Archive | america new year 2011 podomatic obama texas arizona california liberal socialist united nations militia muslim birth certificate nea education taxpayers magazine news RSS feed for this section
4 Oct


The youth section of Democratic Socialist of America

Democratic Socialist of America
Many members of the Democrat Party (Congress) are members of the Democratic Socialist of America including most members fo the BLACK CAUCUS..


Chapter Details
*Hendrix College (Conway, AR)
Kirk Rodriguez RodriguezEK(at)

*Los Angeles Coalition YDS (Los Angeles Area, CA)
Justin Simons justin.ydsusa(at)

*Wesleyan University (Middletown, CT)
Michael Schwartz mmigielschwartz(at)

*Valencia Community College
Ricky Shea ricky.shea(at)

*Indiana University at Bloomington (Bloomington, IN)
Amber Frost aafrost(at)

*IUPUI (Indianapolis, IN)
DJ Brock dbrock07(a)

*Centre College
Alec Hudson kysocialist91(at)

*Wichita State University (Wichita, KS)
Heidi Cruz curemeheidi(at)
Aaron Rivers commoncrust(at)
*Kansas University (Lawrence, KS)
Jaclyn Sewell

*U-Mass Amherst (Amherst, MA) – Organizing in Five Colleges
Emahunn Campbell ercampbe(at)
Anastasia Wilson anastasw(at)

*Michigan State (East Lansing, MI)
Kendra Lyons lyonske5(at)

*William Paterson University (Wayne, NJ)
Hilary Wietze weitzeh(at)
Alan Stowers ajs898(at)

*Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ)
Andrew Foltz-Morrsion thefomo(at)
Flavio Hickel Jr. anomiecoalition(at)

*New York City YDS (New York, NY)
Chris Maisano cgmaisano(at)
David Yap davidlyap(at)
Maria Svart marisvart(at)
*New School University (New York, NY)
Andrew Bowe andrew.jay.bowe(at)

*Wooster College (Wooster, OH)
Matt Porter mporter12(at)
*Wright State University (Dayton, OH)
Phillip Logan phillip.logan1(at)
*Youngstown State University (Youngstown, OH)
Dan Buckler abuckalypse(at)
* Ohio University
Tyler Barton tb138407(at)

*University of Tulsa
Zachary Hart zachary-harvat(at)

*University of Oregon (Eugene, OR)
Trace Cabot cabot(at)

*Temple University (Philadelphia, PA)
Josh Luther tuc01587(at) ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
*Penn State (State College, PA)
Luis Caza luiscazapsu(at)
*Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)
David Scher dlkscher(at)
*University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA)
Corey Barnes cbarnes(at)


*Sam Houston State (Huntsville, TX)
Ely Dorantes egd001(at)

(PLEASE MAKE NOTE: ALL CHAPTERS RESIDE ON STATE OR PUBLIC COLLEGE CAMPUS. It’s no wonder that the Democrats have always wanted more money for Public Education, they use that money to establish organizations such as this. Like I have said many many times Public Education is nothing more than Democrat Socialist Indoctrination Clinics. link to the THE YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST-have a look around.
This organization is probably one of many left wing Socialist Organizations that are sponsoring the
marches in New York. Communist Van Jones has his finger prints all over these marches as well..



Maria Svart
Her facebook page

YOU can’t tell me the Democrats have not laid down a plan have not established a complete network of undermining our youth and recruiting them int Socialism/Marxism–it is as plain as the nose on your face.. WAKE UP AMERICA THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SOCIALIST/MARXIST PARTY AND THEY WANT OUR COUNTRY ….



13 Jun


America is tittering on the brink we are in the worst Economic downturn in our modern history

Folks we are on the ropes and we Americans we patriots we hard working families we taxpayers KNOW THIS we know our country is under assault from the left from progressives we know that the time is NOW either we take our country back or we see it disappear over the cliff of has been nations-end up on the trash heap of once great nations

It is up to us Americans the care takers of our constitution our country-we either buck up and make things right or kiss our collective ass’s GOOD BYE


8 Feb


Obama and Imam Rauf Connection ?

“911 Mosque Imam Boasts ‘Obama’s Historic Speech In Egypt Came From Me”

‘Obama’s historic speech in Egypt came from me’

In previous reports researched by the Walid Shoebat Foundation, it was revealed that Imam Rauf has made statements in the Arabic language – while appearing on Arabic media outlets – that completely contradict his moderate tone when speaking english, exposing him as a direct supporter of terrorism, both financially and verbally.

So who really was speaking on that historic day of June 4th 2009 in Egypt? President Obama or the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf? (whom is no longer working with the mosque supposedly DD)

The Shoebat Foundation has obtained a shocking audio recording of Rauf’s own voice boasting in Arabic that Obama’s historic speech in Cairo was provided by the Imam’s work with the Cordova Initiative in what the Imam called “The Blue Print” which, according to him, was the solution to the Islamic-American divide. Rauf claimed that Chapter 6 of the Imam’s work engineered by the Cordova Initiative was the construct for the entire speech:

“This is an example of the impact of our work in a positive way to be used by the president.”

“The blue print,” Rauf elaborated, included everything from U.S. policy to Jewish and Christian relations with Muslims.

For an Imam in New York to be involved in the orchestrating U.S. foreign policy is quite the claim. In the recording dated February 5th, 2010 Rauf boasted that:

“We have to look at it [as] how to engineer solutions. At the Cordova Initiative we think of ourselves as an engineering shop. Yes. We have an analytical approach. Our work has been that. IN THE BOOK CHAPTER 6, I WROTE ABOUT THIS BLUE PRINT as to WHAT HAS TO BE DONE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, what has to be done by the Jewish community, what has to be done by the Christian community, what has to be done by the Muslim community, what has to be done by educators, what has to be done by the media.


When you do a job that is very complicated. You ask yourself, what have you accomplished. All these problems can be solved but requires the will to solve it. It requires political will, resources and the right focus. The signs of how to go to the moon was known 200 years ago, but the political will and financial will for it happened during 1960-1961. When John Kennedy said that we will send an American to the moon before the end of the 60’s, he established the financial resources and the political will.”

The story was even collaborated in a written article in an interview with Hani Al-Waziri of Egypt. The clue was revealed while Rauf was answering a question regarding President Barack Obama’s speech in which Rauf replied: “the speech was wonderful and wise in his choice of words, the Prime Minister of Malaysia after the speech disclosed to me that it is now easy for any president of a Muslim country to establish good relations with America, and I AM NOT GOING TO HIDE FROM YOU THAT ONE OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN WRITING THE SPEECH, TRANSFERRED ENTIRE PARTS OF MY BOOK ‘A NEW VISION FOR MUSLIMS AND THE WEST’, which he referred to U.S. interests being compatible with top interests of the Muslim world”.

Rauf did not disclose the name of this speechwriter that included Rauf’s work in president Obama’s historic address to the Muslim world. It is crucial to note that the Arabic version of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book was published in Malaysia titled “A CALL TO PRAYER, FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RUBBLE: ISLAMIC DAWA (SUMMONS TO ISLAM) IN THE HEART OF AMERICA POST-9/11.”

The interview with Hani Alwaziri dated February 7th, 2010 intended to discuss Rauf’s plans for what he terms “American Style Islam” and the Cordova Initiative goals for the U.S. Rauf later stated that his goal was “To establish an American style Islam in the United States” in which he explains his aspiration of spreading Islam in America by using flexibility and molding Islam to become palatable to the American culture while preserving the integrity of Islamic ideology:

“If we look how Islam was spread from Hijaz (Arabia) to Morocco then Turkey, we note that Islam was shaped by the culture and society, hence showing a Muslim version of the architecture and culture and the arts, but with preservation of the framework of belief and worship. We need to provide a GLOBAL ISLAM in accordance with the nature of each society.”

Rauf boasted about his towering structure by Ground Zero as:

“an icon that will make Muslims proud, not only locally but globally.”

His suggestion to Muslims on how to deal with western Christians and Jews was:

“deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.”

He also discussed how he courted Bloomberg and the Jewish Community boards that “we have inroads with the Jewish Community Center”. It is interesting that Rauf stated in Arabic to Hadielislam, another prominent Muslim think tank that:

“people need to use peaceful means to advise the governors and government institutions…we also suggest to the governors and political institutions to CONSULT [MUSLIM] RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND [MUSLIM] PERSONALITIES IN THE FIELD SO AS TO ASSURE THEIR DECISION MAKING TO REFLECT THE SPIRIT OF SHARIAH.”

********THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT************

“FEISAL ABDUL RAUF ‘Obama’s historic speech in Egypt came from me”‘





Welcome our listeners of Radio Hurytna. With you is Hind Bashandy on a special program. Our dialogue today is with the Imam of the largest mosque in the U.S., Al-Farah Mosque in New York. He is the founder of the Institution of Muslim Leaders, considered to be the first organization that brings together leaders from Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds. He also is the founder of the Cordova Initiative which we will get to know more about shortly. He is also the author of Islam, a Search For Meaning in 1996 and in 2000 he authored Islam, the Holy Law and in 2004 he authored What’s Right With Islam, a New Vision for Muslims and the West.

We welcome to Radio Hurytna the distinguished Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, peace be upon you (Salam Al-alyakum) and welcome

Rauf: And peace be upon you. Hind. Thank you.

Hind: We also thank you. I also introduce you to Mr. Hazmi Msalim who will do an immediate translation for us to Arabic if we need it although you do speak Arabic with English of course [smile]

Hind: Your last book What is Right With Islam. It responds to 3 main questions, what is Islam? Why Muslims Hate America? and What is the Solution?

We will start with the second question, Why Muslims Hate America, and I ask the opposite question, why do Americans see us as terrorists or suspicious or they see that we are all Bin-Ladens.

Rauf: The main thing to every nation is national security. When there is a threat, the most important issue is national security, especially to the public. We also in the Muslim world, if anything happens in every country like what happened in Germany or any Muslim country, also in Egypt or any Muslim country like Saudi Arabia for example, it would be important to them of course. If something happens in Egypt for example the Copts or with religious minorities who have the same faith as the Christians in America, it makes them care, they are of the same faith.

What happens from terrorist actions, it causes a national security threat, a threat to them as a community of Americans and Christians. The same with us, when Palestinians are under pressure or attacked we care as Arabs, we feel that we care, we feel attacked as Arabs and Muslims. This is natural. To any community. If something happened to the Bashandy family, aren’t you a Bashandi Hind? [Hind smiles]

Hind: I am Layla

Rauf: Ya Layla. Your family will care. It is a natural human dynamic. What happens between countries, tribes and religious communities? This causes anger and emotional reaction. We have to understand these things; this is the reason why people are afraid.

Hind: Is this the people [Americans] that care or is it the American government that cares?

Rauf: There is no difference, when people feel something, the government feels something. The government is who? The government is also the people. Who is the media? They are the people, the relationship between government and people, they have a seamless relationship. A government worker also has a relationship with the general population. Always what happens to populations the government feels it, and has to react to it.

Hind: Not the opposite? Some say that George Bush is the reason for this hatred, that it’s the opposite, he transferred the hatred to the Muslims, the opposite from when Obama came, they were relieved by good tidings after his speech in Egypt to the Muslim world. People then end up thinking that the American government is the one with the movers and shakers, at least from the perspective of how Egyptians see it.

Rauf: Listen, you have to understand that I don’t like the phrase “American government” or “America” in general as the perpetrator; this way of expression is wrong, even now we use this expression in our communities; we accused Islam as the perpetrator even though Islam is not the perpetrator.

Hind: They are certain individuals to blame.

Rauf: Islam is what you do. You say No God but Allah, perform the prayers, give Zakat, fast Ramadan, go to Hajj. This is Islam. The prophet (PBUH) said, it’s Hadith.

When we say “what is Islam’s opinion”, “what will Islam do for such a case” “what will Islam do in this situation and that” if you ask, “what is the opinion of faith” on a specific situation.

Hind: it’s not people, but what I mean by “American government” is individuals, the governing body.

Rauf: But the governing institution is a concept.

Hind: Ok

Rauf: The government is not the action, an individual is the action. So why is this thinking wrong? What happens to us is this. We ask, “why did America invade Iraq”? America did not invade Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq. People in the Muslim world forget fast how so many people demonstrated against the invasion in New York, hundred thousand demonstrated in Washington, people demonstrated also in Los Angeles demonstrations in New York, against Bush. Bush’s decision to attack Iraq was not popular, it was divisive to the American population. We usually say, “Why America did this and that”. The mistake in that is we think all Americans

Hind: We have a problem of generalization.

Rauf: There is a huge segment of Americans that were against the war in Iraq. The same thing happens in the West. They say “why Islam attacks us” instead of saying “why bin Laden attacked us” they say “why Islam attacked us?” When you think that way, Islam becomes an enemy and this method is dangerous. When you say “government” or “media” it is better you speak regarding specific individuals and make them responsible and not make all the media responsible or all of Islam responsible.

Hind: Let’s talk about a certain individual – Bin Laden. There was a new press release, a tape coming soon on radio, he was saying that he does the attacks on America as a response. Yet America was not satisfied neither the people in Gaza. This type of thinking, we are speaking of this individual who is supposed to be Muslim and supposedly he is giving a certain image for Islam. What is your view on this response? That someone committing these attack operations, like the U.S supports certain things that happen in Gaza or what happens in Israel, so we respond to it in similar operations in America.

Rauf: See again, this is a mistake, for an example, when terrorist operations happen in Egypt for example, we had a terror attack in Luxor a while ago, so what are Muslims doing? They are Muslim and we are Muslim, the ones killed were also Muslim. What happens in Pakistan for example, suicide bombing in Pakistan, Muslims against Muslims, when aggression or attack is from the same religion or different ethnic community, we don’t see it as religious attack from religion or from an outside source, if the attacks come from a different faith, we will accuse this religion or sect as it is the source of the attacks. This is wrong, in the West as in the Muslim world we need to think differently about it, we have to separate between attacks and see what their causes are.

If you and your husband have a dispute, you say “all men are the same” “women are all the same” if [a fight] was between two men, one is white and the other black, you will say all blacks are the same or all whites are the same, in Rwanda between Tutsi and Hutu, it becomes “Tutsi are this way” and “Huti are that way” alright? What happens is tension and misunderstanding. We need to remember to look at the root cause. 99% of conflicts stems from competition for power or something that has economic value.

For example, the problem with Palestine is an issue of Land. The issue is who does the land belong to? If it was between Muslims and Muslims it’s the same. In Ireland between Protestant and Catholic, they had no balance in government and economic parity, economic well being. If you make a balance in the control and resources, this is what? This is the main solution.

Hind: You had an initiative after 9/11, the Islamic Center, it is the New Al-Farah mosque coming soon, close to the World Trade Center, and we would like to know if this Islamic center has been built already, and how was the initiative met with difficulties or was it the opposite that some might say “look here, the Muslims did this to us and we should not have them do this so close [to ground zero]

Rauf: We were concerned from this, but thanks be to Allah, we make good relations with the Mayor. The Mayor of New York Bloomberg. We made good relations with the religious communities, Jewish and Christian, and with the Jewish community board, of course, they say “No No, Feisal is our friend and this project is an important project” even the Jewish community center, we have relations with them, we told them “we want to do this and that” and they said “we will help you”. All this was in the article that was published in the New York Times. So thank God this was very positive.

Hind: Is the center complete?

Rauf: No no, this is a long process. It will be praise be to Allah a structure that will be an icon and the Muslim community will be proud of, not only in America Muslim community in New York but in the entire Muslim world.

Hind: You stated in your book that after 9/11 that even on a personal level, your views and aspirations changed in your life, that you wanted to get deeper in the ideological and spiritual issues, to the extent that you went to synagogues and churches to explain Islam, maybe it was the motive as to why you wrote your last book, tell us how did you change after 9/11?

Rauf: The conditions of my life changed, as a man who was focused on religion and interfaith dialogue, into asking myself the question that I was not able to answer as to what can we do as Muslims and Americans, what can we do as Muslims, Muslim community and the American community who were not Muslim to solve the problem between America and the Muslim world. This of course required me to enter politics and get involved in how to solve the political problem, because the political problems are the biggest source of troubles between the West and the Muslim world.

Hind: The problem is that the Cordova Initiative to better relations between Muslim countries and the West, but in theory it sounds nice, but practically, how do we get constructive steps?

Rauf: The most important way to handle a sickness is to understand what is the sickness. In the beginning we began to analyze the causes between the west and the Muslim world, so we categorized it into four causes. The main cause was the political one, the first one was the Israeli Palestinian conflict. There are other issues, the issue of America and Iraq, the attack invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, there are also others, but these are the most major. The other part of the problem is in Europe, a sociological problem.

In England, France, Holland and Germany, the Muslim community is increasing and the native population is declining. It’s changing the identity of these societies; this is the reason for the problems that we see in Europe in particular. The third part, we might call it the “difference between the western religion or the western thinking and the Islamic thinking, a philosophical and religious category of problems, I don’t mean philosophical only but also ideologically.

The religion in the West is human freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of press, separation of church and state. These are the 4 pillars of the religion of the west. Of course, in the Muslim world, if ask someone, is there a separation between religion and politics?

Hind: This would be Kufr (unbelief) and apostasy

Rauf: I think that more then 90% would say “no no no no we don’t believe in separation of church and state as Muslims” but this is the fear of the West, that we as Muslim we want to…

Hind: To have religion control over politics

Rauf: Yes, as an example you see on some blogs and websites about us Muslims: “O yes, we need to have a Caliphate in America” this scares the West and it feeds the tension, and of course the 4th reason is the amplifying roll of the media; it makes people get very very upset. Assume no one heard of Marwa El-Sherbini in Egypt, assume the media said nothing about her, there would be no reactions in Egypt.

So media exaggerates every problem and makes people react in both east and west. These 4 categories are the source of the problems, so We have to look at it [as] how to engineer solutions. The Cordova Initiative we think of ourselves as an engineering shop.

Rauf: Engineering what?

Hind: You study physics.

Rauf: Yes. We have an analytical approach. Our work has been that. IN THE BOOK CHAPTER 6, I WROTE ABOUT THIS BLUE PRINT as to WHAT HAS TO BE DONE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, what has to be done by the Jewish community, what has to be done by the Christian community, what has to be done by the Muslim community, what has to be done by educators what has to be done by the media.


Hind: [correcting the slip] Obama.

Rauf: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE IMPACT OF OUR WORK IN A POSITIVE WAY. When you do a job, when you do a solution, of course, a very complicated one, so you look at your work “what have you accomplished from what you have done”.

Hind: We are talking of problems that were going for centuries. The Arab-Israeli struggle, or Israeli-Palestinian, we are talking of a problem filled with years. According to you, how long do you think until we have a solution? Long time? Possibly?

Rauf: All these problems can be solved. What it requires is the will, the will to solve it. It requires political will, it requires resources and then the right focus. For example, the signs of how to go to the moon was known 200 years ago, but the political will and the financial support for it, happened in 1960-61.

When John Kennedy said that we will send an American to the moon before this decade, he made the U.S. government put the money behind it, established NASA, the political will and the resources behind it.

Hind: But there are people whose goals are opposite from this.

Rauf: What is happening Hind is that every city and every community is chained with what I call the chains of political correctness, in every place there are things that we cannot speak against it so much even if they are wrong. Why? Because it’s not acceptable in society, so part of what is required is to engineer ways to move against political correctness, and that’s part of our work.

Hind: Good. I hope that many of our listeners read the book, but why most didn’t read the book even though our listeners are mostly Arabs, Muslims and Christians. How do we as Arab peoples better the image and take positive steps to decrease the tensions between Muslims and the West?

Rauf: There are many things we can do. But in my opinion I believe that the first thing we have to do is to exhibit the best ethical values of our faith. Second, to recognize that the Islamic faith is not only worship but how to deal with one another. When Sheikh [Muhammad] Abdo went to France, a hundred years ago, he said a famous saying: “I went to France, there was no Muslims but saw Islam, then I came to Egypt and saw Muslims but without Islam”

Hind: In the Arab countries, we only have an outward show of faith.

Rauf: Superficial religious at first, second we concentrate on worship yet we forget how to deal with one another. What this means is ethics. This is why you see Muslims in the West. They see better ethics in France and Germany, they deal in Islamic ways, they have Islamic ethics there.

This is very important for us. This is why I get questioned: “you say that Islam is the best of all religions, but look at the condition of Muslims, why do you live in poverty and social problems?” So if we can present our communities as “the best of people” [Quran] “you instruct on virtue and instruct against sin” “believe in God”. We do believe in God, but where are our virtues that instruct against sin?

This means what? This means justice, moral values. We have to exhibit great virtue.

Hind: You call of course for reconciliation between religions and you study the dialogue between religions, but you know that with us, we concentrate on Judaism, Christian and Muslim faiths, but we also have other religions – Buddhists and non-religious. How do we deal these? In Egypt we have problems with Bahai community. How do we deal with the other religions that we do not believe in?

Rauf: If you want to win someone over, you need to understand their thoughts. If I was a young man, and want to win the heart of a young lady. The man says things without being sensitive and he offends the lady. Why? He doesn’t think like a woman, if he understood how a woman thinks, he will be more effective, so we need to think of Christians and Jews not from an Islamic perspective.

How do they feel, how do they think, what are there fears and you have to address those and then you can effectively engage. In every society you have special communities, in the U.S. the major communities outside our communities are the Christian and Jewish communities, so our work in America concentrates more on the Jewish and Christian communities, so in India, our relations concentrate more on the Hindus, in Malaysia our work is mostly on Muslim, Hindus and Buddhists, the focus of your work has to focus on the major faith communities.

Hind: We wish that our dialogue could have been extended. We thank you Mr. Feisal for this dialogue and for visiting our studio Radio Hurytna and you have honored us for your visit and we thank you very much.

Rauf: Thank you Hind very much.

5 Feb

Some leaders of Tea Party groups say there are no “sacred cows” when it comes to spending cuts in Washington, and the traditionally Republican Party-protected Department of Defense budget is no exception — while other leaders in the grassroots movement say they are wary of cutting funds necessary to protect the nation.

FreedomWorks’s director of federal and state campaigns Brendan Steinhauser told The Daily Caller his organization has “publicly supported starting with the $100 billion in cuts [Defense] Secretary Gates recommended.”

“I don’t think anyone can agree on one number or amount that needs to be cut, or how much needs to be spent, but I think the idea is that we definitely have to look at it,” Steinhauser said in a phone interview. “We definitely need to cut where there is waste, and maybe force the Pentagon to do more with a little bit less money. I think we’ve proven that, throughout the history of this country, that we can defend this country without spending a trillion dollars per year on defense.”

The federal government spent about $717 billion on defense in 2010. That’s out of about $3.552 trillion in total government spending.

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler agrees with Steinhauser regarding defense spending cuts, saying, “We think they should be on the table like everything else. There are no sacred cows.”

Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell told TheDC that while his group is open to military spending cuts, defense spending is one of the few expenses explicitly sanctioned in the Constitution.

“In general, we think everything is on the table [in terms of spending cuts],” Russell said. “We always think our government, including our military, can find ways to operate more efficiently. With that said, providing a general defense and a strong military is one of the few powers that the Constitution clearly directs our federal government to take control of.”
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said he’s opposed to any cuts to the Department of Defense and aligns more with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Initiative.

“I am very, very strongly opposed to DoD cuts,” Phillips said in an e-mail to TheDC. “DoD has been cut far too much and we have a dangerous world out there. Of course, Obama would like the US to have the military strength of Luxembourg, so I suspect he will be pushing for more defense cuts.”

In an October 2010 report, Heritage, AEI and the Foreign Policy Initiative discredited what they said were military spending “myths,” like about how much of the U.S. budget is actually defense spending. Though defense spending currently takes about a fifth of the U.S. annual budget, entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up nearly 60 percent of it. The think tanks point out, too, that cutting the entire military budget for 2011 would only halve the $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

But some grassroots Tea Party leaders still think the Department of Defense can run more efficiently and cost less. Freedom Works vice president of public policy Max Pappas told TheDC the military is just like any other bureaucracy: efficiency is hard to come by.

“The general theory of the bureaucrat applies: the bureaucrat lacks the incentives and the information necessary to efficiently run his or her operations, and that applies whether you’re a bureaucrat at the Department of Energy of the Department of Defense,” Pappas said in an e-mail. “And it’s no secret that the defense budget is full of projects the Pentagon doesn’t want but that Congressman include to fund projects in their own districts.

If some of that money was cut, and some redirected to other projects the Pentagon actually wants, we’d all be better off.”

((Democrat Socialist have always wanted to cut military spending for the most part they hate the military)) Tea Party Leaders had better watch what they say about our military-they could lose a lot of followers REAL QUICK

The only cut they should make is the “Commander in Chief”!

(Commander in CHUMP)


29 Jan


The Left’s last LIBERAL paradise

Republicans Outnumbered
In Academia, Studies Find

Oh, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: “Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find.”

One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.

Another study, of voter registrations records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger professors, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.

But we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:

Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.

Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.

Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.

UCLA: 141 liberals, 9 conservatives.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004, of the top five institutions in terms of employee per capita contributions to presidential candidates, the third, fourth and fifth were Time Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. The top two were the California university system and Harvard.

But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? “Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice.” That clears that up.

A filtering process, from graduate school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia’s “sheltered habitat.” In a dazzling essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the “first protocol” of academic society is the “common assumption” — that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.

It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, “relevant.” Bauerlein says various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:

Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women’s studies.

This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the “false consensus effect,” which occurs when, due to institutional provincialism, “people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population.” There also is what Cass Sunstein, professor of political science and jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, calls “the law of group polarization.” Bauerlein explains: “When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs.” They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.

When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac. Actually, Richard Nixon’s administration had an even more distinguished academic cast — Henry Kissinger, Pat Moynihan, Arthur Burns, James Schlesinger and others.

Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called “smelly little orthodoxies.”

Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations — except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.

They do indeed cultivate diversity — in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.

written by:George Will
Washington Post Writers Group



This is one political Pearl Harbor that we are not going to let happen.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

written by: Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

27 Jan

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law

Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn’t wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

The proposal, which also is being taken up in a number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to theaffidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

The critical phrases are “natural born citizen” and the requirements of “article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States,” which imposes on the president a requirement not demanded of other state and federal officeholders.


Under Montana’s plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.

“There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president],” Wagner told WND. “The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation.”

Wagner’s legislation cites the Constitution’s requirement that the president hold “natural born citizenship” and the fact that the “military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic.”

But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama’s defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.

“Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution,” says his proposedlegislation.


In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office.

Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe said he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

He described it as a “problem” that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”

“We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session,” he said.

He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns.

“I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign,” he told WND.


Rep. Mark Hatfield has confirmed that he will have a similar proposal pending.

He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year’s session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.

“I do plan to reintroduce the bill,” . “We’ll move forward with trying to get it before a committee.”

In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both houses of the legislature as well as “every constitutional statewide office,” he noted.

“I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation],” he said.

Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot “would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified,” he said.

“My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements,” he said. “This is a first step in that direction.”


A bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation.

Berman’s legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

State Rep. Leo Berman

Berman told WND he’s seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”

“If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we’ll do it in our state,” he said.

He noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn’t want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

“If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he’ll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he’s a natural-born citizen,” he said. “This is going to be significant.”

Berman said he’s convinced there are problems with Obama’s eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama’s eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution’s demands.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America -Patriots

I bet you a dime to a dollar Obama or what ever the hell his name is feeling the heat, Ibet Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are cooking too.

Birthers have stood by their guns for many months now and the above states are leading the way to settle this issue once and for all.

Brack Hussein Obama Jr has tried for two years to keep his birth certificate from Americans and we who have followed this from the beginning have always asked the question “”WHY””” if you or I had to show our birth certificate if asked to prove citizenship I don’t think any of us would have a problem. When I enlisted in the military I had to produce a legit long form birth certificate with raised seal, to verify who I was and that I was a United States citizen.

Why is Obama so adamant about not producing his long form birth certificate, could it be he does not have one, or it will reflect he was not born in the United States, is this the reason.

Well just maybe we will find out and yes if these states get theri respective bills passed, Obama will have to produced his birth certificate before he can run for re-election in 2012.

This is one political Pearl Harbor that we are not going to let happen.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

written by: Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

26 Jan

Restoring the American dream – Republican Contract with America-Newt Gingrich Speaks to 104th Congress

Question to the American people are we like a dog chasing it’s tail?


They came. They voted. They delivered.

The hyperactive new Republican majority in the House of Representatives rammed through most of its 10-point Contract With America in just 93 days–warp speed for an institution long plagued by chronic gridlock.

Exhausted, the representatives paused April 7 to celebrate with a campaign-style victory rally on the steps of the Capitol, where they had unveiled the Contract six months earlier. Then they rushed home for a three-week recess to tell their constituents they had kept their promise to advance the cause of smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes. The Contract made at least a down payment on all three.
Related Results

“While we’ve done a lot, this Contract has never been about curing all the ills of the nation,” declared House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., in a nationally televised speech April 7 marking the completion of the Contract. “One hundred days cannot overturn the neglect of decades.”

After four months of frenetic activity and intense, sometimes bitter debate– especially on welfare reform, tax cuts, and term limits the House Republicans welcomed a chance to recoup and return to their core message: The Contract is just the first installment on a larger plan to restore the American Dream’s tarnished promise of personal freedom, economic growth, and prosperity for this generation and those to come.

Says Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee: “Government is too big for its britches, and we’re not getting our money’s worth for our tax dollars. That’s part of what’s happened to the American Dream. It’s been undermined by huge deficits and debt.”

But not for much longer if the House Republicans pull off the next phase of their revolution: dramatically shrinking most major federal programs, possibly scrapping the income-tax system in favor of a simplified tax system, and balancing the federal budget by 2002. Ending deficit spending, according to one GOP estimate, would be a boon to the economy, translating into a drop of about 2 percentage points in interest rates for such things as home mortgages and automobile, credit-card, and business loans.

For small-business owners like Carol Ball, chief executive officer of Ball Publishing Co., in Greenville, Ohio, the GOP is delivering a message of fiscal and regulatory restraint that is long overdue.

Big government, says Ball, “simply makes everything cost more. It costs more to do business. It costs more to pay people. It costs more to buy supplies. The cost of the paperwork [federal bureaucrats] impose upon us is unbelievable. There’s no such thing as a good regulation in my book.”

“The agenda in the Contract, in many respects, is the Chamber’s agenda,” says Bruce Josten, senior vice president for membership policy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. By overwhelming margins, respondents to a Where I Stand poll in the January Nation’s Business said they support the Contract. “It’s a commitment to the American people and largely reflects the views of business, as the [poll] results indicate,” Josten says.

Ultimately, says House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey of Texas, small firms will benefit handsomely from the Contract’s commitment to less government and lower taxes. Small businesses, he says, “will be greater in number and more successful, as more people are given relief from the burden of taxation and regulation.”

It won’t happen, though, unless the Senate climbs aboard the Contract bandwagon. Senate GOP leaders caution that much of their House colleagues’ handiwork will be altered in the months ahead. And it remains to be seen how much of it will become veto bait for the Clinton White House.

Some key parts of the Contract already have been lost, although perhaps not irretrievably. The term-limits bill fell 63 votes short of the two-thirds majority–290 votes–needed for passage in the House. But it was the first time a term-limits bill had made it to a floor vote in either house of Congress. And the Senate rejected a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution by one vote. Both measures are likely to come up again, however.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have hammered away at House Republicans, contending they have been overzealous in cutting programs for the young, the elderly, and the poor. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans worry that the GOP band in the House is going too far in cutting social programs.

House Republican leaders counter that their actions are being distorted for political gain. “I’m sure you’ve all heard the dire cries that we are going to take food out of the mouths of schoolchildren,” said Gingrich during his April 7 televised speech. “The fact of the matter is that all we did was to vote to increase school-lunch [program] money 4 1/2 percent every year for the next five years and give the money to the states [in block grants] to spend.”

Nonetheless, Republican strategists confidently view their success with the Contract as positioning them to slam-dunk the Democrats in next year’s presidential election. “It’s very simple,” says Ed Miller, senior research analyst for Luntz Research, the Arlington, Va., polling firm that testmarketed the Contract with voter focus groups. “If the Republicans follow through and do what they said they would do, they will be the permanent majority.”

((Written May 1995 posted on American Business))

And then along comes the Democrat Socialist leading the way?

January 5th 2009

Pelosi Cancels the Contract With America

Human Events reports that Pelosi plans to roll back nearly every reform achieved by Republicans over the last two decades dealing with House rules of open and fair debate. Republicans will be completely shut out of the process. Pelosi’s changes “would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress.”

The reforms to be discarded include: “opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the . . . minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.”

The Democrats have now dropped all pretense of bipartisanship (so often hailed during the Bush years) and have but one goal in mind: the consolidation of Democrat power for a generation and beyond. I only hope that Americans will realize who to blame when it all starts to fall apart.

November 2010-
Republicans win back house in a royal ass kicking of the Democrat Party

Nancy Pelosi the insane one is relegated back to bush league,back to minority status
loses her status as Congressional Frequent Flier-on board the Nancy Pelosi 1.

Republicans again will tackle problems they tackled during the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA way back in the 1990’s.

January 26th 2011
Gary Gatehouse poses a

Question to the American people are we like a dog chasing it’s tail?

Seems like the same old rhetoric repackaged by Republicans and Democrats