitutional duty by not allowing a federal budget to be passed for years. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment there is virtually no recourse.
If the Speaker of the House is in the same political party, party leadership (all of two people) will have total control over Conference Committees which shape how legislation in its final form is voted on; such power is near impossible to check.
Does this sound democratic to you? Is this what you have in mind when you think of a congress?
It gets worse….
The Majority Leader uses his power to modify legislation to aid party supporters, to steer appropriations and favorable legislation to Senators who will obey, and punish Senators who do not. As a result Senators are much more responsive to big money interests and K Street lobbyists than their own constituents. Senators get millions of dollars from out of state to run ads which are often used to trick voters with dishonest messaging. This goes quintuple for the Majority Leader. With his power to craft, steer, and modify legislation and the appropriations process he becomes a fund raising behemoth. The Majority Leader will control a “Leadership PAC” to dump campaign money into the coffers of Senators who obey his will.
How many of you have ever had a Senator who could care less what you had to say or your problems? How many of you have asked for constituent service from your Senator only to have his staff blow you off and tell you that is what your House member is for?
Look at states such as Virginia, who have state legislatures that oppose the expensive disaster that is Obamacare, have an elected Attorney General who sued in court to help stop parts of Obamacare and won, when when the people of the state and the members of the state legislature beg their two Senators for relief they are told to go fly a kite.
After learning all this it is no surprise why the 17th Amendment is considered one of the “Progressive Amendments” along with the income tax and other federal power grab amendments designed to centralize power in Washington DC. [Note: Progressives and statists love to create the illusions and trappings of public input and a democratic process – “You will have to pass the bill to find out what is in it” – former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi]
The Senate was created to represent the states and now they represent big money interests. If the State Legislatures control the Senators said Senators would have no choice but be responsive to the will of the people and the state, it would gave the states real representation in the central government once again, it would take the power away from out of state big money interests and power away form K Street lobbyists.
Citizens who wish to talk directly with their state legislator can just simply to his house or call him directly on the phone because the districts are small. State legislators are responsive to the voice of the people because the nature of their small districts forces them to be, thus amplifying your voice in the central government, not diminishing it.
Note: Mark Levin has proposed 11 Amendments to restore the checks and balances that have been broken down by dishonest courts and a Congress that has yielded most legislative power to unelected bureaucrats: http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
by Chuck Norton
UPDATE – Just as we predicted, Democrats in the Senate are floating a bill to allow the President to raise the debt limit in direct violation of Article I of the Constitution. The Democrats have written the bill so that it would take a super majority in both chambers to block the President from giving himself an unlimited credit card.
Congress is not a rubber stamp. What President Obama and the Democrats are doing is a frontal assault on separation of powers, Congress’s power and responsibility of oversight of the Executive Branch, and the budgetary authority of Congress
The Democratic Party is pining for a powerful post-constititional Executive Branch that can illegally line item veto, pick and choose who laws will and wont apply to – Chicago style, and seize power to legislate on its own.
Legislating On His Own
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, President Obama has taken it upon himself to change the law in ways he sees fit, a power that only Congress has under the Constitution. President Obama has given over 1,400 waivers to political allies be it groups or businesses which is illegal and corrupt.
The Grassley Amendment mandates that the Affordable Care Act apply to Congress just as it would to regular citizens; a law the President has waived under no constitutional authority whatsoever. He has done this in collusion with some in the congressional leadership and over the objection of some Republicans who believe doing so is unfair.
If a Republican president had behaved such a way Democrats and their friends in the praetorian media would be screaming for impeachment and enough Republicans would likely agree to get it done. Until this recent assault on the constitutional authority of Congress, Republicans have been somewhat timid in fear of being called “racist” by the praetorian media.
While Democrats would claim that Obama’s actions fall under the regulatory authority granted to the Executive Branch by Congress, regulatory authority is for the purpose of creating due process in carrying out the laws passed by Congress. It is not license to change the law or invent new laws unilaterally, nor is such authority permission to pick and choose winners and losers by deciding what parts will apply to who and who it will not. The President is seizing the power to legislate on his own and has been doing this more and more be it immigration laws, voting laws, domestic spying, and the list goes on.
UPDATE – Newt Gingrich: The President has decided that he wants to be “Legislator In Chief” – http://tiny.cc/wrtw4w
Many things are negotiable, equality under the law is not.
Assault on the Oversight and Budgetary Authority of Congress
Normally, under the regular order of appropriations and budgeting, committees in Congress will hold hearings on and then vote on how your money is spent, how much is spent, and review the stewardship of that spending after the fact with its constitutionally mandated power of oversight. This is how government is accountable to you and the representatives in Congress that you elect.
Through the committee and appropriations process the separate segmented appropriations measures are put together into a budget which sets the taxing and spending limits of various parts of the government. Next, the parts of the budget are reviewed and combined by certain standing committees in Congress such as the Budget Committee; that budget is then voted on by the entire House and Senate. Once passed the Budget is published and anyone can examine it. This is the process that Congress has generally used for the last 200 years and is why this process is called “regular order“.
Regular order makes sense. When you look at your budget at home, you look at each line item, see where your expenses are going and you make priorities to adjust your expenses so that you don’t over spend, right?
When President Obama was elected the Democrats began to refuse to even consider passing a budget, abandoning all regular order. Since the Democrats control the Senate no budgets have been passed.
The Democratic Party Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said again and again that the House of Representatives has no right to pick and choose what it will fund and what it will not. Then Harry Reid and the Democrats started calling Republicans in the House hostage takers, anarchists, arsonists, terrorists, and every other “ists” you can think of. At the same time the Democrats have said they want an all or nothing blank check in the form of a continuing resolution instead of a budget.
The Constitution of the United States says:
Article I Section VII – All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Article I Section VIII – The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Article I Section IX – No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
The Constitution is clear that all bills dealing with revenue must originate in the House of Representatives; which also must pay the debts, set taxes, borrow money and as Section IX makes clear that the records must all be in a budget for the people to see.
By claiming that the House of Representatives does not have the right to do exactly what the Constitution instructs in plain English, the Democrats are trying to make an unconstitutional “new normal” where there are no budgets, no oversight as we have known it for two centuries, and just write gargantuan blank checks in the form of massive continuing resolutions(CR) for President Obama to spend as he sees fit.
It is for these reasons that there is nothing clean about the Democrat’s demand for a “clean CR”.
Senator Mike Lee, who is well-known to be one of the top lawyers in the country, speaks of this:
Now Democrats are combining the two power grabs above by saying that Congress has no right to revisit Obamacare because it was passed (without a single republican vote) after Obama was elected and that only President Obama has the right and the power to (illegally) change the law on his own.
Of course the very idea Democrats and their friends in the praetorian media are pushing, that Congress can never revisit a law, is silly on its face. Social Security and Medicare are laws that have been on the books for decades and Congress has changed those programs many times.
It is the job of each new Congress to look at existing law and make changes where the people’s representatives see fit. The very notion that one Chief Justice or one President can decide Obamacare’s fate and that the Congress cannot is laughable and yet the praetorian media has been advocating this very point of view every night since the partial government shutdown.
In an effort to keep members of his own party in line President Obama has illegally changed the law by executive fiat to give Members of Congress and their staff a 72% subsidy if they buy the expensive coverage on the Obamacare Exchange, other portions of the law do not apply to Congress as well.
Strong Arm Tactics
Aside from constant smear tactics, name calling, and lies crafted in such a way to sound oh so reasonable, the President has ordered his administration to cause as much pain and disruption on the American people as possible.
The Obama Administration ordered federal police to close the open air WWII Memorial and went so far as to rent “barrycades” to keep visiting WWII vets out.
Republican Members of Congress assisted the aged vets in “storming” their own memorial. Park Rangers, who are veterans themselves, refused to lay a hand on our WWII heroes:
The Obama administration ordered Park Police to close even privately funded memorials, private businesses adjacent to them, and even ordered elderly couples to be ejected from their homes which are adjacent to Lake Mead. In doing so Democrats have blamed Republicans for these outrages and for the most part the praetorian media has gone along with it. None of these parks or memorials were closed in the 17 previous government shutdowns since 1976.
The administration has threatened military priests who attempt to give Mass during the partial shutdown with arrest, and the administration has ordered that thousands of Department of Defense workers be furloughed in spite of the fact that the Defense Department has already been paid for with a separate continuing resolution. Of course President Obama has ordered the military to keep his personal retreat at Camp David open while cutting football and baseball coverage from the Armed Forces Television.
Speaker Boehner is outraged by the administration’s behavior:
President Obama has deliberately tried to spook the markets which affects the savings of millions of Americans in hopes to damage the economy even worse so that he can also blame that on Republicans.
The latest attempt to spook the markets is to threaten default on the national debt if the House of Representatives doesn’t give him all of the power that he wants. The 14th Amendment demands that the President make the scheduled payments on the debt. The Treasury takes in almost $240 billion a month which is much more than enough to pay the debt, Social Security etc. President Obama would have to willingly decide to default on the debt.
President Obama has also said that it is unprecedented for the Congress to attach strings to a raising of the debt ceiling. In fact, Congress has done so dozens of times as that is their enumerated power under the Constitution. When Obama was a Senator he favored just such a tactic himself. The President’s lie was so over the top that McClatchy News, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Fox News have all reported that the President’s claims are bunk.
The New Republic, a political magazine that favors the Democratic Party, has suggested that President Obama use the military against TEA Party activists. Other media outlets who have historically slanted reporting to favor the Democratic party have found President’ Obama’s rather obvious falsehoods a threat to their own credibility and thus are sending messages that their willingness to spin for him has limits.
NBC’s Chuck Todd grilled Jay Carney on why the White House won’t accept some of these individual continuing resolutions passed by the House to fund portions of the government that will put some people back to work:
A New York Times reporter has said that the Obama admin is, “most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”
While Obamacare may offer an expensive policy, which is implemented more like a massive tax, in exchange for “deductible not met”, “claim denied”, & “procedure not covered”; this fight is about much more than Obamacare, it is about power. A massive swing of power from the representatives of the people to the President. This is genuine third world style authoritarian power play.
One might not feel the authoritarian chill as of yet, but just wait until the next debt ceiling or government spending fight that leads to a partial shutdown and the President decides to abuse the power of Obamacare to halt payments for medical visits and prescription drugs as leverage to get his way. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.
Editor’s Note: A reader sent a note asking, “What about the budgets that President Obama proposed and what about the budget that Harry Reid put up in March 2013?”
These are good questions but the answer is well known to those who have followed politics.
President Obama’s budgets got next to no support from his own caucus in the Senate as they were so outrageous that Democrats did not want to sign their name on it or be associated with it. Since the Senate Democrat Caucus would not back the House GOP budgets or the President’s budgets they died in the Senate.
After taking criticism for the abandonment of Regular Order for not passing any budgets for four years, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid put up an outrageous budget last March (2013) that was completely unserious, was opposed by four Democrat Senators, violated the Sequestor Law, and amounted to a political gag – as explained by The Hill:
The Senate-passed budget has $975 billion in new taxes, does not balance, and does not cut spending when the fact it turns off sequestration is taken into effect.
The Constitution is clear that tax bills MUST start in the House. Any tax increase that is not approved by the House first is a non-starter. Harry Reid putting up a budget that violated the Sequestor Law and imposes almost a trillion in new taxes was out of Regular Order. Of course Reid knew it, and so did those four Democrats who voted against such a stunt. Reid put up that “budget” to create the illusion of supporting Regular Order when the heat was on. This was no secret as press reports and political blogs reported as much.
UPDATE – Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accuses House Republicans of TREASON for not handing Obama a blank check CR http://tiny.cc/cs7q4w
UPDATE – Obama Administration hires private armed thugs to ring Independence Hall http://tiny.cc/9ybr4w
UPDATE – ‘Gestapo’ tactics meet senior citizens and foreigners at Yellowstone as armed men on orders from the Obama Administration round them up and lock them up – http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1442580353/Gestapo-tactics-meet-senior-citizens-at-Yellowstone
UPDATE – Senator Mike Lee: The best argument against Obamacare is the behavior of the Obama administration during the “shutdown”; DO WHAT I SAY OR ELSE:
Just surrender your freedom and the politicians will make it all better….
It is not a question of open or closed minds. Citizens are giving such politicians a benefit of the doubt that history proves they do not deserve.
Too many of those in power want to keep the “sheep” weak, too many with money try to keep others from competing or getting money themselves (hence the put down “new money”) and the list goes on. Such people are prevalent in society and are always with us. These are people who have an inflated sense of superiority, believing they are entitled to rule.
They smile and tell us how they are burdened with glorious purpose to help the downtrodden, the children and the poor, but their interest is only self aggrandizement and power. Our Constitution was written because of people like them. Eternal Vigilance is the cost of freedom because there are always men like these:
I totally understand that you (readers) are a nice people and want to be nice. Hear me, all tyrants would be or otherwise use your own values and your own good will as a weapon against you. Your good nature is worthy of credit, but it can be made to serve the enemies of freedom.
The left lost all claim to the civility card when they started engaging in Saul Alinsky inspired deception tactics. One can still be “civil” but we must be aware of just who and what we are dealing with.
Emily Miller in The Washington Times:
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has not made a peep about gun control since news came out that firearms-related deaths were way down. President Obama has ignored it and continued to pursue more gun-control laws. Their reaction shows how this news screws up their agenda to keep the decline in gun-related homicides a secret from Americans so that they can pass restrictions on the Second Amendment.
The Justice Department released a study Tuesday that showed firearm-related homicides in the U.S. annually declined 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1.5 million to 467,300 in that time frame.
Mr. Bloomberg, who is usually very vocal on any gun-related news, fell mute. Neither he, nor his usually very active organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has said anything gun related this week. A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg’s group did not respond to a request for comment. If the news had been that a bunch of people were shot, you can be assured that Mr. Bloomberg would have been in front of the microphones.
The president has not celebrated the good news. Quite the opposite. After learning that Americans are safer now than ever from criminals with guns, Mr. Obama launched a campaign for more gun laws. He tweeted from his Barack Obama account: “This is big: @OFA volunteers are about to deliver 1.4 million signatures to Congress demanding expanded background checks for gun sales.” OFA stands for Organizing for America, which is Mr. Obama’s political campaign group.
Mr. Obama followed up to tell followers to watch OFA’s account for “more coverage of the gun violence petition delivery to Congress.” He used the hashtag #NotBackingDown. By that he means to keep pushing more restrictions on the Second Amendment. On Wednesday, he took House Democrats to dinner to plot how to pass gun-control laws.
The reason they are hiding now is because they don’t want the public know that crime has gone down at the same time that gun ownership and carry permits have increased. The have — until now — been effective in hiding these facts.
On the same day that Justice released its report, Pew Research Center released a new poll that found that 56 percent of Americans believe gun crimes is higher now than 20 years ago and 26 percent thought it was the same. Only 12 percent knew that it was lower. The most dramatic decline was in the mid-1999s, but has steadily decreased since. The survey showed the public wasn’t that much more knowledgeable on recent crime data. Asked about trends in firearms crimes “in recent years,” 45 percent thought the number had gone up, 39 percent thought it was the same. Just 10 percent were correct that it has gone down 13 percent in the most recent five years.
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
UPDATE – Kirsten Powers, who has been on a roll lately, comments:
This is the greatest political/motivational speech delivered in at least 25 years. Watch every last moment. Glenn Beck at his very best.
One of America’s greatest daughters delivers a speech that will rouse your soul and bring a tear to your eye.
A great video from Bill Whittle with a message that we gave you about how the left works to criminalize political differences.
“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” – Adolf Hitler
For those of you who are too young to have experienced Audrey Hepburn she is considered to be among the kindest and most beautiful women the world has ever known.
Of course, President Reagan was a force of nature himself:
This video is so good on so many levels. With that said please pay special attention to how Dr. Monica Crowley explains how tyrants and leviathan statists use the soft sweet language of utopianism to lull people to sleep before they feel the iron fist of the state.
This demonstration shows how limiting magazine sizes helps criminals and those intent on mass slaughter while endangering those who would use a firearm for self-defense.
1 – There are billions of high-capacity magazines already in circulation and the ability to manufacture them at home has become easy. Does anyone believe that a criminal is going to limit his magazine size to 7 or 10 rounds?
2 – Even if a person bent on mass slaughter did only use ten round magazines, he will just carry more magazines when he goes to the crime scene, but the person defending might carry only 1 extra magazine for convenience.
3 – But the most important point is that modern guns are designed to be reloaded almost instantly with moderate practice. Practice that criminals will now take the time to do because of all of the media hype on this issue.
In the demonstration below, the firearm used a 1911 Colt .45, a design that is 102 years old. The shooter demonstrates how fast and easy it is to change magazines. For the purposes of this demonstration each magazine is loaded with two with two rounds.
NOTE: Modern firearms are designed to be reloaded even faster than what is done with the 102 year old design shown below:
We have seen this kind of propaganda before HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE since Obama took office. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security are issuing reports and training materials equating Christians and political enemies of the far left with the most radical and dangerous hate groups. There is only one purpose for this kind of dehumanization, it hopes to desensitize the military and police to a point where they will fire on fellow Americans and ignore human rights.
So much for the First Amendment. This is what we call criminalizing political differences.
UPDATE – Fox News picked up the story.
A combat battalion commander assigned to the 101st Air Borne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, sent an email out to several dozen subordinate officers and senior noncommissioned officers describing conservatives as members of hate groups.
Using the subject line of ‘Domestic Hate Groups,’ LTC Jack Rich warned his subordinate leaders that they include:
• members of the Christian right (like Focus on the Family’s former leader, James Dobson)
• anti-gay groups (those who oppose the “so-called homosexual agenda”)
• members of Patriot organizations (those “opposed to the ‘New World Order’”; those who believe that the “‘New World Order’ is imposing a global plan, called Agenda 21, to take away citizens’ property rights”; those who “believe that being well armed is a must”; those who fear “impending gun control or weapons confiscations, either by the government or international agencies”)
• anti-Muslim groups (those who “broadly defame Islam”; those who believe the “inherent danger to America posed by its Muslim-American community”, that Muslims are a “fifth column intent on undermining and eventually replacing American democracy and Western civilization with Islamic despotism”; those who “allege that Muslims are trying to subvert the rule of law by imposing on Americans their own Islamic legal system, Shariah law”)
• anti-illegal alien groups
Commissar Rich identifies the Family Research Council, American Family Association, United States Justice Foundation, Atlas Shrugs, Sharia Awareness Network, Bare Naked Islam, and many other organizations as hate groups.
Sen. Ted Cruz on with Laura Ingraham. This is Ted Cruz at his best.
The question and answer part comes at 23:00. be sure to watch.
Here are senator Paul’s prepared remarks:
I’d like to thank President Ribeau, the Howard University faculty, and students for having me today.
Some people have asked if I’m nervous about speaking at Howard. They say “You know, some of the students and faculty may be Democrats…”
My response is that my trip will be a success if the Hilltop will simply print that a Republican came to Howard but he came in peace.
My wife Kelley asked me last week do you ever have doubts about trying to advance a message for an entire country?
The truth is, sometimes. When I do have doubts, I think of a line from T.S. Eliot, “how should I presume to spit out all the butt ends of my days and ways, and how should I presume.”
And when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions, I think again of Eliot’s words: “when I am pinned and wriggling on the wall, how should I presume?
And here I am today at Howard, a historically black college. Here I am, a guy who once presumed to discuss a section of the Civil Rights Act.
Some have said that I’m either brave or crazy to be here today. I’ve never been one to watch the world go by without participating. I wake up each day hoping to make a difference.
I take to heart the words of Toni Morrison of Howard University, who wrote: “If there is a book you really want to read, but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.”
I can recite books that have been written, or I can plunge into the arena and stumble and maybe fall but at least I will have tried.
What I am about is a philosophy that leaves YOU – to fill in the blanks.
I come to Howard today, not to preach, or prescribe some special formula for you but to say I want a government that leaves you alone, that encourages you to write the book that becomes your unique future.
You are more important than any political party, more important than any partisan pleadings.
The most important thing you will do is yet to be seen. For me, I found my important thing to do when I learned to do surgery on the eye, when I learned to restore a person’s vision.
I found what was important when I met and married my wife.
Although I am an eye surgeon, first and foremost, I find myself as part of the debate over how to heal our sick economy and get people back to work.
I truly believe that we can have an economy that creates millions of jobs again but we will have to rethink our arguments and try to rise above empty partisan rhetoric.
My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents.
If you hear me out, I believe you’ll discover that what motivates me more than any other issue is the defense of everyone’s rights.
Of strong importance to me is the defense of minority rights, not just racial minorities, but ideological and religious minorities.
If our government does not protect the rights of minorities, then democratic majorities could simply legislate away our freedoms.
The bill of rights and the civil war amendments protect us against the possibility of an oppressive federal or state government.
The fact that we are a Constitutional Republic means that certain inalienable rights are protected even from democratic majorities.
No Republican questions or disputes civil rights. I have never waivered in my support for civil rights or the civil rights act.
The dispute, if there is one, has always been about how much of the remedy should come under federal or state or private purview.
What gets lost is that the Republican Party has always been the party of civil rights and voting rights.
Because Republicans believe that the federal government is limited in its function-some have concluded that Republicans are somehow inherently insensitive to minority rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Republicans do, indeed, still believe many rights remain with the people and states respectively.
When some people hear that, they tune us out and say: he’s just using code words for the state’s right to discriminate, for the state’s right to segregate and abuse.
But that’s simply not true.
Many Republicans do believe that decentralization of power is the best policy, that government is more efficient, more just, and more personal when it is smaller and more local.
But Republicans also realize that there are occasions of such egregious injustice that require federal involvement, and that is precisely what the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act were intended to do-protect citizens from state and local tyranny.
The fourteenth amendment says, “No state shall . . .” The fourteenth amendment did change the constitution to give a role for the federal government in protecting citizenship and voting regardless of race.
I did not live through segregation nor did I experience it first-hand. I did grow up in the South in public schools comprised of white, black, and Latino students largely all getting along with each other.
So, perhaps some will say that I can never understand. But I don’t think you had to be there to have been affected by our nation’s history of racial strife.
The tragedy of segregation and Jim Crow in the South is compounded when you realize that integration began in New England in the 1840’s and 1850’s.
In 1841, Frederick Douglas was pulled from the white car on the Eastern Railroad, clutching his seat so tightly that he was thrown from the train with its remnants still tightly in his hands.
But, within a few years public transportation was integrated in the northeast.
It is a stain on our history that integration didn’t occur until more than 100 years later in the South. That in the 1960’s we were still fighting to integrate public transportation and schools is and was an embarrassment.
The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglas until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party.
How did the party that elected the first black US Senator, the party that elected the first 20 African American Congressmen become a party that now loses 95% of the black vote?
How did the Republican Party, the party of the great Emancipator, lose the trust and faith of an entire race?
From the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, for a century, most black Americans voted Republican. How did we lose that vote?
To understand how Republicans lost the African American vote, we must first understand how we won the African American vote.
In Kentucky, the history of black voting rights is inseparable from the Republican Party. Virtually all African Americans became Republicans.
Democrats in Louisville were led by Courier-Journal editor Henry Watterson and were implacably opposed to blacks voting.
Watterson wrote that his opposition to blacks voting was “founded upon a conviction that their habits of life and general condition disqualify them from the judicious exercise of suffrage.”
In George Wright’s “Life Behind the Veil,” he writes of Republican General John Palmer standing before tens of thousands of slaves on July 4th, 1865, when slavery still existed in Kentucky, and declaring:
“my countrymen, you are free, and while I command, the military forces of the United States will defend your right to freedom.” The crowd erupted in cheers.
Meanwhile, Kentucky’s Democrat-controlled legislature voted against the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments.
William Warley was a black Republican in Louisville. He was born toward the end of the nineteenth century.
He was a founder of Louisville’s NAACP but he is most famous for fighting and overturning the notorious Louisville segregated housing ordinance.
Warley bought a house in the white section in defiance of a city segregation law. The case, Buchanan v. Warley, was finally decided in 1917 and the Supreme Court held unanimously that Kentucky law could not forbid the sale of a house based on race.
The Republican Party’s history is rich and chock full of emancipation and black history.
Republicans still prize the sense of justice that MLK spoke of when he said that “an unjust law is any law the majority enforces on a minority but does not make binding upon itself.”
Republicans have never stopped believing that minorities, whether they derive from the color of their skin or shade of their ideology should warrant equal protection.
Everyone knows of the sit-ins in Greensboro and Nashville but few people remember the sit-it in the Alexandria public library in 1938.
Samuel Tucker, a lawyer and graduate of Howard University, recruited five young African American men to go to the public library and select a book and sit and read until they were forcibly removed.
Tucker’s sit-in set the stage for students who organized the sit-in at Woolworth’s in Greensboro that brought down Jim Crow in many areas, years before the civil rights act of 1964.
I think our retelling of the civil rights era does not give enough credit to the heroism of civil disobedience.
You may say, oh that’s all well and good but that was a long time ago what have you done for me lately?
I think what happened during the Great Depression was that African Americans understood that Republicans championed citizenship and voting rights but they became impatient for economic emancipation.
African Americans languished below white Americans in every measure of economic success and the Depression was especially harsh for those at the lowest rung of poverty.
The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible-the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets.
Now, Republicans face a daunting task. Several generations of black voters have never voted Republican and are not very open to even considering the option.
Democrats still promise unlimited federal assistance and Republicans promise free markets, low taxes, and less regulations that we believe will create more jobs.
The Democrat promise is tangible and puts food on the table, but too often doesn’t lead to jobs or meaningful success.
The Republican promise is for policies that create economic growth. Republicans believe lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budgets, a solvent Social Security and Medicare will stimulate economic growth.
Republicans point to the Reagan years when the economy grew at nearly 7% and millions upon millions of jobs were created.
Today, after four years of the current policies, one in six Americans live in poverty, more than at any other time in the past several decades.
In fact, the poor have grown poorer in the past four years. Black unemployment is at 14%, nearly twice the national average. This is unacceptable.
Using taxes to punish the rich, in reality, punishes everyone because we are all interconnected. High taxes and excessive regulation and massive debt are not working.
The economy has been growing at less than 1% and actually contracted in the fourth quarter.
I would argue that the objective evidence shows that big government is not a friend to African Americans.
Big government relies on the Federal Reserve, our central bank, to print money out of thin air. Printing money out of thin air leads to higher prices.
When the price of gas rises to $4 per gallon, it is a direct result of our nation’s debt. When food prices rise, it is a direct result of the $50,000 we borrow each second. Inflation hurts everyone, particularly the poor.
If you are struggling to get ahead, if you have school loans and personal debt, you should choose a political party that wants to leave more money in the private sector so you will get a job when the time comes.
Some Republicans, let’s call them the moss-covered variety, mistake war for defense. They forget that Reagan argued for Peace through strength, not War through strength.
The old guard argues for arms for Ghaddafi and then the following year for boots on the ground to defeat Ghaddafi.
I want you to know that all Republicans do not clamor for war, that many Republicans believe in a strong national defense that serves to preserve the Peace.
In Louisville, in the predominantly African American west end of town, it was recently announced that 18 schools are failing. The graduation rate is 40%.
The head of Kentucky’s education called it academic genocide. Johns Hopkins researchers call these schools dropout factories.
I defy anyone to watch Waiting for Superman and honestly argue against school choice.
A minister friend of mine in the West End calls school choice the civil rights issue of the day. He’s absolutely right.
By the sixth grade, Ronald Holasie was failing most of his classes, but through school choice he was able to attend a Catholic school in the DC area.
There he learned that he had a natural gift for composing music, but before that, his reading level was so low that he had struggled to write lyrics. Ronald then went on to matriculate at Barry University.
There are countless examples of the benefits of school choice – where kids who couldn’t even read have turned their lives completely around.
Maybe it’s about time we all reassess blind allegiance to ideas that are failing our children.
Every child in every neighborhood, of every color, class and background, deserves a school that will help them succeed.
Those of you assembled today are American success stories. You will make it and do great things.
In every neighborhood, white, black or brown, there are kids who are not succeeding because they messed up.
They had kids before they were married, or before they were old enough to support them, or they got hooked on drugs, or they simply left school.
Republicans are often miscast as uncaring or condemning of kids who make bad choices. I, for one, plan to change that.
I am working with Democratic senators to make sure that kids who make bad decisions such as non-violent possession of drugs are not imprisoned for lengthy sentences.
I am working to make sure that first time offenders are put into counseling and not imprisoned with hardened criminals.
We should not take away anyone’s future over one mistake.
Let me tell you the tale of two young men. Both of them made mistakes. Both of them were said to have used illegal drugs.
One of them was white and from a privileged background. He had important friends, and an important father and an important grandfather. You know, the kind of family who university’s name dorms after.
The family had more money than they could count. Drugs or no drugs, his family could buy justice if he needed it.
The other man also used illegal drugs, but he was of mixed race and from a single parent household, with little money. He didn’t have important friends or a wealthy father.
Now, you might think I’m about to tell you a story about racism in America, where the rich white kid gets off and the black kid goes to jail.
It could well be, and often is, but that is not this story. In this story, both young men were extraordinarily lucky. Both young men were not caught. They weren’t imprisoned.
Instead, they both went on to become Presidents of the United States.
Barack Obama and George Bush were lucky. The law could have put both of them away for their entire young adulthood. Neither one would have been employable, much less president.
Some argue with evidence that our drug laws are biased-that they are the new Jim Crow.
But to simply be against them for that reason misses a larger point. They are unfair to EVERYONE, largely because of the one size fits all federal mandatory sentences.
Our federal mandatory minimum sentences are simply heavy handed and arbitrary. They can affect anyone at any time, though they disproportionately affect those without the means to fight them.
We should stand and loudly proclaim enough is enough. We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence.
That’s why I have introduced a bill to repeal federal mandatory minimum sentences. We should not have drug laws or a court system that disproportionately punishes the black community.
The history of African-American repression in this country rose from government-sanctioned racism.
Jim Crow laws were a product of bigoted state and local governments.
Big and oppressive government has long been the enemy of freedom, something black Americans know all too well.
We must always embrace individual liberty and enforce the constitutional rights of all Americans-rich and poor, immigrant and native, black and white.
Such freedom is essential in achieving any longstanding health and prosperity.
As Toni Morrison said, write your own story. Challenge mainstream thought.
I hope that some of you will be open to the Republican message that favors choice in education, a less aggressive foreign policy, more compassion regarding non-violent crime and encourages opportunity in employment.
And when the time is right, I hope that African Americans will again look to the party of emancipation, civil liberty, and individual freedom.
This is so spot on. Enjoy!
by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton
My hands tremble as I type this short memoriam to one of the greatest political heroes the world has ever known. Lady Thatcher was such a fine example. I was so fortunate to grow up in a world with Ronald Reagan, Lady Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Lech Walesa, the four great leaders who put an end to militant communism.
The moniker of “The Iron Lady” was given to her by the communists and was not meant to be complimentary, but she wore it as a shield. To know lady Thatcher was to love her. Those who are younger than Generation X have no idea what they have missed.
Last week, at Blackpool, the Labour Party made the bogus claim that it was “putting people first”. Putting people first?
Last week, Labour:
— voted to remove the right to a secret ballot before a strike
— voted to remove the precious right we gave to trade union members to take their union to a Court of Law.
Putting people first?
Last week Labour voted for the State to renationalise British Telecom and British Gas, regardless of the millions of people who have been able to own shares for the first time in their lives.
Putting people first?
They voted to stop the existing right to buy council houses, a policy which would kill the hopes and dreams of so many families.
Labour may say they put people first; but their Conference voted to put Government first and that means putting people last.
What the Labour Party of today wants is:
— the police service—politicised
— the judiciary—radicalised
— union membership—tyrannised
— and above all—and most serious of all—our defenses neutralized.
Lech Walesa comments via AFP:
Staunchly anti-communist Margaret Thatcher was key in hastening the fall of the Iron Curtain, Poland’s former president and anti-communist freedom icon Lech Walesa said Monday, hailing the late former British leader, AFP reported.
“She was a great person. She did a great deal for the world, along with (late US president) Ronald Reagan, pope John Paul II and Solidarity, she contributed to the demise of communism in Poland and Central Europe,” an emotional Walesa told AFP.
“I’m praying for her,” the founder of the anti-communist Solidarity trade union said.
Lady Thatcher’s legacy:
Lady Thatcher’s stand against socialism from her final appearance before Parliament as Prime Minister:
Lady Thatcher in battle against Socialists:
Thatcher makes a brilliant point on Keynesian economic theory which has proven so destructive time and time again (1:35), “…what he was saying was If we all spend more than we’ve got we shall all be very rich. It was always a very stupid sentiment.”
Lady Thatcher’s eulogy at Ronald Reagan’s national funeral service:
Violence, and lots of it. And history both recent and distant shows that a disarmed populace is the criminals bloody playground.
Joe Biden, when that super-storm hits, guess who WONT be there – YOU.
Senator Ted Cruz: The Obama administration has admitted that whet they are calling “Universal Back Ground Checks” is really a gun registration scheme.
Gun registration only has one purpose as history has proved that gun registries have no impact on gun crime. That purpose is confiscation from civilians.
Colion Noir responds:
And just before she was given the professorship she was “honored” by New York University.
We have been reporting the repeated and unending idiocy coming from the public education sector for some time now. We have more to report when time permits.