Please don’t be an idiot….it’s contagious.

August 5, 2009

May God save our Republic,


The Unrepentant Patriot

“Offensive….and loving it.”



“Press 1 for English … Press 2 until you LEARN English ………”

 — Unknown


 “A constitution of government, once changed from freedom, can never be restored.  Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

— John Adams


 “If I must choose between righteousness and peace I choose righteousness.”

 — Teddy Roosevelt


“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

 — Benjamin Franklin


 “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

 — Samuel Adams


“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take everything that you have.”

 — Barry Goldwater


“They can have my pastrami sandwich when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers …….”

 — Moose (The Unrepentant Patriot)


“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

— Samuel Adams


The Unrepentant Patriots

Visit The Unrepentant Patriots group site to learn more:




The Patriot’s Serenity Prayer


Moose (The Unrepentant Patriot)

 (With no apologies whatsoever to Reinhold Niebuhr …sorry, I just don’t believe in apologizing to anyone … oops……)

 God, grant me the serenity to load my clips quickly and fully, 
and to accept that there are shots I cannot make;
the courage to take the shots I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Living one skirmish at a time;
Enjoying one small victory at a time; 
Accepting imperfect firing positions as the pathway to survival;
Taking, as our Founding Fathers did, this land as the gift from God that it is,

not as the hog-trough of shiftlessness and government largesse the Leftists would have it become;
Trusting that my full-metal-jackets will make all things right,
as long as  I meter my breathing and choose my targets carefully;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life and,

as a result of my sacrifices for the cause of liberty,

supremely happy even if I eventually run out of ammo.


“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori … It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country.” (Horace)


Copyright © 2009, The “I’m A Good Ol’ Boy An’ I Know Where You Live At, An’ Iffin’ You Steal Any Of These Words, Thoughts or Ideas Of Mine I’ll Find You An’ I’ll Sell Yer Young-Uns To The Circus An’ Eat Yer Dog” Press



Registered with the IP Rights Office

Copyright Registration Service
Ref: 1305297342






















































































“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself.”


— Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795





“No constitution, no court, no law can save liberty when it dies in the hearts and minds of men.”


John Perkins





“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’”


— Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. speech, Nov. 6, 1933. Quoted in William L. Shirer, “Education in the Third Reich,” ch. 8, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959)





“The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”


— Woodrow Wilson, speech in New York, September 9, 1912





“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”


— James Madison





“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”


— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188





“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”


— Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis












From: Glen
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Subject: Government invasion of privacy and loss of freedom

Have you seen the Glenn Beck Cash for Clunkers YouTube clip? Its a way to invade your privacy and steal your freedoms through your computer.


I can’t believe that the liberal side howled that Bush 43 was stealing our freedom as legitimate progress was made to intercept and thwart on-going terrorism against our country. Now we can see what real invasion of privacy and loss of freedoms are by the current administration.


Check out Glenn Beck on YouTube:



Glenn Beck: Cash For Clunkers, Government scam to invade privacy








“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”


–James Madison




“Thinking about today’s massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. … Here’s my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?”


— Walter Williams




“After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust. When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited. Many people are rightly worried about what this administration’s reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief. He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts…. This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself. Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the capabilities of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power.”


— Thomas Sowell




“The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That’s right — $100 million with an ‘m,’ an imponderably small slice of this year’s expenditures. Back in April, the White House stressed that President Obama, during his first Cabinet meeting, ‘made clear that relentlessly cutting out waste was part and parcel of their mission to make the investments necessary for recovery and long-term stability.’ Department heads were ‘to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets.’ Three months later, he has gotten his wish: The White House announced on Monday that the goal has been reached. To say such a cut is negligible is an exaggeration in the extreme. To fit that description, a cut first has to be visible. Though it was initially promoted as a seminal moment, this cut doesn’t come close to meeting even the most reachable of benchmarks. In fiscal 2009, our federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s historical tables. The $100 million cut represents 0.0025% — less than one one-hundredth of 1% — of those outlays. … Now, thanks to the administration’s ‘relentless’ belt-tightening, the deficit will be $1.79999 trillion rather than $1.8 trillion.”


— Investor’s Business Daily




“How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies? That’s the argument that needs to be won. And, if you think I’m being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of ‘health’ and ‘the environment,’ governments of supposedly free nations are increasingly comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. … Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high. Government health care would be wrong even if it ‘controlled costs.’ It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.”


— Mark Steyn












From: michael mcneely <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Letter from Nancy Reagan
To: The Unrepentant Patriot <>

Thought you might enjoy this.


“Letter from Nancy Reagan”


You might recall that John Hinckley was a seriously deranged young man who
shot President Reagan in the early 1980’s. 

Hinckley was absolutely obsessed with movie star Jodie Foster, extremely
jealous, and in his twisted mind, loved Jodie Foster to the point that to
make himself well known to her, he attempted to assassinate President

There is speculation Hinckley may soon be released as having been
rehabilitated. Consequently, you may appreciate the following letter from 
Nancy Reagan to the staff at the mental facility treating Hinckley reports to
have intercepted: 

To: John Hinckley
From: Mrs. Nancy Reagan 

My family and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased we are
with the great strides you are making in your recovery. In our fine
country’s spirit of understanding and forgiveness, we want you to know there
is a nonpartisan consensus of compassion and forgiveness throughout. 

The Reagan family and I want you to know that no grudge is borne against you for
shooting President Reagan. We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress
and pain could have driven you to such an act of desperation. We are
confident that you will soon make a complete recovery and return to your
family to join the world again as a healthy and productive young man. 

Best wishes,
Nancy Reagan & Family 

P.S. While you have been incarcerated, Barack Obama has been banging Jodie
Foster like a screen door in a tornado. You might want to look into that.








On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Michael Wolcott wrote:

Please add me to your distribution.





From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Subject: Re: Subscribe
To: “Michael Wolcott”
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 3:39 PM

You’ve been added.  I appreciate your interest.  Just to satisfy my own curiosity….

how did you hear about my newsletter?

I’m right now in the process of developing this into a blog and a dedicated website,

so look for that in the not-too-distant future.







On 8/4/09, Michael Wolcott <> wrote:


My wife receives your e-mails, but was unable to forward them to me.

As you well know, much to the disdain of the media, the grass roots movement 

toward liberty over equality and a renewed focus on the Constitution AS IT WAS

WRITTEN will be at least as significant over the next 15 months as the “Hope and

Change” movement was in 2008. This momentum will be driven in large part to

regular citizens such as yourself and we greatly appreciate your efforts.

Please let us know how we can help.


Mike Wolcott


From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Subscribe
To: Michael Wolcott <>

Hi Mike,

I’d say “You’re a great American,” but I’m afraid I would make you
throw up.  However, you truly are a patriot, and I am honored to be
allied with you.

There are two things you can do to help: spread the word by forwarding
my messages and referring readers to me, and contribute content for
anonymous publication whenever you feel the urge.  If more and more
folks will do those two things, eventually the dam is gonna burst.

Thanks for your commitment, and

May God save our Republic,


The Unrepentant Patriot






On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Trey Tasker <> wrote:

My mom asked me about this.

I am interested in your input as to whether I interpreted the language of the bill accurately.

I think that this patient advocate, Betsy McCaughey, has stretched the meaning of the language in the bill.


From: Trey Tasker
Sent: Tue 7/28/2009 12:33 AM
To: Brenda Tasker
Subject: Page 425 of House version of Health Care Bill

Not that I ever want to be in the role of defending BO, but this email string is misleading.

This link takes you to the current version of the health care bill in the House.

Attached to this email are the two pages in question.  The intrusion of the government requiring any kind of counseling is insulting enough, but the text description does NOT say that the counseling includes instruction on ending one’s life.  Instead the term “end-of-life services” is used to describe palliative (for comfort not cure) and hospice services.  While I would not put it past BO and his cronies to morph the bill and its meaning to include Kevorkian-type instruction, we cannot conclude this based on this text alone.

Also provided here are the two discussions that Betsy McCaughey had with Fred Thompson on July 16 and July 27.  While there it is clear that the fiscal burdens of the health care plan are being masked by the advocates of the plan, Ms. McCaughey makes some astute observations about the basic numbers that should make the deception clear to most anyone.  Cutting $500B (or 10%) from Medicare will hit seniors directly since their numbers will be growing by 30%.  Rationing is a real problem for seniors.  The hysteria over the counseling requirement seems overblown to me.

For the July 16 session, start at tme index 54:00.  For the July 27 session, start at time index 18:45.

July 16:

July 27:

I hope this helps.


From: Brenda Tasker
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 10:35 PM
To: Trey Tasker

T, have you seen this one?  How do you verify?  B.

—– Original Message —–
From: Robert
To: Carolyn
Cc: Brenda
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:19 PM

This is scary.  It’s like the old folks sitting at home while someone is battering their door down.  Stop  and think for a minute – if the govt wanted to save money what better and easier place to do it than to take it away from the old folks.  If you need a surgical procedure or your parent does, better talk to your doctor about getting it done soon because if this bill passes, you may not have the option of even talking to your doctor about it.  Health rationing is real in other countries, do we want it here?????

—– Original Message —–
To: Alyce-Clara XXX
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:23 PM

We are well aware that far to many of our law makers have not even read the proposed Health Care Bill. Little by little small parts are finding the sunshine and are quite frankly are scaring the daylights out of people. I for one was totally unaware of this little diddy on page 425, which of course has not been covered by the media.

I recognize that the audio interview is by a former GOP Senator and I want to put politics aside….it is the subject that needs to be addressed. So focus on the subject!

We are being told that it won’t require  dropping our plans if deemed better…however
as this interview points out, that is untrue per pages 16 – 17 of the proposed bill.
I am personally still offended that Congress and the President have made themselves exempt from the proposed bill. If we are in a boat and it’s going down, they should be aboard. Why do we the people have to make sacrifices when these arrogant dumbos don’t?



Page 425 of Health Care BILL

O.K. folks – I ‘think’ this will ‘shake us up’ – read and listen to the Interview – “IF” this does not cause every red-blooded American to contact their Representative, I don’t know what will!!  It’s time for ACTION!  Americans!! Both Democrats and Republicans beware.

(If this doesn’t make your blood boil……….. nothing will!!)

Page 425 of Health Care Bill – Listen to this interview Fred Thompson’s Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy)..  Or look it up on <> , under interviews.

On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (and your life).  Health care will be denied based on age..  500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare.   The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first.   Paying for your own care will not be an option.

Now, CALL YOUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Tell them to read page 425 if they don’t read anything else.  Surely  some of them have parents.

“ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes…They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!”

Fred Thompson: Interviews <>



From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Subject: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Re: Page 425 of House version of Health Care Bill
To: The Unrepentant Patriots <>



It’s hard for me to tell much by reading just those two pages because it appears that there may be additional verbiage on the preceding and following pages that would frame the discussion and place some of the terms in fuller context. However, my problem is this: IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS, and it is not the government’s place, constitutionally speaking, to involve itself in the life/death decisions of the American people! But you see, this is what happens when you start framing health care as a “right”: If it’s given by government, then it can also be withheld by government, because it costs money and government holds the damn purse strings. And you will notice, tellingly, that the Constitution doesn’t say a damn thing about it, nor even offer an oblique suggestion that it should be provided by the government — and if the Constitution doesn’t address it, then why the hell are we even contemplating it? Oh wait, that’s right — it doesn’t say anything about the right to kill unborn babies either, but what the hell, let’s have the taxpayers foot the bill for that too, huh? This is why the Bill of Rights, although indispensable in many ways, is also somewhat dangerous. The inalienable rights of man do not issue from government; they issue from the Creator. And the facilities and resources for the pursuit of those rights also issue from the Creator, but they aren’t wrapped up in neat little packages and delivered to our doorsteps. We have to work and apply ourselves industriously in order to obtain them. We enjoy a “right” to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but the government does not provide us each with a newspaper and a radio station to make our opinions heard. We have the “right” to peaceably assemble, but the government doesn’t build us stadiums to hold our rallies in nor send buses out into our communities to pick us all up and take us there. We have a “right” to freedom of religion, but the government does not give us the funds with which to construct churches. We enjoy the “right” to keep and bear arms, but the BATFE hasn’t shown up at my doorstep to issue me my free guns and ammo (not that I would want them to….I can do a helluva lot better job of that myself than some idiot government bureaucrat ever could…..and hey, if that’s true for guns, how much more true is it for health care…..?). So when people start averring that we are somehow “entitled” to health care, that it is somehow a “right” that we should expect the government to provide for us, they’re placing themselves in a position to find themselves getting royally and unexpectedly f***ed in the end. Let the government dictate what you have a “right” to and you open up Pandora’s box (wouldn’t you hate it, by the way, if you were a chick named Pandora?) in the sense that a bunch of non compos mentis mid-level fools in D.C. will be able to kindly explain to you that while you do indeed have a “right” to health care, that right is, unfortunately (for you), limited to the scope of the definition they’ve assigned to it………

………and therefore, Mr. Jones, won’t you let us tell you about the many possibilities we have available for you in your waning years, which include numerous options for alleviating your suffering and “greasing the skids” toward your ultimate and inevitable demise, but do not, regrettably, include the possibility of your obtaining any life-sustaining treatments at this time, because, as I’m sure you understand and can appreciate, you’ve already lived a long and full and rewarding life and, because “we the enlightened few” have determined that it’s better for society to make the now-limited resources at our disposal available to the younger and healthier and more productive members of society (since, after all, they have so much more to offer the State in their many hale and hearty years to come), and although you do indeed have a “right” to receive quality health care, because the funds are limited and there’s only so much to go around and you empowered us to make the decision for you when you allowed us to declare that you had a “right” to what was available……but unfortunately now there’s just not enough “available” for everyone who needs it…..I’m sure you understand, don’t you, Mr. Jones?…….and over here we have this lovely dual-occupancy hospice suite available for you and it even has the floral wallpaper, and we just know you’ll be very comfortable and content here in your last few days…….gosh, it doesn’t even have windows, so you won’t be bothered by the sight of the hearses coming and going…..and you can spend time getting to know Mrs. Rosenzweig in the next cot over, who just got here last week when she turned 75 and her dialysis treatments were no longer allowed under “The Plan”……she’s such a lovely person, and her end-of-life counselor sometimes even brings cookies that I’m sure she’ll share with you, and you can even decide when you want the nurses to begin your Pentothal-Pavulon-potasium chloride drip, or if you prefer we can just stop sending your meals if you’re scared of needles………

Be careful what you wish for………

May God save our sanity (because that’s the only thing that can possibly save our health care system and our Republic),


The Unrepentant Patriot





On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Trey Tasker <> wrote:


Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at this part of the bill.

I am not in favor of any part of this healthcare nonsense, but I feel that it undermines our persuasiveness and influence (usual achieved via quality intellectual arguments) if people like Ms. McCaughey read and infer more into the words than is clearly there.  Though this judgment may be premature, as I agree that there may be other sections among the 1018 pages that explain her conclusions.  Either way, there are many better arguments than hers, like the Constitutional one that you offered below.

In my mind, the current healthcare bill is simply another form of largesse.  Much like the Medicare prescription benefits signed by GW Bush on Dec 8, 2003.  Much like every other government give away – ethanol subsidies, welfare, etc.  The recent massive stimulus bill was also a form of largesse, as it appears that most of the money went to the Democratic districts throughout the country.

Our representative democracy is supposed to protect us from the vagaries of pure democracy, but a successful representative democracy requires that we watch over our representatives and vote our true conscience.  Too often we do not watch over these yahoos in DC, and too often we vote the conscience of the talking head on TV rather than our own.

Let’s hope that today’s proposal by Dr. Price (Rep-GA) will get some serious airtime.  If healthcare must be “fixed”, let’s do it with a free market solution.

Based on the quote below, I think our country has moved past “apathy” and is sprinting toward “dependency”.  These are scary times.
(I wonder where Lord MacCauley obtained the data that led to his stated metric of 200 years. What resources would he have use to get such data in 1857?)


“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.”

– Lord Thomas MacCauley, May 23, 1857




From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Re: Page 425 of House version of Health Care Bill
To: Trey Tasker <>

Hey Trey,


As usual, you offer a lucid and well-reasoned argument.  I will place it in my next blast in its entirety.


The last quote you offer has been variously attributed to a number of authors, but to the best of my knowledge it’s never been definitively determined who actually wrote it.  However, it’s true regardless, even if Michael Jackson wrote it.









From: Jim Higginbotham <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Subject: RE: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Re: Page 425 of House version of Health Care Bill

and ANY AND ALL of the TREASONOUS SOB’S who vote for this NEED taken out behind the congress and HUNG.
Semper Fi.






“The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world. Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so. The government-run health-care system — which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care — has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given. Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. … In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe. There is no right to health care — any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.”


–British physician Theodore Dalrymple









From: bill sheehy <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Subject: FW: This is great

Now here’s a brotha I can support….


Bill Sheehy

Happily habitating in Henderson

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:27:40 -0400
> From: patvalenzuela
> To: billsheehy
> Subject: Fwd: Fw: This is great

> > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:13 PM
> > Subject: This is great
> >
> >
> > You must look at all of this man’s speech. funny as shit
> >
> >
> >
> >




From: michael mcneely <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: FW: This is great
To: The Unrepentant Patriot <>

He had me until the a capella…by the way when is the rummage sale?  There’s always a rummage sale after a funeral.  I figure he’ll be shot soon if not already. 













From: Tim Chambliss <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Subject: if they can’t handle this……

… will they handle heath care?









From: dcmowtf <>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Subject: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Obama’s Choice of Beer…
To: The Unrepentant Patriots <>

“The president will be sipping the calorie-counting cousin of the King of Beers, Bud Light, when he greets Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley at the White House to talk over Crowley’s recent arrest of the Harvard professor.”

Read more:


Personally, I think this idea is better:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “The Unrepentant Patriots” group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at




From: wayne shapiro
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Subject: FW: I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.
To: moose
From: yshapiro32
To: wshapiro; cls18
Subject: FW: I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:42:28 -0400


This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped  Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious? 

As some AT commentators point out, this picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowleys of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities.

One of the major subtexts of the health care debate involves the public’s fear of indifferent, powerful bureaucrats ruling their lives. It is one thing to wait in line at the DMV to find out which other line you should wait in, in order to begin the process of waiting for multiple bureaucrats to go through the motions of processing your request. I have spent entire afternoons going through this process.

But when we get to health care, waiting often means enduring pain and dysfunction longer than necessary, sometimes a worsening of the condition, and sometimes death.

That’s why I think this image will have genuine resonance. It captures something that older Americans in particular can relate to. The President presses ahead with a program that will tell them to take painkillers instead of getting that artificial hip.

At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The “acted stupidly” blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn’t trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say.

Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake.

Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn’t turn into a disaster.

But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and sends a body language message like this.

I think he is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer.

But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for.  Those doubts can only grow.

Andrew McCarthy has assembled an overwhelming case that Obama has lied about who he is. I predict that more and more Americans will become open to the argument that they have been had by a sophisticated and ruthless effort to foist a phony on America .







From: andrew <>
Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:02 AM



       By  Patrick J.  Buchanan

Barack says we need to have a  conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has  to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from,  not just lectured to.. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its  convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are  these: 

First, America has  been the best country on earth for blacks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and  reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. One of the other choices might be living in a hut in an African nation, starving.

Second, no  people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans,  legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs  designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.  Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and  quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches,  foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have  donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude???

Barack talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks. Let him go to Altoona? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids? Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America ‘s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax  dollars ago.
 We are a Christian Nation even if Mr. Obama says we are not.






From: Bob Reese <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Subject: Fw: Hands Off My Health: Daily Update on the Dangers of Government-Run Health Care
To: “Donald A. Liebner” <>


—– Original Message —–

From: CMPI Advance


Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:25 AM

Subject: Hands Off My Health: Daily Update on the Dangers of Government-Run Health Care


Daily Update on the Dangers of Government-Run Health Care
Wear Your Heart on Your Sleeve!
Hands Off My Health t-shirts are now available at Cafe Press!  Wear one to the gym, grocery store or even school.  Together, we can spread the word about government-run health care to our neighbors and community.
Are “Co-ops” Really a Better Answer than the “Public Option”?
“The details of the Senate Finance Committee’s hush-hush health talks aren’t fully known, but leaks suggest that one all-but-certain highlight will be new federally created health ‘cooperatives’ to compete against private insurers. The onus is on Republican negotiators Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi to explain why this isn’t merely the House ‘public option’ in a better suit…And in theory, health-care co-ops needn’t be destructive. Blue Cross and Blue Shield began as nonprofit health insurers, and some state Blues still are. Organizations like the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound are consumer-owned and compete with private plans. But the Senate is talking about government-sponsored co-ops, and that means multiple devils are in the details…All of which makes these co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors.” – Review & Outlook, Wall Street Journal
New Poll Makes it Clear Americans Are Not Happy with Current Reform Plans
“Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions…In the Journal poll, only two in 10 people said the quality of their own care would improve under the Obama plan; just 15% of those with private insurance thought it would. Twice as many overall, and three times as many with private coverage, predicted their own care would get worse.” – Wall Street Journal
CMPI Exposes Dangers of Current Reform Plans for Elderly
“The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a ‘medical home pilot program’ for elderly and disabled Americans…The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine. ‘”One size fits all” rarely does,’ the report said. ‘From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies — one of the most important assets we have — to a one-size-fits-all mentality?’…According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.” – 



Representative Tom Price Introduces New Health Care Plan to Put Patients First
“Having practiced medicine for more than two decades, I personally know that the status quo must not stand…Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare. Because of Washington’s one-size-fits-all approach, its flawed coverage rules and broken financing mechanisms, seniors are increasingly having care rationed while federal health spending spirals out of control.” – OpEd, Rep. Tom Price, Politico
Conservative Democrats Force Final Vote on House Bill Back to September
“Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said Wednesday night he has the votes to pass a compromise he forged with Blue Dog Democrats when his committee starts voting on amendments…The committee is expected to begin its long-delayed markup Thursday morning now that Waxman and four centrist Blue Dogs on his committee agreed on changes. The changes cut $100 billion out of the bill, and push floor action on the bill to after the five-week recess that begins Saturday. The agreement has sparked outrage among House liberals who say it damages their top priority, a government-run public healthcare plan.” – The Hill
Healthcare Leadership Council Urges Americans to Just Say No to the “Public Plan”
“A government-sponsored health-care plan would do more to harm than help. One major argument is that it will cost significantly less than private insurance plans. However, there is a significant difference between public programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid, and private coverage. A private plan negotiates with doctors and hospitals on a fair payment rate. The government simply tells health providers what they’re going to get.” – Letter to the Editor, Mary Grealy, Des Moines Register


Sign Up Here


Forward email

This email was sent to  by

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

CMPI Advance | 308 East 38th Street | Suite 201 | New York | NY | 10016










From: Maggie <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Subject: {The Unrepentant Patriots} O’ hail the Messiah Lord Obama – communist
To: The Unrepentant Patriots <>

O’ Hail the Messiah Lord Obama – Communist

Our new national anthem

Patriot, Liberty & Environment News & Alerts

Earthhope Forum

Earthhope Blog

I want to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth amen.








From: bill sheehy <>
Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Subject: FW: angry rich liberals

Bill Sheehy

Happily habitating in Henderson

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:28:11 -0400
From: cfdr1227
To: Billsheehy
Subject: Fwd: angry rich liberals

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Francis Byrne
To: cfdr1227
Sent: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: angry rich liberals

Sunday, August 2, 2009 

Angry rich liberals

Victor Davis Hanson

Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists.

Take well-meaning environmentalists who warn us that our plush lifestyles heat up and pollute the planet. To listen to former Vice President Al Gore or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, we must immediately curtail our carbon emissions — or face planetary destruction.

Yet these influential prophets of doom do not have lives remotely similar to the lesser folk they lecture. From time to time, Mr. Gore hops on a private jet – and purchases “carbon offsets” penances for the privilege. His mansion not long ago consumed more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year. Mr. Friedman lives on a sprawling estate reminiscent of those of the grandees of the 18th-century English countryside.

The rest of us would find these environmental scolds more convincing if they chose to live modestly in average tract homes. That way, they could limit their energy consumption and provide living proof to us of how smaller is better for an endangered planet Earth.

Critics in the business of racial grievance offer the same contradictions.

Recently, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. got into a spat with a white policeman who arrested him in his own home for disorderly conduct. Mr. Gates immediately cried racism. He argued that his plight was emblematic of the burdens the black underclass endures daily from a racist white America.

However, Mr. Gates is one of the highest-paid humanities professors in the United States. And Mr. Gates – not the middle-class Cambridge, Mass., white cop — engaged in shouting and brought up race. Within hours, the black mayor of Cambridge, the black governor of Massachusetts and the black president of the United States all rallied to their chum’s side.

Yet this well-connected, well-paid man apparently wants us to believe in melodramatic fashion that he is living in something like the United States of decades ago.

Indeed, citing racial grievance at times proves a valuable asset for wealthy celebrities. Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson posed as victims of various racial oppressions when they found themselves in their own self-created legal problems. Race-baiter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply retreats to his three-story mansion on a golf course after his day job of denouncing whites as exploiters.

We have more of the rich on the barricades railing about the economic inequality of America. Former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina preached about “two Americas,” one poor and abandoned, one wealthy and connected. Mr. Edwards should know because he built himself a gargantuan multimillion-dollar mansion in which he might better contemplate the underprivileged outside his compound.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, sermonizes about corporate greed and credit card companies’ near-extortion. Nonetheless, Mr. Dodd managed to squeeze out of the corporate world a low-interest loan, a sweetheart deal for a vacation home in Ireland, and thousands in campaign donations.

Former senator and Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle of South Dakota was a big proponent of raising taxes to nationalize our health care system. The problem was that the populist Mr. Daschle both hated paying taxes and loved limousines — and so avoided the former but welcomed the latter.

In the old days, critics of what we called the “system” were at least for the most part blue-collar workers, underpaid teachers or grass-roots politicians whose rather modest lives matched their angry populist rhetoric. Now the most vehement critics of America’s purported sins are among the upper classes. These critics’ parlor game has confused Americans about why they are being called polluters, racists and exploiters by those who have fared best in America.

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Mr. Gore, a millionaire, is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because its members lack their own taste, rare insight and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Mr. Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was “messing” with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Mr. Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Mr. Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less bad he feels about his own chauffeur and tax avoidance.

Here’s a little advice for all of America’s wealthy critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives — and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.








From: Bob Reese <>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Subject: Fw: Good read! (IRT Global Warming or Lack thereof)
To: Anthony Navarro <>

—– Original Message —– From: “Thomas Reilly” >
To: “Geepa Tom ” <>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:34 PM
Subject: FW: Good read! (IRT Global Warming or Lack thereof)

Thanks Bill,

Interesting response, especially considering that all nations need to
participate in the program if it is to be successful. Although I’m a skeptic
on the subject, I’m  still open to the possibility that some of climate
change might be due to humans–a big maybe! As for Ian Plimer, he’s quite
controversial figure, no lightweight and loves to tangle with the “global
warming” experts. Time will tell. Tom

—–Original Message—–
From: Stevens, Bill E

Sanity From the Indian Subcontinent
By R. Emmett Tyrrell
Thursday, 30 July 2009

WASHINGTON — Did you see the look on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
face when, during her visit to India, she visited with that country’s
environment minister, Jairam Ramesh? It was that frozen smile we have seen
from her before, when the smiling lady is, as a matter of fact, mad as hell.
You saw it during her husband’s impeachment. Bill has seen it practically
every day of their married life. Now we have seen it during her three-day
visit to India, where, among other things, she hoped to have India at least
show some respect for the Obama administration’s proposed carbon limits.

Instead of respect, she got rebuff. As Minister Ramesh asseverated, “There
is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest
emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.” The pressure he
alludes to has been coming from the United States to adopt some monstrous
emissions regulation like our cap-and-trade bill now blessedly being
euthanized in the Senate. “And as if this pressure was not enough,” he went
on, “we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries
such as yours.” So our cap-and-trade bill not only would impose economic
costs (for Americans, $7.4 trillion in taxes, our largest tax increase ever)
but also perhaps would start an international trade war by excluding
imported goods from countries, such as India, that reject our environmental
diktats. China and Brazil do, too.

Secretary Clinton ought not to be surprised by the Indians’ recalcitrance.
Ramesh has expressed doubt before that global warming is the grave problem
that trendy liberal Democrats insist it is. Late last week, he even
expressed doubt that Himalayan glaciers have been damaged by climate change,
despite environmentalists’ insistence that the glaciers are melting.
Frankly, Ramesh sounded very much like what Al Gore calls a global warming
denier. Yet the Indian is in good company. There are a growing number of
scientists and political leaders who doubt the significance of carbon in the
atmosphere. In fact, they doubt the existence of global warming, period —
and with good reason. Contrary to the environmentalists’ computer
projections, there has been no global warming since 1998. Instead, we now
have global cooling. Actually, the past two years’ worth of global cooling
has eliminated the past 30 years of global warming.

Possibly, Ramesh has read the latest scientific debunking of the global
warming position supplied by an important book, “Heaven and Earth,” by Ian
Plimer, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. In an
interview with London’s Spectator, the professor summed the book’s findings
thus: “The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is
extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar
physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology.” Being a geologist,
professor Plimer has had to study climate conditions going back to the
origins of the planet, more than 4 billion years ago. He chides the global
warming hysterics for only studying the past 150 years. Other skeptics whom
I have noted in this column are the scientist Bjorn Lomborg and former
British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Energy Nigel

Nonetheless, hysterics rattle on, locked into the view established by their
guru, Secretary Clinton’s friend Gore. “Global warming is real,” he said in
2006. “We human beings are responsible for the vast majority of it. The
results are bad, headed toward catastrophic.” A few weeks ago, he attributed
brush fires in Australia to global warming. “Cyclones are getting stronger,”
he added. “The fires are getting bigger. … The sea level is rising.” Then
he warned that “refugees are beginning to move from places they have long
called home.”

Well, the Indians are not alarmed, nor are the Chinese and the Brazilians.
Professor Plimer explains: “When I try explaining ‘global warming’ to people
in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about.” The prof claims
that alarmists — such as Gore and Clinton and, for that matter, President
Barack Obama — are a self-centered minority out of touch with human needs
and with atmospheric conditions. “Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury,” he
told The Spectator. “It’s the new religion for urban populations which have
lost their faith in Christianity.”

A timely explanation for their self-centered hysteria now comes from an
unlikely source, Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and
recently appointed to be administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget by President
Obama. In “Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide,” he deposits
his finding that “like-minded people tend to move to a more extreme version
of what they thought” the more they talk with one another. The liberal
Democrats who now dominate the Obama administration have pretty much sealed
themselves off from criticism. They have been talking with one another for
years, reaffirming their prejudices and getting ever-more extreme. Now, on
the environment, they would impose on the whole world taxes and regulations
that would suppress economic growth and conduce to trade wars. Fortunately,
they are running up against the enlightened Indians and Chinese,
ex-socialists who have learned the bene  fits of growth. The surprise is on






From: Bill Balsamico <>
Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Subject: Moose, here’s my latest blog post
To: “Moose (The Unrepentant Patriot)” <>


If this email was forwarded by a friend, why not join the Casa D’ Ice sign/blog list yourself so you can find out immediately when a new sign or blog is posted?

Click here to join the update list



My latest blog post at


Well here it is July 31,2009 and CASH FOR CLUNKERS is out of money. The DUMBOCRATS are all patting each other on the back and on TV boasting how GREAT a stimulus program this is. The money they set aside for the program was supposed to last for months, but was gone in 4 (four) days. This only shows how STUPID they are (they can’t even GIVE money away without screwing up). Maybe one of the MORONS will propose doubling the money from $4,500.00 to $9,000.00 just to see if it can be spent twice as fast. Remember a lot of these (your) tax dollars are going to General Motors and Chrysler who already received BILLIONS and BILLIONS of your tax dollars already in a bailout. Not only do they get a BAILOUT but also are the recipients of a DIRECTED STIMULUS. So remember they couldn’t figure out  how to GIVE money away and these same idiots are going to put together a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BILL worth over a TRILLION DOLLARS —– God help us. Everyone should either attend town hall meetings in August or at least call your reps and let them know your feelings.  They should clean up the fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare before they enlarge the system.

Please Visit my Blog where you can comment and discuss
issues with other people who love this country like I do.

Don’t forget, almost all of our Signs are Available on T-Shirts,
Bumper Stickers, Calendars, Coffee Mugs, etc.

Click Here to Visit the Store

Thanks for visiting,

Bill Balsamico
Owner, Casa D’ Ice
North Versailles, PA










From: Maggie <>
Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Subject: {The Unrepentant Patriots} National Guard is Looking for Internment Camp Specialist East Texas
To: The Unrepentant Patriots <>

The National Guard is Looking for an Internment Camp Specialist
by Margie Laupheimer Earthhope Action Network August 1, 2009

Does anyone still doubt the existence of FEMA internment camps? Well here we go, folks. The National Guard is Looking for an Internment Camp Specialist to run an East Texas detention/internment facility Camp. This help wanted ad is running on

Job-Specific Career Training

Corrections Officer

Corrections Officer – Internment/Resettlement Specialist

Job Description
As an Internment/Resettlement Specialist for the Army National Guard, you will ensure the smooth running of military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility, similar to those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers. This will require you to know proper procedures and military law; and have the ability to think quickly in high-stress situations. Specific duties may include assisting with supervision and management operations; providing facility security; providing custody, control, supervision, and escort; and counseling individual prisoners in rehabilitative programs.

By joining this specialty, you will develop the skills that will prepare you for a rewarding career with law enforcement agencies or in the private security field.

Earn while you learn
Get paid to learn! In the Army National Guard, you will learn valuable job skills while earning a regular paycheck and qualifying for tuition assistance.

Job training for an Internment/Resettlement Specialist requires approximately 19 weeks of One Station Unit Training, which includes Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training. Part of the training is spent in the classroom and part in the field. Some of the skills you’ll learn include military laws and jurisdictions; level of force procedures; unarmed self-defense techniques; police ethics procedures; interpersonal communications skills; close confinement operations; search and restraint procedures; use of firearms; custody and control procedures.

• Paid training
• A monthly paycheck
• Montgomery G.I. Bill
• Up to 100 percent Tuition Assistance for college or vocational training (up to $4,500 per fiscal year, 1 October – 30 September)
• Retirement benefits for part-time service
• Low-cost life insurance (up to $400,000 in coverage)
• 401(k)-type savings plan
• Student Loan Repayment Program (up to $50,000, for existing loans)

• High School Diploma or GED (If you do not have a diploma or GED, you may still apply – ask a recruiter about how the Army National Guard can help you earn your GED.)
• Must be between the ages of 17 and 35
• Must be able to pass a physical exam and meet legal and moral standards
• Must meet citizenship requirements (see for details)

With more than 370 years of service, the Army National Guard is the largest reserve component, as well as the oldest branch of the U.S. military. In the Guard, you get the training from us, serve in your own community, and enhance your marketability for the higher paying jobs you are now seeking. We provide our members with college tuition assistance and offer attractive benefits on top of paid training in all of our career fields. The Army National Guard has career opportunities in every State and U.S. Territory, more than 3,600 training locations, and more than 350,000 members. Visit the Army National Guard Web site at

Company Name: Army National Guard
Apply Online: Employer’s Website
Location: Opportunities throughout the state.
Available: Immediately.
Posted: 7/18/09

Source: Earthhope Action Network





From: <Danr59>
Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Rep Rom Price (Marietta) on Govt Takeover of Healthcare


From: carkhuff
To: carkhuff
Sent: 8/1/2009 2:22:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Rep Rom Price (Marietta) on Govt Takeover of Healthcare


Some of what goes on in Congress

“This is a YouTube video that was made of US Rep. Tom Price-6th Dist. on Wednesday, 22 July.  Tom is a member of the House Healthcare Committee, and the video was shot in the Wednesday Committee meeting.  Please share this with everyone you know….this is scary.  


Tom has said that our Constitution is being burned right before our very eyes.  We must, Democrats and Republicans alike, let our “leaders” know that this plan is unacceptable.

There has to be a better way than a government takeover!   Click below:”












From: <PLElpe>
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Who’s In Your Wallet











From: steve bradley <>
Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Subject: Judge Rules Against Fox On Fed Records
To: <>

And they keep trying to tell us how the Fed really is a governmental agency, then they really must explain this exemption 4 as I just don’t get it.  I personally put more credence in the book Jyckell Island concerning the Fed and it’s powers.

Judge Rules Against Fox On Fed Records

Friday, July 31, 2009 10:28 AM  
A U.S. judge on Thursday denied a bid by Fox News Network LLC seeking details from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve about the central bank’s loans to companies affected by the financial crisis.

The owner of the Fox Business cable network made an initial request for documents in November last year under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) about the companies and funds they received between August 2007 and November 2008.

Both parties had filed motions with U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan federal court to rule in their favor after Fox filed its request to the court in January.

“I rule that one document, which the Board determined is not a record, is indeed, a record. The Board shall identify this document and either produce it or claim an exemption,” Hellerstein said in a written order.

“In all other respects, I grant the Board’s motion and deny Fox’s motion, finding that the Board performed an adequate search and that Exemption 4 permits the Board not to disclose the documents that Fox seeks.”

Under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, an agency must demonstrate that the information sought is a “trade secret” or “commercial or financial” in character and “obtained from a person” and “privileged and confidential.”

The Fed has been a critical player in financial rescue packages for companies. It also opened up its discount window to a wider range of entities in an attempt to provide more liquidity to the financial sector.

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp

The case is Fox News Network LLC v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 09-272 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)








From: steve bradley <>
Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Subject: FW: housekeepers and janitors…
To: <>

This is a good one

From: michael donovan
Subject: housekeepers and janitors…
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:16:40 -0700

Politicians have been promising change to the American people for decades. We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the change.
We used to have a strong dollar… Politicians changed that.

We used to have a strong manufacturing economy… Politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures…. politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms… Politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American-made goods… Politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools… Politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools… Politicians changed that.

We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship… Politicians changed that.

America’s youthful voters today don’t know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago.  They see the world as if it has always existed as it is now.

Politicians are what is wrong with America.  Republicans and Democrats, there is no difference anymore… they all do only what they can to be re-elected, not what is best for the citizens!

What CHANGE is needed is for the Constitution to be amended to limit all Senators and Representatives to TWO terms in office like the President.  No big pensions either- social security just like the rest of us. How do they rate bigger and better entitlements than the people THEY WORK FOR, WHICH ARE US?  Being a politician shouldn’t be a person’s life work but rather a call to public service then back to being an honest hard-working citizen. 

Politicians are no more than housekeepers and janitors… unfortunately they act like they own the building.








———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Phillips, Timothy <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:46 AM
To: “Phillips, Timothy” <>

And the liberal middle class thought they were off the hook for these ‘benefits”…


Obama officials: Taxes may rise to pay health care

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 37 mins ago



WASHINGTON – Two of President Barack Obama’s economic heavyweights said middle-class taxes might have to go up to pare budget deficits or to pay for the proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

The tough talk from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday capped a week that brought rare good news for the economy: The worst recession in the United States since World War II could be on the verge of ending. Even so, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits.







From: Glen
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: NOAA Fudging the Temperature Numbers

Thanks Moose. Check out the following that is hot off the presses:


I can’t believe that the New York Times today had an article on how cold New York has been. New York has not hit 90 F yet in June and July and are closing in on the all-time recorded cold summer record. I know that the NYT would never want to say anything to harm the global warming crap. The first part of the article follows:



So Far, It’s the Summer That Isn’t


Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times

Another rainy day at Orchard Beach in the Bronx. Attendance at city beaches through July 28 was down 30 percent, from 7.3 million to 5.1 million.


Published: July 31, 2009

It’s a gross, grungy, disgusting summer-in-the-city tradition: the muggy 90-degree day or, worse still, the 99-degree day.

No Sweat  

Usually resilient New Yorkers are left sleep deprived, electrically overloaded, sweat soaked and short-tempered. The high temperatures and even higher humidity typically contribute to blackouts, deaths from heat exhaustion, and dangerously low water pressure from open fire hydrants.

But this summer has been conspicuously different. Not one 99-degree day in Central Park. Not a single day that the temperature even approached 90. For just the second time in 140 years of record keeping, the temperature will have failed to reach 90 in either June or July.



Climate Change This Week: Perception vs. Reality
“This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time.” This brilliant example of the scientific method was uttered by none other than Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, a supposed man of science, from his vantage point at the International Space Station. Well, perhaps Thirsk’s oxygen supply is running low, but his statement should not be ignored. For all its ridiculousness, it is highly indicative of those flying in the face of science to perpetuate the myth of global warming.

A study recently published by a group of scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research has documented that any climate change that has occurred in the past several decades is a result of Mother Nature, not your neighbor’s carbon footprint. “The surge in global temperatures since 1977,” says the study’s co-author Chris de Freitas, “can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely.”

Yet Al Gore and his cronies continue to vilify all of us “deniers” as they try to push their cap-and-trade programs and the rest of their socialist agenda. It brings to mind another quote, one from the late writer H.L. Mencken: “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”  Whether it applies to global warming, health care or a host of other issues on today’s political table, it appears Mencken is right on the money.





From: Tim Chambliss <>
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Subject: oh wait
To: The Unrepentant Patriot <>

We didn’t approve the kidney transplant at first, but no that we’ve talked to yo mama, it’s okay…we’ll do it.  Sorry about your soiled trousers….


House adds cash to ‘clunkers’ program; Senate vote needed

By James R. Healey and Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY

The Obama administration promised Friday that the financially strapped “cash for clunkers” program would be alive at least through the weekend, and the House of Representatives approved additional money for the program later in the day.

Senate action is expected next week.

“If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend, using this program, this program continues to run,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.






From: steve bradley <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Subject: Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate
To: <>

The more I read, the more I am inclined to agree that Obama was born in Hawaii.  With that said, I just can’t figure out why Democrats and most Republicans allow this president to be the least transparent of any recent president.  Maybe all of America (except we few) have imbibed the magical Kool-Aid? 

Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate

Monday, August 3, 2009 9:48 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

Article Font Size  


The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right.

This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled “CNN’s Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting ‘Birthers'”.

The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: “He’s become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network’s ‘no bias’ brand.”

And what is Dobbs’ “crime?” He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.

Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a “long version of his birth certificate.” But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate.

Instead, Obama’s campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.

This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:

• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.

Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history,” and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.



From: Maggie <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Subject: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Re: Fwd: Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate
To:, The Unrepentant Patriots <>

In the end it’s not even that important whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya because of this fact. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. In order for a person to be eligible for the office of presidency of the United States two separate requirements must be met.

1. They have to have been born on U.S. soil


2. Both their parents had to have been U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.

Here’s an excellent video that explains it very well.

Please watch the video.





From: Glen
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Alan Caruba’s Warning Signs: The Perfect Storm

I don’t mean to burden you guys with stuff, but I think this is an exceptionally well written article that summarized the whole U.S. economic situation. I have enjoyed Alan Caruba’s great global warming articles. The article link below is long, but then, there are so many dark clouds that have come together for the perfect storm.



Saturday, August 1, 2009

The Perfect Storm

By Alan Caruba

The term, ‘”the perfect storm”, has come to mean how circumstances and bad judgments come together to create havoc and death.

I have begun to conclude that America is caught in a perfect storm. It didn’t occur overnight, but it has rapidly reached a point wherein the very life of the nation is at stake.

The tipping point, if I may be permitted another cliché, was the election of Barack Hussein Obama as President. Though efforts, including several books, attempted to flesh out what little was actually known about Obama, it was the skillful packaging that turned him into a rock star whose theme “hope and change” could and did mean anything the voter imagined.




Warning Signs: The Perfect Storm




From: wayne shapiro
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:37 AM
To: moose

As if WE, the United States,  don’t have enough on our plate; this Muslim EXTREMIST (Madras schooled) RACIST Chicago backroom Community organizer(code word for RADICAL RACE BAITER) husband of nothing more than a ghetto whore BOTH who benifitted from A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E ACTION sits down to have a beer to bring both sides together, IN rolled up shirt sleeves, We’ve reached a new low around the world.

As a world traveller for the past 30 odd years, I clearly remember the days in the 80’s when I was PROUD to show my Blue Passport abroad to the awe that most countries would afford me at customs. We were #1, King of the Hill FOR A REASON. You shoot down our jet (Pan AM at Lockerbee) and we put a fucking smart bomb in your tent! We had tactical capabilities long ago and could read the date on a penny from the satelites we have in the sky still today (God help us if he finds a way to take THAT capability away from us). Why don’t we just give the stategic coordinates to that Towel headed sand monkey in Iran over tea and get it over with. Let’s not forget that he denied giving Poland the necessary defense shield to protect itself from PUTIN. #43 may have certainly missed the mark when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul, but come on now…… least he didn’t sell us completely down the river! This guy is single- handedly (with his minions behind the scenes) dismantling what the founders and predecessors have worked real hard to maintain for 200 odd years.
When I was listening to 40 Frenchmen in the countryside one afternoon with my then Parisian girlfriend in 1991 (after General Schwartkopf and once respected Colin Powell (who easliy would have become President had it not been for his wife telling him the obvious — Honey, Can you say the word SNIPER and a real possibility of MLK redux?))  Just take a look at the video replay of Andrew Young, former mayor of Atlanta and the Rev. Jesse Jackson just a split BEFORE he gets shot, they BOTH turn their heads. You mean to tell me they DIDN”T KNOW it was coming? That’s the SAME as saying that “I attended THAT church for 20 years but NEVER heard his sermons” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? All John McCain had to do was keep harping on Rev.Wright and the election was HIS. But NOOOOOOO, he wanted to play by the Marquis de Queensbury rules and play FAIR. My father was right, John Mccain had no belly for a fight. He left it back in the Hanoi Hilton. He’s led a charmed life and only wanted to be applauded walking in the Senate by his “colleagues from both sides” John, its time to take your 7 houses and watch sunsets in Sedona. I’m willing to bet you dollars to donuts that Cindy McCain’s distributorship provided the Budweiser for him last evening. But I digress, when I was being besieged by these French arrogant peasant farmers about how we are the ugly-Amer-i-CANS……when I coudldn’t take it anymore(not speaking French) I just had my girlfriend tell them, Listen, up. The reason YOU don’t speak GERMAN is because of those”Ugly Americans” The fact of the matter is, when it comes to the real SCORE when it counts, The French are 0-2! that’s right, the Nazi’s took Paris in 15 fucking minutes! without firing a single shot. Boy, let me tell you how the room got awfully quiet………..
The next time some bleeding heart, left wing Kool aid drinking LIBERAL tells you that Universal-single pay health system is GOOD for us, remind him that Canadians who have $ and of need of real care, do you know where they go? That’s right folks, the good ole USofA. And I know, I had a Canadian girlfriend in the capital city of Ottawa!  And let’s not forget, most of you are aware I lived 8 years in CUBA from 93-01. But will save that discussion for a latter rant.
Have a GREAT F N day!
An embarrased American.




From: Danr59
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Subject: A article from: Danr59

 Obamacare: The Coming Retreat

 By Charles Krauthammer

 Forget health-care reform. He’ll get health-insurance reform and declare victory.


Yesterday, Barack Obama was God. Today, he’s fallen from grace, the magic gone, his health-care reform dead. If you believed the first idiocy — and half the mainstream media did — you’ll believe the second. Don’t believe either.

Conventional wisdom always makes straight-line projections. They are always wrong. Yes, Obama’s aura has diminished, in part because of overweening overexposure. But by year’s end he will emerge with something he can call health-care reform. The Democrats in Congress will pass it because they must. Otherwise, they’ll have slain their own savior in his first year in office.







“Barack Obama was a rock star on the campaign trail, and his aura went undimmed in his first few months of office. But then he began taking too many curtain calls. The applause subsided, but he kept coming back to center stage to try harder to wow us. He forgot what every star must learn, that you’ve got to know when to get off that center stage. If you don’t have anything new to say, shut up. This applies even to presidents. He’s reaching for applause lines with the same ol’ same ol’. So his poll numbers begin to shrink. He pushes, and pushes, a flawed health care scheme without having anything new to add. … The president likes golf because the greens provide refuge from the public. Just as he wants to get away from us, more of us feel the urge to get away from him. Too many press conferences and speeches without anything new to say bore us, too. While he works on his backswing and short putts, he might think about the tough questions that so far he can’t answer. He can take his  time getting back to us.”

— Suzanne Fields








On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Marc Gamble <> wrote:

It is sad to see that so much of the Billion Dollar [sic] insurance industry propoganda [sic] has infected what seemed ot [sic] be an otherwise reasonable soul. DO [sic] I wnat [sic] government bureacrats [sic] dictating my healthcare? Damn-site better than corporate bottonline [sic] insurance executives. With over FIFTY MILLION good, hardworking American [sic] with no health care and insurance company profits soaring your [sic] damn right we need a public health coverage option in this country.  Bet you won’t publish this on your website!

From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform
To: The Unrepentant Patriots

I will most definitely publish your comments (verbatim, including your traducements of the King’s English) in my next newsletter, right along with the following facts, which lovers of fascism such as you conveniently ignore:

It’s actually “47 million uninsured Americans” (supposedly), and nowhere near all of them are “good and hard-working”, so first off, get your incorrect facts straight.

To the statistic of 47 million supposedly “uninsured Americans”, the following facts pertain:

1)  11.5 million are eligible for the existing government-run insurance program known as Medicaid, but they have refused to join this program;

2)  16 million are members of households earning over $50,000 per year and can therefore afford to purchase health insurance, but choose not to;

3)  8.4 million are between the ages of 18 and 25, and because they feel confident in being able to maintain good health, they choose not to purchase health insurance, because they would rather spend their money on beer and their 401(k) accounts;

4)  9.4 million are between jobs and only temporarily uninsured;

5)  12.6 million are illegal aliens, and if you think we should provide health insurance for them, I think you should move to friggin’ Mexico.

This adds up to a total of more than 47 million only because there is overlap and double-reporting among the various descriptions and groups.

So, if you’re truly in favor of creating a behemoth and moribund government-run health care system, a model which has been proven repeatedly in countries around the world to not work and to inevitably lead to rationing and de facto euthanasia, then you are either uninformed, stupid, or an avowed fascist……..or a combination of the three.

So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.  And look for these comments, as you challenged me to publish, in my next newsletter (fear not, I’ll keep your identity anonymous — I don’t want my several hundred thousand readers to be able to identify your particular brand of imbecility by name…….).

May God save our Republic (from base idiocy),


The Unrepentant Patriot

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “The Unrepentant Patriots” group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at





On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Marc Gamble <> wrote:


Thanks for the print.  And regardless of our differing opinions on the issues I join you in celebrating the fact that we freely disagree.  Too bad you see a degree of anonymity as some sort of scape goat. Oh, and please don’t confuse sloppy typing for a lack of consideration for the King’s English… I went to some of the best public schools!


Thanks and God Bless The World. As I learned in Sunday School “He’s got the whole world in his hands.”




From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform
To: The Unrepentant Patriots



Hmmm….well, I’m sure that the fact that you “went to some of the best public schools” at least partly explains why you have problems.


So, let me make sure I understand this correctly: Rather than acknowledging and responding to the facts that I laid out about your spurious “50 million” asseveration, you’re just going to fall back on the old “We are the world, let’s just agree to disagree” mantra?


You have now proven beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that it isn’t merely that you’re uninformed… really are just an idiot.


Congratulations.  I suggest you stay that way, and revel in the warm glow of government husbandry as you rot away from the wasting effects of having no spine whatsoever.


As soon as you decide to “grow one”, let me know.  Until then, you aren’t qualified to engage me in debate.


Oh, and incidentally, He may well have “the whole world in His hands” for now, but He won’t once Obama and company have your balls in their hands……..


So get excited.




May God save our Republic (from myrmidons like you),




The Unrepentant Patriot



P.S.:  I know you aren’t man enough to deal with having your ass handed to you, so do yourself a favor: Just reply with the word REMOVE and you’ll hear from me no more.



From: Trey Tasker <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:13 AM
Subject: RE: {The Unrepentant Patriots} Re: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform

Insurance profits soaring?  What planet is he living on?

Now: <>

2007: <>

2005: <>

While long-term averages of return on sales may show that the financial sector (banks and insurance companies) has achieved good percentages, these returns were earned as a reward for taking risk and were paid to their shareholders (often including pension plans and 401-K plans).  Without banks and insurance companies, very few individuals would have the means to fund projects and to accept the risk of projects that help our economy grow.  In my opinion, our current unemployment is largely caused by a poorly-informed class of people, which likely includes Marc Gamble, who think profits are always “undeserved” and always go to “somebody else”.  It is much easier to blame the nebulous “rich people” than to admit one’s own failures in life and accept responsibility.  The irony is that these “rich people” (who are not really that rich) are the ones that invest in our economy and create jobs.  As long as the ignorant class in DC and elsewhere continues to demonize their potential employers, there will be very few new jobs.  Why hire people who hate you when you can get cheaper, more willing employees elsewhere in the world?





From: Jim Higginbotham <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Subject: RE: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform

Howdy Moose.
This person just don’t seem to UNDERSTAND they’re UNARMED in WORD SMITHING with you.
WHY do you even bother to answer?
Semper Fi.






From: The Unrepentant Patriot <>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform
To: Jim Higginbotham <>

As the Marines undoubtedly taught you (and as this buffoon was obviously never instructed):




    (And never show your Johnson to a dude nicknamed “Moose”).






“Is health care a right?  I propose that one person’s rights may not create a burden for another person.  We have the right to free speech, but we may not force someone else to listen.  We have the right to worship as we choose, but we may not compel another person to attend church with us.  We have the right to keep and bear arms, but if our neighbor chooses not to, we may not require that he carry a firearm.  A right to health care cannot exist because it requires that someone else provide it.  Another person may not infringe on my Liberty by requiring that I provide for his needs.  That was called Slavery, and has long been abolished in America.”


— Framingham, Massachusetts letter to the Editor,










Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.

Questions to ask your Senators and Representative about ObamaCare

August 3, 2009

Dear Roy,

My friend Gary Bauer has proposed some questions for you to ask your Senators and Representative about ObamaCare. I’m asking all AFA supporters to get a group together and go to your Senators and Representative offices and ask these questions. Most Senators and Representatives have Townhall meetings in their district during their August break. Get the schedule and attend the meetings. Urge others to do the same. Have different groups at different locations to ask these questions to make sure the Congressman is consistent.

Here are Gary’s recommendations. Yesterday, President Obama conceded that there probably won’t be a vote on healthcare reform until “the end of September or the middle of October.” That means you have August to attend town hall meetings with your representative and senators, stop by their congressional offices, write letters to the editor and educate your friends and family members about the dangers of socialized medicine. To help you in that effort, we’ve produced a short list of key concerns and questions, which are copied below. Please share this report with like-minded folks and those who may be undecided and willing to listen. Thank you for everything you do to defend our shared values in your community!
Pro-choice groups, like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, are demanding that abortion be covered in any healthcare reform bill. In a recent interview with Politico, Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, defends this demand by saying, “the alternative would be slashing benefits for millions of women who currently have [private] coverage for abortions…” In addition, key administration officials refuse to rule out abortion coverage. When asked on Fox News Sunday whether taxpayer money would go to pay for abortions, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag replied, “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”

Pro-life senators on the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee forced a roll call vote on the issue when Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) attempted to add an amendment to the healthcare bill that would, in her words, “include women’s health clinics that provide comprehensive services…deemed medically necessary or appropriate.” She admitted that such “health clinics” would include Planned Parenthood. The pro-life amendment to prohibit funding of abortion lost 11-to-12.

Question for your Congressmen: Will you oppose any healthcare reform bill that uses my tax dollars to pay for abortions?

In a recent New York Post column, Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert, wrote:

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

Question for your Congressmen: Will you oppose any healthcare reform bill that in any way promotes euthanasia?

The United States faces a debt crisis. According to many analysts, including Senator Judd Gregg (who is so respected by President Obama that he offered Gregg the post of Secretary of Commerce), the Obama budget will give us $11 trillion of debt at the end of five years and $17 trillion of debt at the end of ten years. (Source:

Question for your Congressmen: Why is Congress and the president pushing through a healthcare bill that would cost another trillion dollars over the next ten years? Shouldn’t we concentrate on getting the debt under control first?

According to a July 15th report by The Hill, “The House bill would be paid for by roughly $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts…” These “cuts” would come as millions of Americans are retiring. Logic suggests that if we are “cutting” hundreds of billions of dollars healthcare would have to be limited or rationed in someway to accommodate more people. And seniors would be most affected by Medicare cuts.

In addition, advisors to President Obama, such as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have suggested that healthcare should be rationed to certain individuals. Dr. Emanuel once wrote that “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Question for your Congressmen: How can government promise to do more with less? Will you oppose any healthcare reform bill that in any way limits my access to healthcare or medicines recommended by my doctor?

Despite a 9.5% (and rising) unemployment rate, the healthcare bill in the House imposes a new 8% payroll tax on small businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more that don’t provide health insurance for their employees. This is in addition to the current 15% payroll tax. What this means is that any employer with a payroll of $400,000 dollars or higher will have to pay at least 25% above the salary just to hire someone. Common sense tells you that any struggling small business will likely lay off workers to avoid this additional tax. On the other hand, if the tax is cheaper than the cost of health insurance, larger businesses may opt to cancel their health insurance, forcing employees into the government’s “public option,” and simply pay the 8% fine. (Source: Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2009)

Question for your Congressmen: Why are you imposing additional mandates and taxes on small businesses, which create the overwhelming majority of new jobs, in the middle of a severe recession?

American healthcare is better than that in European countries with socialized medicine. The German breast cancer mortality rate is 52% higher than in the United States. Prostate cancer mortality is 604% higher in the United Kingdom and 457% higher in Norway than in the United States. Canadian healthcare lags behind the United States too. Canadian patients wait twice as long to see a specialist for hip surgery or cancer than we do in the United States. Most Americans say they are satisfied with the U.S. health care system, but more than 70% of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Britons say that their systems need “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.” (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis.)

In an editorial on July 26th, the Washington Post criticized President Obama for not “leveling about the consequences of change” when it comes to healthcare costs versus quality. Here’s what the Post wrote: “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that new technology accounts for about half the increase in health-care costs over the past several decades. This, for the most part, is a good thing. Adjusted for inflation, health-care spending per person is six times what it was 40 years ago. But no one today would settle for 1960s-style medicine.”

Question for your Congressmen: Why are you trying to force us in the direction of more government involvement in healthcare when everywhere government-run healthcare has been tried, quality declines and care is rationed?

According to a recent poll, just 23% of voters believe healthcare reform legislation will lower costs, while 53% believe it will lead to more expensive care. By a margin of 50% to 23%, voters believe that “reform” legislation will make the quality of care decline. And while voters believe they will get worse care at higher costs, 78% also believe that healthcare reform will result in middle class tax hikes. In addition, a recent Fox News poll found that 91% of those surveyed have health insurance, 84% said that the quality of their health insurance was either excellent or good and 83% said the quality of health care they receive from their private insurance is either good or excellent. And only 12% of those surveyed said reforming health care was the most important issue Congress should be working on right now. (Source: Rasmussen Reports, July 28, 2009 and Fox News poll July 23, 2009.)

Question for your Congressmen: Why are you and the White House rushing this bill through Congress and ignoring the concerns of the American people?

The healthcare reform legislation under consideration in the House will eventually force all Americans into a government-approved plan. After a five-year grace period, every new insurance policy will have to comply with government mandates, and any policy changes – “altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug” – invalidates your previous coverage and forces you to choose a government “qualified” plan. In addition, the House plan mandates coverage for every individual. If you are self-employed or choose not buy insurance for whatever reason, the bill imposes a “healthcare tax” of 2.5% of your income. (Source:, July 24, 2009 and, July 15, 2009)

Question for your Congressmen: Why do you believe bureaucrats can make better decisions than me about what kind of health insurance I should have? And will you guarantee that any healthcare reform bill passed by Congress will always allow me to choose my own doctor?

Do you care about the race of a doctor who is getting ready to operate on you? Of course not. Most Americans want their doctor to be the best professional available regardless of race or ethnic background. But congressional liberals have a different idea. On page 909 of the House bill, grants to medical schools will be awarded “to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following…training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.” (Source: Investors Business Daily, July 27, 2009)

Question for your Congressmen: Why are you throwing affirmative action/racial set asides into a healthcare reform bill?

President Obama has repeatedly said that “no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.” That sounds wonderful until you apply common sense, which is in short supply in Washington. What if we made a law that allowed you to buy car insurance after you got into an accident and that required the insurance company to pay for the damage? Wouldn’t many people just wait for an accident before buying insurance? Why wouldn’t many Americans wait until they were sick to buy health insurance?

Question for your Congressmen: Isn’t it clear that this provision would drive up the cost of health insurance for everyone? 




Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association







Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”






“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

–James Madison







‘Stimulus’ grants going to porn producers?


Charlie Butts and Jody Brown – OneNewsNow – 7/30/2009 1:40:00 PM

Editor’s note: This story contains descriptions that some may find offensive.


“Stimulus” funds awarded to the National Endowment for the Arts may be being used to produce pornographic material.

The NEA was allotted $80 million out of the $787-trillion stimulus bill approved earlier this year by Congress and President Obama. Alliance Defense Fund special counsel Pat Trueman shares what he found upon close examination of the NEA’s expenditures.
“The National Endowment for the Arts is using money from the stimulus bill, which was supposed to create economic activity, for the production of pornography,” he states. “They’ve specifically given grants to companies that they know produce pornography — primarily homosexual pornography.”
Among the recipients of federal stimulus money, according to a Fox News report:

• Frameline, a “gay and lesbian” film house which recently screened Thundercrack, which is described as “the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women, and a gorilla.” ($50,000 grant)
• San Francisco-based CounterPULSE, a group that produces the weekly “Perverts Put Out” — a performance that invites guests to “join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun.” ($25,000 grant)
• “The Symmetry Project” — a dance piece that Fox News says “amounts to two people writhing naked on the floor, a government-funded tango in the altogether.” ($25,000 grant)

Trueman says it is an “outrage” that federal monies are being given to porn-producing organizations. “The National Endowment for the Arts has long been fought by American Family Association and other pro-family groups because year in and year out, they fund pornography and blasphemy,” he tells OneNewsNow.
And of the allegedly misspent stimulus funds? “This is an outrage,” he exclaims. “People are hurting financially, and our federal government is funding pornography?”
Trueman believes the public ought to call on members of Congress to take a closer look at the National Endowment for the Arts and pull its federal funding.





Chinese Warn U.S. About Debt
In a revealing discourse between the Chinese and U.S. governments, one government was urging the other to adopt sound monetary policies coupled with fiscal restraint to protect investments in treasury debt of the other. Unfortunately, the government rolling the dice and living without regard to paying its future bills is the U.S. government, while the Chinese government counsels restraint and sanity.

The Chinese have good reason to be concerned about the integrity of the U.S. treasury debt they hold. As long as the U.S. keeps printing “cheap” money and flooding the markets with it, inflationary pressure continues to build. Inflation reduces the actual value of treasury debt held by investors and also brings a host of other problems, such as inverse salary values and high interest rates on loans. With $801 billion in U.S. treasury debt owned by the Chinese, 3 percent inflation could reduce the debt’s value by $24 billion per year.

The Obama administration tried to save face by suggesting there are questions Obama wants answered regarding China’s long reliance on massive trade surpluses with the United States to bolster its domestic economy. Ultimately, however, this posturing by the administration is meaningless and merely resembles the local alcoholic questioning the bartender’s reliance upon liquor sales to bolster his income. Until the U.S. decides to balance its own budgets and live within its means, all we and other investors have as assurances regarding sound monetary policy are statements by the Obama administration that it has some sort of vague, secret plan to deal with it. And if the Chinese aren’t worth listening to, it wasn’t long ago that “Saturday Night Live” had some good advice for big spenders: “Don’t buy stuff you cannot afford.”






Newsweek: ‘Traditionalists better get used to’ polyamory


Colleen Raezler – Guest Columnist – 7/31/2009 8:55:00 AM

Editor’s Note: This commentary contains descriptions that some readers may find offensive.


According to Newsweek, polyamory is here to stay and “the traditionalists had better get used to it.”
Polyamory, reporter Jessica Bennett explained in her July 29 article, is the act of “engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person – based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”

While Bennett acknowledged that keeping track of multiple partners’ (and their partners’) needs and wants isn’t for everybody, she concluded, “perhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings – in a culture where divorce has become a commonplace – are clear.” 
Bennett offered Terisa Greenan’s arrangement as an example of a successful polyamory situation. Terisa, who is married to Larry, is also the girlfriend of Matt and Scott. Matt is married to Vera, who is dating Larry, Terisa’s husband. Matt and Vera have a child together. Terisa, Larry and Scott live together in a house in Seattle, which Matt, Vera and their child visit during weekends.
Sound creepy? Not to Bennett. And she reassured critics in both the conservative and gay movements who expressed fear of polyamorists seeking government benefits and harming their respective causes. “The majority of them don’t seem particularly interested in pressing a political agenda; the joke in the community is that the complexities of their relationships leave little time for activism.”
Bennett briefly touched on emotional ramifications of polyamorous lifestyles, such as bruised feelings when Larry called Terisa “sweetie” and how Scott sometimes “has had to put up with hearing his girlfriend have sex with someone else,” but those too were dispelled. Larry told Bennett that because everything was in the open, “it’s not as if anybody is betraying anybody else’s trust.” Terisa piped in, “We really don’t let anything go unsaid.”
Ken Haslam, a curator at the polyamory library at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction and a polyamorist himself, said, “It’s all very straightforward if everybody is just honest about what’s going on in their brains – and between their legs.”
But all that communication doesn’t do polyamorist parents any good in custody cases. Bennett briefly noted that despite anecdotal research that indicates “children can do well in poly families – as long as they’re in a stable home with loving parents,” few long-term studies have been done on the subject that can hold up in court. Biological anthropologist Helen Fischer similarly touted stability as “what’s healthy for children” in the article as well. 
The “stability” statements ignore other research that has found children raised in traditional intact families have lower levels of anti-social behavior than those raised in non-traditional families. A 2004 Heritage Foundation study found that “mothers and children are safest and thrive best in a married family.”







Stimulus jobs = high school summer work


Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 7/31/2009 7:00:00 AM

An economist says because President Obama’s stimulus package was rammed through Congress with the promise it would quickly turn the economy around and create positive job growth by the end of this summer, Americans are now asking the president and Democrats on Capitol Hill, “Where’s the meat on the table after you promised us a banquet?”

The Associated Press reports that Democratic lawmakers in Oregon are taking credit for creating 3,236 new stimulus jobs in the government program’s first three months. However, according to AP, those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours — or about one work week.
Rea Hederman, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, says most Americans would not consider those short-term projects real jobs, but rather part-time work akin to what a high schooler might do during the summer.
“You’re talking about spending a substantial amount of money to put people to work for a day, a couple of days, a week. And let’s remember, that money’s got to come from somewhere. That money is coming from taxpayers; it’s coming out of more government borrowing,” he notes.

“And so, you look at the cases [and ask] is this is a good deal? Is this something that the government should be spending money on? And I think the idea that somehow people are going to get value out of working for half a day, a day, or even a week, and the idea that’s going to be somehow worth the economic cost of paying for these programs, I think it’s ridiculous.”
Hederman says the American people remember that President Obama promised the country’s unemployment level would never surpass eight percent once the stimulus was in place, so they are not buying the Obama administration’s current claim that they never promised the stimulus would start working overnight.







Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and



Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.

Here is a copy of the ObamaCare health plan. You better read it because you will be forced to live with it!

July 31, 2009

Dear Bruce,

Here is an overview of the ObamaCare health care bill (HR 3200) which Congress is about to force every citizen to live under, except members of Congress.

Members of Congress will be exempt from being forced into this plan. They will have their own. The liberals, Democrats and some Republicans – while forcing you to join the plan – refuse to include themselves. Members of Congress will have a better plan which gives them freedom you will be denied.

You can read an updated and revised overview of HR 3200 compiled by Liberty Counsel.

Or, go to the full text of HR 3200 and read directly from the government website what this bill does!

Your Senators and Representative will soon be home for the August recess of Congress. Get a car load of friends and go meet with your Senators and Representative. Find out where he or she is holding Townhall meetings. Go to those meetings and ask for some answers! Some of them may try to avoid discussing ObamaCare. Don’t let them!

Find your Senators and Representative local offices here.

Take Action!

E-mail your Senators and Representative,asking for a schedule of their Townhall meeting during the month of August. Once you get the information, get a carload of friends and attend the Townhall meeting.

• If your Senators or Representative is not holding Townhall meeting, ask why not.(We have been told that many of those favoring ObamaCare aren’t holding meeting because they don’t want to answer questions about ObamaCare.) Then ask for an appointment at his or her district office nearest you.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Donate with confidence to AFA


(gifts are tax-deductible)






Right now, we are facing the greatest legislative threat to life that we have witnessed in the history of Focus on the Family Action. I’m talking about the government-mandated health care plan being pushed through Congress. The fact is, the current versions of the health care reform plan include an implicit abortion-coverage mandate that would force you and me to pay for abortions, require private insurance plans to provide abortion coverage, and deny health care workers their rights of conscience to not participate in or perform abortions.

The health care bill is the abortion industry’s dream come true and an assault on the moral values of every pro-life American.

With this legislative threat to life and family still marching toward passage, I am asking for your help in a critical way right now.

Grassroots pressure has caused a temporary delay in the president’s pre-August timeline for a vote. But let’s be clear – the goal of government-run health care with a full abortion-coverage mandate is still moving steadily toward a final vote. In fact, even as I write, key House and Senate committees continue to work out the details of the health care reform bills and, thus far, every effort to explicitly remove the abortion coverage and include conscience protections for health care workers has been shot down.

We now expect the vote on health care to come in September. That gives us a few short weeks to inform, equip and mobilize pro-family and pro-life Americans to oppose this oppressive government-mandated program. And that’s why I need your help.

Between now and the vote, Focus on the Family Action has the opportunity to reach millions of people with the true impact of government-mandated health care. In fact, I believe we’ve been given this delay so we can rally citizens to take a stand and stop this legislative nightmare for life and family. Now is the time to seize this opportunity to protect life and rights of conscience!

ROY, will you prayerfully consider making a special gift today to help Focus Action continue to mobilize pro-life citizens to make their voices heard in defense of preborn life and health care workers’ rights of conscience, while we continue other vital efforts? Please click here to make your gift.

This is precisely why Dr. Dobson created Focus on the Family Action – so we could inform and equip pro-family citizens to take action on specific legislative threats to faith, life and family. Well, this is the largest legislative threat to life we have seen. Our experts agree – if the current health care reform bill passes – this will be the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade, and the pro-life cause will be set back years.

Our Focus Action team is already moving quickly on this issue. Before the expected vote, we will mobilize millions of citizens. But I need your help. Your giftwhether a one-time or recurring gift will make a difference right now and in the days leading up to the final showdown over healthcare reform. To make a recurring gift, which allows us to best plan our efforts, select “Monthly” in the Frequency pull-down menu on our online donation page.

Is it possible that you and I have been called to the Lord’s service “for such a time as this,” to turn back what may be the greatest legislative assault of life and family? I believe it is such a time. Thank you in advance for your prayers and your support.

Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President, Government & Public Policy

P.S. This health care bill is really the “wish list” of the Left – mandated abortion coverage, taxpayer-funded abortion, and denial of health care workers’ rights of conscience. We must act now to protect life. Thank you for your support of life.






The BIG Lie
“We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on earth — $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or — every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they’re just as healthy.”

–Barack Obama
The American Spectator’s Philip Klein explains why this is a lie: “Obama is correct that all of those countries spend less per person on health care, but it isn’t anywhere near $6,000 less. The widest gap among the countries mentioned, between the U.S. and Denmark, is $3,778 per person. Of course, other systems don’t keep costs down with magic wands, but with rationing care to the sick — something Obama denies he wants to do in the U.S.”

Indeed, there’s no question that our system needs some treatment, but ObamaCare is not the right prescription.








    Help Place This Powerful TV Ad to Stop the Takeover of Health Care
July 29, 2009 | Share with Friends

The President and leaders in Congress are trying to ram through a government takeover of your health care. Americans are finally stirring as they learn the details.

We can defeat these plans – but we need your help! FRC Action unveiled a hard-hitting TV ad last night that we are ready to air initially in five key states: Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Nebraska. But we need $100,000 today to launch our campaign to counter the millions being spent by pro-abortion groups. Please watch the ad.


Please send the most generous donation you can today to help us air this ad!

The price tags of the leading bills are astronomical. The legislation would create government boards to decide who gets life-saving treatment and who is told to take a pain killer. At least one liberal leader in Congress said that including abortion coverage is her top priority. That is a massive taxpayer-funded stimulus for Planned Parenthood and permanent validation of abortion.

To those of you who helped FRC Action with a financial gift in recent days – thank you! Because the need is so urgent, we are asking others to join you today. And after you support your family and local church, please consider giving another gift if you are able.

FRC Action has been a leader shaping the debate over health care reform. Over 76,000 streams of our webcast were watched last night. That’s just one way we are protecting your values in this most important debate. The TV ad campaign will awaken millions.

Even if you are only able to send a small gift today, please help us defeat this dangerous government takeover.


Tony Perkins

P.S. After making a secure, online donation, please click here and tell a friend about this exciting ad campaign.

FRC Action is a tax-exempt corporation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Financial contributions to FRC Action are not tax-deductible.






How About A National Conversation on Race Hoaxes?
By Ann Coulter
You could not ask for a more perfect illustration of the thesis of my latest book, Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America, than the black president of the United States attacking a powerless white cop for arresting a black Harvard professor — in a city with a black mayor and a state with a black governor — as the professor vacations in Martha’s Vineyard.
Sponsored Content

In modern America, the alleged “victim” is always really the aggressor, and the alleged “aggressor” is always the true victim.
President Barack Obama planted the question during a health care press conference, hoping he could satisfy the Chicago Sun-Times, which has been accusing him of not being black enough. He somehow imagined that the rest of the country might not notice the president of the United States gratuitously attacking a cop in a case of alleged “racial profiling.”









(a.k.a., “It sucks to be you…….”)




A bit of a personal note:


On January 13, 2004, my sister, her husband and her 17-year-old son (my nephew) were enjoying a quiet evening in their home in Lilburn, Georgia, when a worthless, godless, shiftless waste of human flesh barged in wielding a gun.  My brother-in-law, the very popular football and wrestling coach at Tucker High School (and a VERY big dude) immediately grabbed the bastard in a wrestling hold and tried to disarm him.  Unfortunately, when my nephew attempted to come to his father’s aid, the assailant freed himself and shot them, killing them both.  Police arriving on the scene tracked the intruder into the woods behind my sister’s home, where he shot police dog Aryn, a Belgian Malinois (the first Lilburn police officer ever wounded in the line of duty).  Predictably, the K-9 officers responded to this by shooting the assailant to death.


I share this very personal account with you to point out that stories such as the ones excerpted below aren’t always detached, impersonal anecdotes, like episodes of COPS or America’s Most Wanted.  They are real; they really happen every day.  And I am convinced that if my sister’s family had owned a gun and known how to use it, they could have simply blown that bastard’s head off when he first entered their home, and two very wonderful people would still be alive.


When people ask me why I never leave home without my Glock 23 strapped to my waist and fully-loaded with 13 hollow-points, I tell ’em that story.  I hope it makes a difference for you.






Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.


Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property.  Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts.


Send clippings to:


”The Armed Citizen”
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030-9400


Or e-mail your Armed Citizen story to
If you have a firsthand ”Armed Citizen” experience, call NRA-ILA PR/Communications at (703) 267-1193.






Around 11:45 p.m. a man in Opelika, Ala. was approached by an armed robber demanding money. The citizen drew his firearm and shot the armed criminal, ending the attempted robbery. The criminal was taken to a local hospital, where he is being detained. The armed citizen does not face charges.



A NURSE WAS home with her sick children when a man knocked on the door. She’d never seen him before, so she quieted the children and didn’t answer. Undeterred, the man circled the house and tried to kick in the kitchen door, prompting the nurse to hide her children in a bedroom closet and tell the oldest to dial 9-1-1. The terrified child placed the call, saying, “We are going to die today.” But police say the nurse wasn’t going to allow that to happen. She retrieved a .38-caliber revolver, peered down the hallway and saw the burglar standing in the living room. “I came at him and started firing; she recalls. The burglar fled the scene. Speaking to a reporter, the nurse urged other women to consider gun ownership and to take firearm-training classes.




Two armed robbers attempted to rob a 60-year-old man from Mobile, Ala. The armed men had planned to wait until the man retrieved money from an ATM, follow the victim to his home, and then rob him at gunpoint. When the robbers confronted the man with a revolver and demanded money, the man drew his own pistol and fired, striking both suspects. One robber was killed, while the other is expected to recover. The Mobile County District Attorney, John Tyson Jr., has deemed the incident to be a case of self defense.



John Antonetz and his wife, Lydia Pace-Antonetz, were loading groceries into their vehicle in a Wal-Mart parking lot when, police say, a man wearing a disguise announced a robbery. The couple tried to run from the robber, but he struck Pace-Antonetz, grabbed her purse and pointed a gun at the couple. That’s when Antonetz, a 63-year-old dentist with a concealed-carry permit, retrieved his .357-caliber revolver from the vehicle. As the suspect continued threatening his wife, Antonetz rounded the vehicle and fired several shots. The suspect, who was on parole for a burglary conviction, was arrested by the police when he sought treatment for a gunshot wound at a local hospital.



Around 2:30 p.m., convicted felon Donald N. Jones entered Belmont Beverage in Fort Wayne, Ind. Security tapes show Jones walking around the counter and firing a gun, hitting the leg of an employee, before robbing two registers. When Jones moved back to the other side of the counter, another clerk, having already seen his co-worker get shot, drew his gun and fired at Jones, killing him. The armed citizen was a Right-to-Carry permit holder. Jones had a violent past, involving a string of at least nine armed robberies that he confessed to committing in 2000. One of the places Jones admitted robbing in 2000 was Belmont Beverage. The wounded employee is expected to make a full recovery.  





Susana Khalil, eight months pregnant and with her toddler in tow, went to visit her husband for dinner at his convenience store in St. Paul, Minn. After she arrived, her husband asked her to tend to the counter while he ran a quick errand. While he was gone, a woman entered the store and charged at Khalil with a remote control wrapped in a plastic bag to imitate a gun. Khalil was able to fend off the attack long enough to grab her husband’s gun and fire it at the woman, striking her in the shoulder. The assailant later pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated robbery. The incident took place in 2007, but this week St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington heard of Khalil’s heroics in early 2009, he awarded her with the Chief’s Award for Valor. 




Police say Rodney Hendrick and his wife were sleeping when a 24-year-old man smashed a front door window, waking the couple. Mr. Hendrick went to investigate, armed with a .357 Magnum revolver, and found that the suspect had left. Foolishly, the suspect soon returned and lofted a brick at the front door, knocking it open. He entered the residence, and Hendrick fired a single shot. The intruder died at the scene. 



Awakened by the sound of her barking dogs, a Clinton, Connecticut, woman inspected her house and found not only a screen missing from a kitchen window, but also a heavyset intruder standing motionless in her living room. The woman returned calmly to her bedroom where she retrieved her handgun. At the sound of her chambering a round into the pistol, the intruder unlocked the front door and fled the property.







Request for Authentication of Obama’s Alleged Kenyan Birth Certificate…

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961

The document lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital





Ohio senator badmouths GOP and the south

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 8/3/2009 7:20:00 AM

Outgoing Senator George Voinovich’s (R-Ohio) claim that the GOP has been “taken over by Southerners” has prompted an Ohio pro-family activist to declare he’s “thrilled” that Voinovich is quitting the U.S. Senate.

Voinovich was recently asked by the Columbus Dispatch what the biggest problem with the Republican Party is. The retiring senator responded, “We got too many Jim DeMints (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburns (R-Oklahoma). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What the h–l they got to do with Ohio?'”
Phil Burress, president of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, says the GOP’s problem is people like Senator Voinovich and former Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, a moderate Republican defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sherrod Brown.
“You have to go back in time and realize that when [Voinovich] was the mayor of Cleveland and then governor of the state of Ohio, Mike DeWine was his lieutenant governor. Mike DeWine and Governor Voinovich are connected at the hip, and you saw what happened to Mike DeWine. Voinovich is pro-life — he’s solid. He’s against gambling. But when you get beyond that, he is totally confused about what the Republican Party should stand for.”
Burress says Voinovich has been unwilling to fight against the homosexual agenda, noting the Senator supported hate-crimes legislation and will likely support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.





Rangel Supports Higher Taxes, Just Not Paying Them


House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) is one of the drivers of a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge in order to help pay for the Democrats’ nationalization of health care. Taking a look back at Rangel’s personal tax history, however, it’s easy to see why he’s so keen on the proposal — he isn’t likely to pay any of it himself. The Wall Street Journal published a refresher course in Rangel’s tax history this week, reminding us all of the scams that he’s put forth in order to dodge taxes on his now famous Dominican villa.

Rangel failed to report $75,000 in real estate income from the villa, which commands $1,100 per night during the peak season and is rarely — if ever — vacant. He has blamed his wife for not keeping the books properly (bet that went over well), and he has blamed the locals for speaking Spanish, but he has never come completely clean about how such a large mistake could be made on his returns year after year. Rangel has promised to rectify the situation but he still has not filed the corrected paperwork. Nor has he paid the overdue taxes. Nor is the IRS knocking on his door.

There have also been issues surrounding rent-controlled apartments that Rangel occupies in Harlem. It turns out that he has played fast and loose with the income-reporting rules so that he can still be eligible for rent-control status, which allows him a steep discount below market value.

We could go on about the other four issues about which the House Ethics Committee is investigating Rangel, but the picture is already clear. He’s in deep for years of tax evasion and questionable real estate ventures, but Charles Rangel is still perfectly comfortable telling us that a 5.4 percent tax surcharge is “the moral thing to do.”

Speaking of housing corruption, a Countrywide official testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Senate Ethics Committee that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) did in fact know he was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on two mortgages as part of the unofficial “Friends of Angelo” program. Angelo Mozilo, the founder and former CEO of Countrywide, was able to snag fixed rates of 4.25 percent and 4.5 percent on mortgages for the Senate Banking Committee chairman. Suddenly, Dodd’s re-election chances just got slimmer.





Warfront With Jihadistan: The Meaning of Victory
If ever there was any doubt that the U.S. elected a president raised on late 20th-century psychobabble, Barack Obama removed all traces of that doubt last week. In an interview on July 23, ABC’s Terry Moran asked Obama to give his definition of victory in Afghanistan. Sounding like the misinformed and spineless jellyfish he is, the Milquetoast Messiah responded by saying, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” Leaving aside the fact that Hirohito did not even attend Japan’s surrender ceremony, let alone sign the surrender documents, the U.S. victory in WWII is not a thing to avoid repeating, as The One strangely seems to imply. More disturbingly, these were not the words of a commander in chief whose responsibility is the safety of the nation. These were the words of a community organizer, imbued with today’s spirit-killing self esteem snake oil, telling all the local youth soccer teams, “Hey, it’s OK if you lose, ’cause you’re still winners in my book!”
The U.S. has only two choices in the Long War — victory or defeat — and a defeat is too terrible to contemplate. While there is no doubt that victory in this asymmetrical war will look different from that of other wars, any U.S. commander in chief must make it clear to the world that victory is what will be achieved. Obama may still be able to send a tingle up the legs of his glassy-eyed followers, but he is most definitely not sending chills down the spines of our country’s enemies. We think, for once, Obama should Give Victory a Chance.






From: steve bradley <>
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Subject: The Creature from Jekyll Island – Interview with G. Edward Griffin

This guy is pretty insightful and to think he did this interview back in 2004 before the bubble burst.  I am currently half way through this book and I have found it to be one of the most powerful books I have ever read.  His research and insight are amazing and hard to refute.

Interview with G. Edward Griffin, Author of ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’ (Secretive Creation of the Federal Reserve System)

Interview by Victor Thorn & Lisa Guliani
April 2, 2004
WING Spotlight Interview: G. Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island)
by Victor Thorn & Lisa Guliani

Victor Thorn: There’s an old saying that I’m sure we’ve all heard. It goes: “Follow the money.” And that’s exactly what we’re going to do with G. Edward Griffin, who wrote quite possibly the best book ever about the Federal Reserve System. It’s called The Creature From Jekyll Island – and that’s what we’re going to do – follow the money. To truly understand the way the world works,the first thing we have to do is understand money. That’s at the core of everything. The controllers, the elite that run the world, use money as the stranglehold over all of us – via money and the creation of money. In my book, The New World Order Exposed, I devoted four or five chapters to the Federal Reserve System, but after reading Mr. Griffin’s book, I was very humbled by everything he knows. Mr. Griffin starts off this book by saying that the Federal Reserve System is not federal, it has no reserve, and it’s not even a bank. It’s really fascinating how intricate and involved it is and how crucial the Federal Reserve and the creation of money is to the people who run not only this country, but the world. Mr. Griffith, why don’t you tell us how you became involved with researching the Federal Reserve?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, I’m just a guy that got interested in recent history. I never was much interested in history when I went through school, but when I got into the real world, I began to see things around me that went counter to what I had thought was reality. So I began to do some research and got into all of these upstream topics at a very early age. Basically, I’m a reader. I read books and I interview people and I dig into library archives. I love to go through microfilm and a lot of old documents. It just seems to be the pond I was meant to swim in. So, a long time ago, I got into this business of being what they now call a researcher and a writer. But basically, I’m just an investigator. I dig these things up and I write books on them, and much to my amazement, people actually buy the books and read them and tell me they like them – which really is amazing to me, because some of these topics, like the Federal Reserve System, sound as though they’re pretty dull and boring.

My job has always been to get people into the topic a little bit so they can realize that it’s not so boring after all. The Creature From Jekyll Island is a second look at the Federal Reserve System – that is really like a “whodunit”.  It’s a mystery story of what they’ve done with our monetary system. I just began to write books and produce television documentaries – very low budget things because I funded everything. I never did anything for the networks or the major stations. I always did everything for my own edification where no one else could tell me what to do or what to say or what slant I had to take. My job was to tell it the way I saw it. So I’ve been doing that since about 1960. And I formed a little company a few years after that called “American Media” that is still very much alive and well. We produce educational documentaries, we publish books, and we produce audio recordings. We have a name as far as our marketing arm is concerned. It’s called “The Reality Zone”.

Of late, I’ve become very concerned with the practical side of these things. For years, I have been writing and speaking on all of the things I find that I consider to be problems in our society – things which do not look well for the future of America. So I had been one of these people who went around saying, “Gee everybody, don’t you see what’s going on? Don’t you care about the future? Let’s do something about it.” So I’ve been pointing with alarm for a lot of years, and it finally dawned on me that it really doesn’t make any difference what we know about these problems if we don’t do anything about it. And that led me to the question: what is it that one can do about these things? And up until that time, I had been pretty much following the line that, well, if we are just informed, the truth will set us free. And it finally dawned on me: that is a myth. The truth alone is not going to set anybody free. Truth is often shackled in chains by a tyrannical system. It’s up to the people who know the truth to get off their chairs and do something about it.

Victor Thorn: We’ve spent a lot of time speaking about that very point. We’ve said: We already know what’s going on. We know what’s wrong, we know what needs to be changed, but if we’re all in front of our computer screens or in front of our televisions and not doing anything about it, then it’s exactly like you said. Nothing is going to change.

G. Edward Griffin: Reading another book or attending another seminar or sending carbon copies of letters or emails around to our friends – while that’s all very good and exhilarating, it still doesn’t change anything. So about two years ago, I began to change my orientation. Out of that came an organization which we call Freedom Force International. The purpose of this organization is to actually show people how they CAN do something to turn events around. How they can not just be complainers, but actually become “doers”.

Lisa Guliani: Mr. Griffin, in an earlier writing, you discuss that the best chance we have to change the system is through its weakest point – which is public opinion. Can you address that?

G. Edward Griffin: That sounds like one of my earlier writings, and I really question that today. There’s no doubt in my mind that we do need to change public opinion, because as long as the public doesn’t realize there’s a problem, as long as they support the programs, for whatever reason they think these programs that are devastating to our freedom – that they think are necessary – for example, to protect us against terrorism, or necessary to protect us against drug dealers, or necessary to protect us against crime, or necessary to protect us against child pornography – all these excuses that are thrown out to convince people that these increasing rules and regulations in our lives are “necessary” for our own good. As long as people buy into that nonsense, it’s going to continue. So I’m really not saying that public opinion is not important. But what I would like to add to that now is what I was mentioning a moment ago – that once we’ve got public opinion on our side, then what?

Just having the majority of people or a large number of people coming from the same point of view does not translate into political action unless those people are smart enough and dedicated enough to get involved in political action and translate their political opinion into actual deeds. What I’m really talking about is that our nation (or any nation) is really controlled by what sociologists call the ‘power centers of society.’ The power centers are those groups and organizations through which people work and act, and in many cases they actually think homo sapiens are a kind of herd animal. He has this “herd” instinct. We have leaders and we seek leaders and we follow leaders. And leaders pretty much tell us what to do. In many cases, they tell us what to think. If we are led to believe that consensus is important, and if somebody does a poll and they say “Well, 60% of the population is all for this measure,” we have a tendency because of our nature, to say, “Well, if 60% of the population is for it, it must be okay. I should be for it, too.” That’s the way people think. So, what I’m driving at is that the collectivists who have really captured control of most of the governments of the world today have done so not by military means, and they don’t even represent a large percentage of the population.

They represent, in most cases, less than three percent of the population – and in some cases, even less than one percent of the population. Yet, they can dominate the whole nation because they are in control of the power centers of society. I’m talking about the political parties, labor unions, church organizations, schools – all the organizations that add up to the sum total of power in a nation. And if you’ve noticed, in many cases these organizations have leadership with a point of view or an agenda which is totally removed from the point of view of the rank and file members. And the members often wonder, “How did this guy get to be the president?” Or, “Where did these people on the board of directors come from? They don’t represent me and my way of thinking.” Well, this happened because there were people who had an agenda for many decades now. They’ve known that in order to put their political views into place and to dominate a society, they had to control those power centers. They use their energies, their time, and in many cases, huge amounts of money in order to capture control of the power centers. The reason I mentioned that is because I believe the best way – the only way – to reverse this trend is to recapture control of the power centers. Public opinion is important, yes. But it is NOT the complete formula because unless we can convert public opinion into actual control of the power centers of society, we are not going to win. And that is the whole purpose of Freedom Force International.

Victor Thorn: One of the first steps we need to take is to abolish the Federal Reserve System, and you concur with that in The Creature From Jekyll Island. Why don’t you tell us a little bit about the first page in your book, where you said about the Federal Reserve – it’s not federal, there is no reserve, and it’s not even a bank. What does the Federal Reserve represent and how did it become so powerful?

G. Edward Griffin: We could spend hours just talking about that. Let me take it from a sort of fundamental point of view here. First of all, it might be beneficial to explain why I called the book The Creature From Jekyll Island. A lot of people think that seems like a contradiction of terms. I just had a smog check here and I was talking to a mechanic. He asked me what I do for a living and I said I write big, boring books. He said, “Yeah? Well, what was the latest book you’ve written?” I said it’s called The Creature From Jekyll Island and his eyes lit up and he thought it was a sequel to Jurassic Park. Then I said that it was a second look at the Federal Reserve. And he got this very puzzled look on his face. He didn’t understand how a book on the Federal Reserve could be called The Creature From Jekyll Island, which is one of the reasons I chose that title. I wanted to catch people’s attention and make them wonder. So let me explain very quickly. Jekyll Island is a real island. It’s off the coast of Georgia, and it was on that island back in 1910 that the Federal Reserve System was created. When I got into the research, I realized that this was strange.

You would expect that something like the Federal Reserve, which we’ve all been taught to believe is a government agency of some kind. You’d think that it would have been created in Washington, D.C. in some kind of a committee room. But no, it was on Jekyll Island back in 1910. Furthermore, I discovered that the island in those days was privately owned by a small group of billionaires from New York City. People like J. P. Morgan, William Rockefeller, and their business associates. It was a private social club called The Jekyll Island Club. This is where the families of these very wealthy people went to spend the cold winter months. They got out of New York and went to Jekyll Island. They had some beautiful cottages there and they’re all there today, by the way – if anybody wants to go look at them. They’ve been preserved. And I thought, well, isn’t it strange that the Federal Reserve was created at a meeting on Jekyll Island? And then I discovered that the meeting was conducted under conditions of extreme secrecy. I can assure you that very few wars of history were plotted under greater conditions of secrecy than this meeting. All of these things were ringing bells in my mind. I thought, what on earth is going on? You know, when something’s done in secret, there’s usually something to hide. And I thought to myself, what on earth were these people trying to hide? So that’s what really triggered my imagination and my curiosity, and so I started to dig into it. You know what I found? I found out what they were trying to hide. That’s what my whole book is about.

I discovered that all of the important things that we need to know, in my opinion, about the Federal Reserve System could be traced to that meeting on Jekyll Island – and in terms of the things that they were trying to hide from public view. Now, what were those things? It’s hard to summarize this. First of all, we have to realize that the Federal Reserve was offered to the voters back in 1913 when it was actually passed into law. It was offered to the voters as a solution to a problem. The American people were deeply concerned in those days about the concentration of financial power into the hands of a small group of powerful banking and investment firms on Wall Street. In those days, they used to call that conglomeration the “money trust”. That was what you’d find when you dug into the newspapers of the period and looked in the editorial section.

You’d find a lot of editorials condemning the “money trust”. People knew that there was too much power in the hands of a few people, so there was a clamor for legislation which was supposed to break the grip of the money trust. And the Federal Reserve Act was offered as the solution to that problem. So, we start off with the assumption that the Federal Reserve Act was to put control of the monetary system and the banking system back into the hands of the people and to break the grip of the money trust. All right, the first thing they were trying to hide at that meeting was the fact that the Federal Reserve System was written BY the money trust. The people who attended that meeting were the epitome of the money trust. These were literally the wealthiest men in the world. When you added up the wealth which was controlled by the seven men who went to that meeting, in accordance with the estimates of the writers at that time – this is not my estimate – they estimated that these people either controlled directly or indirectly through the banking firms that they represented, approximately one-fourth of the wealth of the entire world.

Victor Thorn: Isn’t that incredible?

G. Edward Griffin: Yes. We’re talking about the J. P. Morgan dynasty, the Rockefeller dynasty, Kuhn Loeb & Company, the Rothschilds from Europe, and the Warburgs from Germany and the Netherlands. These were the people who were represented at that meeting, and they are the ones who created the Federal Reserve System – supposedly – to break the grip of the money trust. So, the first reason for the secrecy was to hide the fact that this was like asking the fox to build the hen-house and install the security system. One of the persons who attended that meeting wrote an article for The Saturday Evening Post some years later and he explained, quite openly that had the public known at the time precisely who was writing this bill, they would have rejected it. So that, you see, was one of the reasons for the secrecy. But we can learn other things about that meeting, too. I mentioned a moment ago what firms and enterprises were represented. This is extremely important.

Another interesting thing is that, prior to this meeting, or at least to this period in history, these firms were competitors. Prior to the turn of the century, they were struggling for dominance in the financial markets of the world. They were spilling blood all over the battlefield in New York and Paris and London, vying to be dominant in the financial markets. And here they are, sitting around the table on Jekyll Island in the seclusion of this very exclusive clubhouse, coming to an agreement. And the reason that is significant is because it was precisely at this time in history that a major change was going on in the way America was doing business. Prior to that time, free enterprise competition was reigning supreme, and that’s the reason – in my opinion, at least – America surpassed the rest of the world in a very short period of time. It went from a very crude, rugged frontier type of nation and became a highly industrialized and affluent nation because of free enterprise competition. At the turn of the century, people like Rockefeller and Morgan and Carnegie had decided that since they were at the top of the heap, they didn’t want any more competition. They wanted to put an end to competition.

Victor Thorn: John Rockefeller said, “Competition is a sin.”

G. Edward Griffin: Absolutely! All of his biographers quoted him on that. So they began to look for ways to eliminate their competition, and of course, if they couldn’t beat them in the open marketplace, which was the old way of eliminating competition, now they were looking for new ways, and that was to form monopolies and cartels – to go into joint ventures with competing firms so that they could no longer compete on price or markets, patents and processes. They would come together and form a cartel, and then they wouldn’t have to compete and they could share the market. Well, that was what was happening at the turn of the century; and lo and behold, when you look at these men sitting around the table at a clubhouse on Jekyll Island, all of a sudden you realize, “Oh my gosh, the Federal Reserve System is a CARTEL.” And that is exactly what it is. It is not a government agency. It is a cartel no different than the banana cartel, the oil cartel, or any other. It just happens to be a banking cartel. That is the second thing that emerges from the study of what happened on Jekyll Island.

Victor Thorn: Tell us about Paul Warburg and how he was a front man for the Rothschild family and how he essentially masterminded this and patterned it after the German Reichsbank.

G. Edward Griffin: Paul Warburg was born in Germany, he was a naturalized American citizen, and he was very knowledgeable in European banking. We must remember that the Federal Reserve System was modeled very closely after the Bank of England. It was what the textbooks call a “central bank”. That’s just a code word. It doesn’t really mean anything. It’s not a bank at all, but if you want to look it up in a textbook or an encyclopedia – you’ll find it under the phrase “central bank”. What it basically is, is a cartel – it’s a partnership between the government and the private banks. I might add, before I jump off of that topic of the cartel, in the case of the Federal Reserve, the cartel went into partnership with the federal government – and cartels like to do that because only governments can enforce the cartel agreements. See, without government involvement in a cartel, there’s no way for the cartel members to make sure that the other members stick with the agreement. So what are they going to do if one of the oil producing countries decides they want to lower the cost of oil because they want a larger share of the market?

There’s nothing that the other countries can do to force them into line unless, of course, you pass an international law and call it a trade law and now you can get the United Nations involved and enforce the cartel agreement for oil or whatever – fish or who knows what. In this case, the banking cartel was very eager to get the United States government into the contract so that all of the banks – once they were in the cartel – had to follow the cartel agreements or else they would be violating the law and then the police could be brought after them. That was a way of enforcing the cartel agreements. I emphasize this because most people don’t realize that cartels always have an affinity to government to enforce their cartel agreement. I’m a little bit off the track. It was Paul Warburg who was a master at all of this. I think he had more experience with this central bank mechanism than all of the rest of them put together. So he was the technician – but also, we mustn’t forget that all throughout his business career he maintained a close relationship with his brother, Max Warburg, who was head of the Warburg Banking Consortium in Germany and the Netherlands. Not only that, he was a senior partner in Kuhn-Loeb & Company, which was one of the giant investment firms in New York, and as such they handled the financial affairs of the Rothschilds. So, he was well-connected at several different levels, as you can imagine. Paul Warburg is really the role model for the Little Orphan Annie caricature called “Daddy Warbucks”. Everybody at the time knew that Paul Warburg was “Daddy Warbucks”.

Victor Thorn: Let me ask you this. You mentioned that the five primary forces at that time were the Morgans, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs and Kuhn-Loeb. Today, if we had to name the dominant forces in the banking industry, or those people who are really pulling the strings of the rest of the world, how much different would it look today – or would there be any difference – than it looked in 1913?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, it’s really hard to quantify that. I believe it would look pretty much the same except for one shift. In 1913, the Morgans were the dominant American banking influence. Before I say anything more, you should know that J. P. Morgan was really – most biographers say and have said of him – that he was probably an agent of the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds had a very strong, very effective tactic of doing business through other organizations that were thought to be independent. They developed this tactic over the decades in Europe when there was a lot of anti-Semitism, and so the Rothschilds, of course, being Jewish, found that if they wanted to gain dominance in a market that was anti-Semitic, they certainly couldn’t do it directly themselves.

So they worked through agents who were thought to be independent, and in some cases, agents who were thought to be anti-Semitic – which was kind of clever. J. P. Morgan was often thought of as being anti-Semitic, but the record is now clear that he was an agent of the Rothschilds himself. So, in any event, in 1913, it was pretty clear that J. P. Morgan – The House of Morgan – was the dominant banking influence. But today, that seems to have shifted to the Rockefellers. There’s no doubt in my mind today that the Rockefellers are the dominant banking force in the United States. The Rothschilds, I believe, are still very powerful – although they continue to operate behind the scenes so that nobody really focuses on them. They like the public to think that they’re just a bunch of playboys and they dabble in the markets. But in reality, I think from what I can see, the Rothschilds are still very, very powerful in all of this.

Lisa Guliani: Mr. Griffin, could you please discuss the 16th amendment to the Constitution and whether or not you think it should be repealed?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, that’s a topic that’s a little beyond my expertise. A lot of people are of the opinion that the 16th amendment to the Constitution was never properly ratified and I’ve seen the documentation to prove that – and it’s very convincing to me. However, I think that trying to reverse that on the basis of the technicality that it wasn’t properly enacted in the first place is a mistake. I think that if it were to go before the States today and they were given a chance to ratify it, they probably would. In other words, we’re back to the question that was brought up earlier. We need to change public opinion. I think that the 16th amendment has been so well accepted over the years that there’s probably some legal argument somebody could make that it’s now grandfathered into place. I don’t like the 16th amendment any more than anyone else, but I think the way to get rid of it is not on a technicality, but on the principle that it’s wrong. Let’s assume that it was properly ratified. Now, what do we do about it? I think we still need to get rid of it – not because of a technicality, but because it’s based on fallacious principles.

Lisa Guliani: I’d like to also ask you about NESARA. Are you familiar with that?

G. Edward Griffin: Yes, I’m quite familiar with NESARA.

Lisa Guliani: There is quite a controversy on the internet about NESARA. Is NESARA a trap or a potential solution to our problems?

G. Edward Griffin: My opinion of NESARA is that it is NOT the solution to the problem at all. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a trap, although it could be. But that would imply motives to the promoters, which I don’t think would be justified. But I certainly do not see it as a solution, primarily because, although it has a lot of good-sounding phrases to it, and although it is very critical of the Federal Reserve, and although it does have a lot of good things going for it, the one thing it doesn’t have is a real solution. And by that I mean, what the proposed solution of NESARA is, is to take away the power to create money out of nothing – take that power away from those big, bad bankers and turn it over exclusively to those nice trustworthy politicians. In other words, NESARA does not focus on the fact that the Federal Reserve System creates money out of nothing, it focuses only on the fact of WHO does it. It doesn’t make any difference who does it – it shouldn’t be done at all by anybody. I don’t think that politicians can be trusted any more than bankers.

Victor Thorn: Mr. Griffin, if you were sitting in Washington, D.C. right now in the Oval Office, what would be the first two or three things you would do?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, the first thing I would do is go on television and tell everybody what’s on my mind. I would want to try and explain to people what I’m going to do. I wouldn’t just do it. I’d explain WHY I’m going to do it first, explain what my principles are and what I believe the proper function of government is. And then I’d say: if you folks like what I’ve just said, then I’m going to go ahead and implement it. And if you don’t like what I’ve just said, then you better elect me out of office.

Victor Thorn: what would be the first two or three things you’d implement?

G. Edward Griffin: Boy, I’ll have to think about that one. The first two or three things – it would be like a kid in a candy store. I don’t know – that’s a good one. Can I think about that for a while? I’m tempted to say, “Abolish the Federal Reserve.” But as I said in my book, we can’t do that overnight. It needs to be stepped out, because it would certainly destroy the economy to just abruptly abolish the Federal Reserve. There are a lot of things out there I’d like to see change, but in all honesty, I don’t think they can be done overnight.

Victor Thorn: Let me ask you this question: I was talking to an economist the other day and I asked him a fairly vague question: “How close or how realistic is the possibility that the bottom could really drop out of our economy?” He said it is, in fact, a real possibility. What are your views on that?

G. Edward Griffin: My view on that is kind of complicated. First of all, as I said in my book, I believe that what is happening to our monetary system is disastrous to the future of the country. It’s a disaster to the monetary system. I don’t see how it could survive without falling apart. It’s a disaster to the freedom issue. I don’t see how people can continue to have this system and maintain their personal freedoms. I’m really alarmed about that. I believe that sooner or later, the bubble has to burst. Now, let me qualify that by saying – and I think I said this in the book – there is one condition under which we would not have a collapse of the monetary system. That would be a condition in which no one would dare say that we had one. In other words: totalitarianism. If we had no freedom of speech, no freedom in the marketplace, no freedom to buy or sell as we wished, then all of the forces of supply and demand would be paralyzed. Under those conditions, there would be no collapse of the monetary system.

There would just be slavery. And what concerns me is we may be moving into that scenario. I believe, for example, that the Federal Reserve is manipulating the market. I’m convinced that there are mechanisms they are using. They’re using the hidden taxation of inflation, and the creation of money out of nothing to sustain the stock market to create the ILLUSION of continued prosperity. That is a terrible thing, when you can intervene in the free market like that and literally paralyze it. So what I’m concerned about is that we are moving very close into a condition where it might be comparable to the Soviet Union twenty years ago. If we had lived in the Soviet Union twenty years ago, no one would have said that they were having economic problems because the official line from the state was “everything is improving”. They had five-year plans, ten-year plans, everything’s on target, employment is up, prosperity is up; the value of the rouble is up. All the official pronouncements were positive and nobody DARED say that they were lies. I think we’re coming to the point – if we aren’t there already – where we’re looking that kind of a thing smack in the face.

Lisa Guliani: You mentioned earlier an ideology called “collectivism”. The CFR is guided by this ideology and they believe the best way to bring about change is by engaging in war. Let’s talk about the three pillars of collectivism.

G. Edward Griffin: Well yes, I would like to do that very much because that “ism” is what we stress in my organization, Freedom Force International. I believe that it’s not enough to just know what we’re against. We have to know what we’re FOR in a struggle like we’re in today, because history is so full of examples of people who have risen up against some tyrant or some system which they found unbearable – and at great cost in blood and treasure, they’ve overthrown the heinous system and they’re all so happy until five years later – or maybe not even that long – they find out that they merely replaced the system with one which is just the same (or maybe even worse)! And that happens over and over again in history because people only focus on the things they don’t like. They don’t really have any idea of what they want. They don’t have any positive goals or principles of their own. And so, at Freedom Force, I believe that it’s very important to have a creed. What do we believe in? What are our goals and principles?

In answering that question, I believe we have to come face-to-face with the recognition that in the western world today, the political conflict between ideologies is not between liberals vs. conservatives, left-wingers vs. right-wingers, or socialists vs. capitalists. All of these words which really defy clear definition – everybody uses those words with a little different thought in their mind as to what they mean – they cannot be defined where everybody agrees on it. I think when you cut through all of that verbiage and all of the emotional attachments we have to those words, you wind up with just two ideologies in the western world today. And that is, individualism vs. collectivism. And the western world today is in the grips of collectivism. Collectivism can take many forms. Socialism is a form of collectivism. Nazism is a form of collectivism. Communism is a form of collectivism. They’re all variations of collectivism, and if you know what collectivism is, you can spot them. Even if they don’t have a name, you can have your favorite candidate standing up and saying, “Vote for me!” And he’ll come up with some political nostrum and if you recognize it, you’ll say “AHH! That’s collectivism! He’s a collectivist!” And he may not even know it. So what is this thing called collectivism? I’ve identified actually five philosophical foundations for collectivism, three of which are probably the most important. Three of them are very easy to recognize.

The other two require a little more analysis. By the way, when you take these pillars of collectivism and you turn them upside down, they’re the pillars of individualism. So we find that on these five points, the world is divided. You either have to be one way or the other, if you’ve given any thought to it at all. The most important thing that people will recognize is that collectivists believe that the group is more important than the individual — that the individual must be sacrificed, if necessary, for the greater good of the greater number. Now that is at the core of all of the mischief of collectivist systems such as Communism, Nazism, Socialism, or Fascism. If you look at any of those, you’ll find the underlying belief that the numbers are important – that if we can justify that this particular deed is good for a greater number, then we can sacrifice the smaller number. It’s simply a question of a head count. And under such a system, there really is no foundation for individual rights because nobody has a right if the greater good of the greater number is served by denying that right. I’ll give you an example. I think everyone is beginning to recognize today that we didn’t get into WWII as a result of a surprise attack by Japan. For years, everybody denied that.

They thought that was a scandalous concept for people to suggest that President Roosevelt and people high in the military and in the State Department of the American government would stand by and not only allow the Japanese to attack, but to goad them into it, to encourage them. What an awful thing to suggest! Well now, of course, all the history has come out, the smoking gun has been found, and there aren’t many of us today that even question that anymore – although a lot of people still haven’t heard it. But the defenders of the Roosevelt regime today don’t say that he didn’t do this or that they didn’t do that. What they say today is, “Well, yes it’s true, but he was justified in doing so because it was for the greater good of the greater number.” It was worth sacrificing a mere two or three thousand American lives at Pearl Harbor in order to wake up the nation to the necessity of getting into the war and fighting against Hitler at a time when it was easier to do than later. In other words, it was okay to lead three thousand people to their death in order to get us into a war that was for the greater good of the greater number.

Victor Thorn: And the same rationale is applicable today.

G. Edward Griffin: Oh, it’s definitely applicable today. Of course. You see, nobody could talk about it during WWII because they were living through it. Now, you know, because its history, we can talk about it. Well, it’s happening in the war on terrorism, too – but you can’t talk about it today because people are too emotionally involved in it.

Victor Thorn: If you had a crystal ball right now, what do you see happening to our country and our world in the next six months to a year – up to say, the 2004 election? What do you see happening in the Middle East?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, my crystal ball doesn’t work too well. I think I’ve got a pretty good hold on the long view, but I’ve always been very bad on the short view because things are always happening that are surprising. But I do know that if there is no change, things are going to continue as they are now going. That’s pretty obvious. And the change I’m talking about is a change in public awareness. Right now, it seems that the greater majority of the American people are solidly following the concepts of their leaders – even though it’s pure collectivism – from top to bottom. They don’t understand that and they’re being fooled. They don’t have the information like we’re talking about. Therefore, they are unable to make intelligent decisions about what is right and what is wrong. As long as that condition continues, then we are going to continue to follow the policies of the people who presently control the government. And that does not look too good. I think that the goal of the present government is to continue to expand their military presence throughout the world. They have written about this. They want to establish what they call “Pax Americana”, similar to “Pax Romana”. In other words, they see themselves as leaders of a new Roman Empire to dominate the world. Beyond that, they see that as a stepping stone to being the most influential voice in the creation of a world government. That’s the ultimate goal for them all. They want to be the top dogs in that world government. That’s where we’re headed, and unless we can turn it around, I’m afraid we’re going to find ourselves locked up in a world government based on the model of collectivism. And I can assure you, we’re not going to like it.

Lisa Guliani: Do you think Americans have the stomach for freedom that our ancestors once did?

G. Edward Griffin: I think they do, although a lot of us have been taught in our schools, as I was, to be very suspicious of freedom. I think a lot of people have no faith in freedom. They’re afraid of freedom because they haven’t thought it through. They think, I should have the freedom to choose what color socks I want, but when it comes to freedom in the banking industry or freedom in the market, that’s too complicated. We’ve got to have government controlling that.

Lisa Guliani: They don’t want the responsibility.

G. Edward Griffin: Yes, I think people have been trained to do that, educated to do that – but now we talk about the stomach and the heart. I think when you come down to push and shove, when the issues become clear, most Americans will definitely take a stand for freedom.

© 2004, WING TV ® All rights reserved. Website by pcStudios.


“The history of the race, and each individual’s experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.”

~ Mark Twain ~


“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.”

~ Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 ~





Suborned in the U.S.A.
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.

By Andrew C. McCarthy


Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.

Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”

Such was the ardor of Obama’s denials that jaws dropped when, once safely elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents,” an administration spokesman announced. “You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .” The “Muslim father” theme was an interesting touch: During the campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s Islamic faith reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of what’s-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him.” And, it turns out, the spokesman’s fleeting bit about “growing up in Indonesia” wasn’t the half of it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia — or, at least that’s what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).

These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”

The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.

The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff. Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president). In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?


So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”

To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”

To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.

Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.” (Italics mine.)

That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious.


Before January 20 of this year, Barack Obama had a negligible public record. He burst onto the national scene what seemed like five minutes before his election to the presidency: a first-term U.S. senator who actually served less than four years in that post — after a short time as a state legislator, some shadowy years as a “community organizer,” and scholastic terms at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard that remain shrouded in mystery. The primary qualification supporters offered for Obama’s candidacy was his compelling life story, as packaged in 850 pages’ worth of the not one but two autobiographies this seemingly unaccomplished candidate had written by the age of 45.

Yet we now know that this life story is chock full of fiction. Typical and disturbing, to take just one example, is the entirely fabricated account in Dreams from My Father of Obama’s first job after college:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told me how they expected me to run the company one day. . . . The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors — see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand — and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve. . . .

As the website Sweetness & Light details, this is bunk. Obama did not work at “a consulting house to multinational corporations”; it was, a then-colleague of his has related, “a small company that published newsletters on international business.” He wasn’t the only black man in the company, and he didn’t have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie on the job, or conduct “interviews” with “Japanese financiers or German bond traders” — he was a junior copyeditor.

What’s unnerving about this is that it is so gratuitous. It would have made no difference to anyone curious about Obama’s life that he, like most of us, took a ho-hum entry-level job to establish himself. But Obama lies about the small things, the inconsequential things, just as he does about the important ones — depending on what he is trying to accomplish at any given time.

In the above fairy tale, he sought to frame his life as a morality play: the hero giving up the cushy life of the capitalist “enemy” for the virtues of community organizing. But we’ve seen this dance a hundred times. If Obama wants to strike a connection with graduating students in Moscow, he makes up a story about meeting his “future wife . . . in class” (Barack and Michelle Obama met at work). If he wants to posture about his poverty and struggle in America, he waxes eloquent about his single mother’s surviving on “food stamps” so she could use every cent to send him “to the best schools in the country” (Obama was raised by his maternal grandparents, who had good jobs and were able to pull strings to get him into an elite Hawaiian prep school). If he wants to tie himself to the civil-rights struggle of African Americans, he tells an audience in Selma, “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma . . . so [my parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born” (Obama was born in 1961, four years before the civil-rights march in Selma — by which time his parents had divorced and his mother was planning a move to Indonesia with the second of her two non-African-American husbands). If he wants to buy a home he can’t afford, he “unwittingly” collaborates with a key fundraiser (who had been publicly reported to be under federal investigation for fraud and political corruption). If he wants to sell a phony stimulus as a job-creator, he tells the country that Caterpillar has told him the stimulus will enable the company “to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off” (Caterpillar’s CEO actually said no, “we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again”).

The fact is that Obama’s account of his background is increasingly revealed as a fabrication, not his life as lived; his utterances reflect the expediencies of the moment, not the truth. What is supposed to save the country from fraudulence of this sort is the media. Here, though, the establishment press is deep in Obama’s tank — so much so that they can’t even accurately report his flub of a ceremonial opening pitch lest he come off as something less than Sandy Koufax. Astonishingly, reporters see their job not as reporting Obama news but as debunking Obama news, or flat-out suppressing it. How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in 2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem, displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos?

The aforementioned Indonesian interval in Obama’s childhood is instructive. Obama and the media worked in tireless harmony to refute any indication that he had ever been a Muslim. It’s now apparent, however, not only that he was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world’s most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia.


Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met — just as she had met Barack Sr. — when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.

Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child — he’d have been only Ann Dunham’s child.

In any event, the records of the Catholic school and the public school Obama attended during his last year in Indonesia identify him as a Muslim. As Obama relates in Dreams from My Father, he took Koran classes. As Obama doesn’t relate in Dreams from My Father, children in Indonesia attended religious instruction in accordance with their family’s chosen faith. Moreover, acquaintances recall that young Barry occasionally attended Friday prayers at the local mosque, and Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s half-sister (born after Lolo and Ann moved the family to Jakarta), told the New York Times in a 2008 interview, “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” In fact, back in March 2007 — i.e., during the early “Islamic ties are good” phase of Obama’s campaign — the candidate wistfully shared with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof his memories of the muezzin’s Arabic call to prayer: “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.” Kristof marveled at the “first-rate accent” with which Obama was able to repeat its opening lines.

The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the “Obama as Muslim Manchurian Candidate” canard. Obama was only ten years old when he left Indonesia; there is no known evidence of his having made an adult choice to practice Islam, and he is a professed Christian. The point is that he lies elaborately about himself and plainly doesn’t believe it’s important to be straight with the American people — to whom he is constantly making bold promises. And it makes a difference whether he was ever a Muslim. He knows that — it’s exactly why, as a candidate, he originally suggested his name and heritage would be a selling point. Obama’s religious background matters in terms of how he is perceived by Muslims (Islam rejects the notion of renouncing the faith; some Muslims, like Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, make no bones about regarding Obama as a Muslim; and — as the mainstream media took pains not to report during the campaign — it is suspected that significant illegal donations poured into the Obama campaign from Islamic countries and territories). Obama’s religious background also matters in terms of how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world.


While it is all well and good to belittle the birth-certificate controversy, without it we’d know only what the media and Obama himself would tell us about his multiple citizenships, which is nothing. As noted above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a citizen of Kenya (a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That’s something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama’s shocking 2006 conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don’t know about his Kenyan citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.

By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistan he took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.

There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question is: Why don’t the media — the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin’s Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records — want to dig into Obama’s background?

Who cares that Hawaii’s full state records would doubtless confirm what we already know about Obama’s birthplace? They would also reveal interesting facts about Obama’s life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn’t the press once in the business of interesting — and even not-so-interesting — news?

And why would Obama not welcome Hawaii’s release of any record in its possession about the facts and circumstances of his birth? Isn’t that kind of weird? It would, after all, make the whole issue go away and, if there’s nothing there, make those who’ve obsessed over it look like fools. Why should I need any better reason to be curious than Obama’s odd resistance to so obvious a resolution?

There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.

But we should know. The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).






By the Editors


The Senate Gang of Six may make some marginal improvements to health-care legislation, such as the elimination of a government-run “public plan” and of the tax increase on high-earners. The downside of these changes is that they may help Obamacare to pass with bipartisan applause for the supposed reasonableness of the Senate negotiators. Conservatives should not be fooled and should not stand down. Even without the public option and the surtax, Obamacare would cause a huge, hard-to-reverse reduction in the quality and affordability of health care — and would represent a setback to free markets and conservatism, as well.

The public option is certainly a weakness of the current House Democrats’ bill, one that could destroy the private-insurance market over time. But the rest of the bill takes the same federal-government-knows-best approach. It uses mandates on employers and individuals to force tens of millions of Americans to buy the level of insurance coverage the federal government demands. For those who cannot afford this level, it offers subsidies in the form of a new entitlement. And it increases the federal role in telling doctors and hospitals what constitutes appropriate medical practice.

The mandates — effectively, they are taxes — will reduce wages, limit new hires, and increase prices. The subsidies, enormously expensive from the outset, can be expected to grow with time to cover a larger and larger share of the population, just as Medicaid has done, and for the same political reasons. And having the government dictate medical practice worsens care and will inevitably lead to rationing.

Even without the public option, liberal health legislation fails the basic tests laid out by President Obama himself. He has called for universal coverage and reduced costs. But requiring people to purchase health insurance, even with subsidies, does not mean that all people will have health insurance, as Massachusetts residents have recently learned. The Congressional Budget Office reports that even the government-run option would leave us with 17 million uninsured. Meanwhile, it is getting harder and harder to find anyone who can repeat the administration’s lines about “bending the cost curve” with a straight face.

If Obamacare is enacted without a new surtax, its immense costs will lead to tax increases soon enough. If it is enacted without a public plan, the federal government will nonetheless be paying a bigger and bigger share of a larger and larger number of people’s health-insurance bills. What we have here, in other words, are amendments that change the speed rather than the direction of the legislation.

And it is premature to celebrate even a modest victory. The public option may yet resurface in a new guise. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in his usual bumbling way, has previewed the subterfuge: “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” Changing the name on the government-run option will not make it any less government-run. Conservative arguments have made great headway in making the Democrats defensive about a public plan. But removing a single objectionable feature from Obamacare does not make the overall package any less intrusive or ineffective. It’s still a pig, even if the Democrats have started taking out their lipstick.





July 27, 2009


Minimum Wage, Maximum Trouble


by James Sherk

Imagine a small-business owner trying to survive the recession. What would he do if hiring workers suddenly became more expensive? What would you do? This is not a hypothetical question. The federal minimum wage automatically increased from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour on July 24 — the last part of an increase Congress passed two years ago.

Few small businesses, though, have the profits to pay higher wages.

So most will lay off some workers and cut the remaining workers’ hours to keep their costs down. Unemployment among low-skilled workers has risen even more sharply than overall unemployment. Now, thanks to Congress, even more entry-level workers will receive pink slips.

That wasn’t the goal when Congress passed the minimum-wage increase. At the time the economy was doing well and Congress wanted to help low-wage workers get ahead. Why not require employers to pay them more? Unfortunately Congress cannot re-write the law of unintended consequences. Businesses don’t pay workers more than the value they add to their company. An employer will not hire a worker for $7.25 an hour if that worker adds only $7 an hour to the company’s revenue. Businesses that did so would quickly go out of business. Employers will respond to this minimum-wage increase by laying off all their unskilled workers who produce less than $7.25 an hour.

Economists have documented this painfully well. Many studies show that increasing the minimum wage by this amount causes businesses to cut employment of low-skilled workers by roughly 2 percent.

Unemployment hurts even in a good economy. In the middle of a deep recession, it causes particular harm. Almost one in 10 Americans lack work, and unemployment has risen even more for unskilled workers. Nearly one in four teenagers looking for work cannot find it, and more than one in seven adults without a high-school diploma lack jobs. Less skilled workers usually have higher unemployment rates than their more skilled peers, but not this much higher. Congress shouldn’t do this in the middle of a deep recession — especially since it will stall the eventual recovery. Unemployment has risen so quickly because business investment has dropped sharply, and with it new job creation. Companies that are not investing or expanding do not need to hire more employees. Consequently workers who lose their jobs have much greater difficulty finding new ones.

Unemployment will not fall until businesses resume investing in new enterprises. Ask yourself: Will raising the minimum wage encourage or discourage such investing? Will it encourage or discourage entrepreneurs from starting new small businesses? Raising the minimum wage now will help keep unemployment among unskilled workers high.

This creates a long-term problem for them. Few Americans work for the minimum wage very long. They are entry-level jobs that offer inexperienced workers on-the-job training in essential work skills: interacting with customers, co-operating with co-workers, and accepting direction from the boss. As minimum-wage workers become more productive, they earn higher wages. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. A higher minimum wage doesn’t just price some unskilled workers out of a job today. It prevents them from gaining the skills that would allow them to earn more in the future. Research shows that higher minimum wages reduce worker’s earnings a decade later. Minimum-wage jobs are more valuable for the experience they offer than the low wages they pay.

Good intentions aside, minimum-wage supporters cut off this bottom rung of many workers’ career ladders.

Policy-makers can argue whether trading higher wages for some against lost jobs for others makes sense in normal times. But even minimum-wage supporters should recognize that the American economy cannot afford to lose more jobs right now. Congress should put off this final minimum wage increase until unemployment among the most affected workers falls back to average levels. Now more than ever, small-business owners shouldn’t have to worry about who they will lay off, and whose hours they will cut, in order to make it through the recession.

James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at The Heritage Foundation.

First Appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat


Hello world!

August 4, 2009

From its recent inception, the objective of The Unrepentant Patriot email discussion group has been to promote useful, fact-based discourse in the wake of the 2008 elections, as a great many Americans harbor grave concern for the survival of the American Republic in light of Barack Obama’s elevation to highest office and the nascent domination of both houses of congress by leftist ideologues.  We feel that we have assumed the mantle of “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, and that it is incumbent upon us as patriotic citizens to support the new administration in policies and initiatives that flow from a constructionist view of the Constitution, but also to ardently oppose in a “grass-roots” fashion any attempts to impose legislation or executive orders that contravene, subvert or otherwise sidestep the tenets and precepts codified in that document — the cornerstone of the very philosophical foundation of our society, and consequently the fount from which all liberty and justice for all of human civilization have flowed for over 200 years.


Our discussion group now includes thousands of adherents from across the United States and beyond.  If you’ve been receiving our email blasts, it’s because we believe you are a like-minded constitutionalist and that you will therefore benefit from our discussions, and know others who will also.  And even if you don’t share our opinions on these issues, we still welcome your thoughts, as it’s important to consider all aspects of the challenges our nation faces, and constructively debate their possible solutions.


We’re now taking the next logical step in the evolution of our organization: The creation of this blog to further perpetuate our discussions and offer other avenues for debate and propagation of the truth.  Founding Father Samuel Adams said it best: “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin” (and hey, who knew he’d end up making such a darn good beer too?).


Our nation is poised at a critical juncture in its history.  We hover on the cusp of either a momentous stand for the principles that have made us mankind’s freest, most prosperous, most generous and egalitarian society, or a tortuous and unredeemable slide into the abyss of socialism and authoritarianism, the very sociopolitical system against which we as a people have stood in fierce opposition since Marx and Engels’ unholy union at the Café de la Régence in 1844 gave rise to the conception, birth and afterbirth of philosophies that have led to the oppression, torture and murder of over 100 million people in the last century alone.


It is in this spirit of patriotic devotion to protecting our American Republic against “conquest from within” that we invite you to join our fight.  It is said that “Nero fiddled while Rome burned”, but I, for one, will not sit idly by while the “Shining City on a Hill” that I have risked my life to preserve for the inheritance of my daughters is laid waste by foolish, profligate and nefarious politicians and special interest groups.  I CHOOSE TO FIGHT!  I’m persuaded that we can count on you to “stand in the gap” with us in defense of freedom, liberty and justice for all.


NOW is the time for us to act.  Tomorrow may be too late.



May God save our Republic,


The Unrepentant Patriot