Sam on Bob Harden Stress and CBT

Saturday, November 27, 2010

My Experience with TSA in Orlando!

We just returned from a Western Caribbean cruise aboard the Carnival Dream.
http://newsfromcarnivalcruiselines.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/carnival-dream-rendering.jpg

We docked at Port Canaveral and were driven to the Orland airport for return to Naples.

I have a pacemaker implanted in my chest so I never go through the scanners.  I gave the TSA agent the universal sign language that I was a pacemaker passenger and was taken out of line for the full physical body search as usual.

I was wearing my Navy Aviation baseball cap.
The TSA Officer said, "I see you are a veteran."  I replied "Yes, and I am also a member of the Association of Intelligence Officers and I know what we are up against.  It isn't just a small minority.  It is millions of religious fanatics who obsessively scheme to kill Americans.  I am glad you are on the job and exercising your duties professionally."

When the officer finished he said "God bless you ,sir and thank you for your service to our country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Support for terrorism: All the Muslim populations polled display a solid majority of support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they have confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging between 8 percent (in Turkey) to 72 percent (in Nigeria). Likewise, suicide bombing is popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13 percent (in Germany) to 69 percent (in Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest that terrorism by Muslims has deep roots, and will remain a danger for years to come.
One in eight UK Muslims world wide 'support terrorist attacks.'
A recent European poll found that 65% of Palestinians "support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe." (Fafo-Norwegian-based NGO, in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 23, 2005) This strong support of those who would destroy America came in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual US aid to the Palestinian alliance and was documented before the US announced a freeze in funding, after the election of the Hamas government.



A document, which was produced by officials from MI5 (British Intelligence) and the British Home and Foreign Offices, entitled "Young Muslims and Extremism" and drawn up for the prime minister by officials at the Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, also states that anecdotal evidence suggests that up to 13 per cent, or 208,000 of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims, defended the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, while only 26 per cent feel loyalty toward England. That is not a tiny minority.
Muslim support for terrorist attacks against civilians


Jordan: 88% sometimes or rarely, 11% never


Lebanon: 58% sometimes or rarely, 33% never


Pakistan: 44% sometimes or rarely, 35% never
Source: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics


http://pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=233177


Saturday, November 27, 2010

BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Supremes challenged to put Constitution above TwitterCase questioning eligibility says
facts don't support Obama story

Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern



By Bob Unruh



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily


The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.

The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.

He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on many other federal officers.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.


Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.

The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.

It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.

"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.

It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .

"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.

The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:


"Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"


"By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"


"In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"


"Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"


"Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren't allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson's handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.

Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.

The district judge also remarked "sarcastically" that there may be as many as a "couple of dozen" people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don't believe Obama's birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.

"In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing," the pleading explains.

"The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an 'unthinkable' notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen's right to access to the courts," the case pleading continues.

The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have "held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here," it said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.

The case focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas....

CAIR's headquarters in Washington, D.C., just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided "ample evidence" to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.

According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in "a conspiracy to support Hamas," a federally designated
terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more
than 100 U.S. citizens.

The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites "ample evidence" that CAIR participated in a "criminal conspiracy" led by the Holy Land
Foundation, Hamas's main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the
judge refused CAIR's request to strike its name from documents listing
it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

"The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas," Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.

 
The evidence includes documents introduced by the government showing CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas' U.S. wing, known as the "Palestine Committee." In addition, FBI wiretaps and agent testimony have placed both Ahmad and CAIR's acting executive director – Nihad Awad – at a secret meeting last decad with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. Meeting in a hotel room,
participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicidebombers and their families as charity.

 
CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad, who arranged and led the secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia

"The attendees agreed not to mention the word Hamas but to refer to Hamas as 'Samah,' which is Hamas spelled backwards," Solis said. "The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the
Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting
Hamas in the future."

 
During the meeting – which was organized and led by CAIR founder Ahmad – the Hamas operatives agreed to form CAIR as an outwardly benign front group skilled in media manipulation. "They did not want to be
viewed as being aligned with terrorist groups," he said.

 
The judge did not dispute "press accounts and blog entries" that "CAIR is a criminal organization that supports terrorism," according to the ruling.

The government's evidence undermines CAIR's public face as a "civil-rights advocacy organization," while corroborating the findings of the bestselling book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld
That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The book chronicles the
undercover investigation of P. David Gaubatz and his son, who interned
at CAIR's national headquarters.

 
CAIR has sued the Gaubatzes for trespassing, but has not denied any of the book's explosive findings tying CAIR closer to terrorism.
According to Politico.com, a federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR emerging from the Holy Land trial, while also reviewing the thousands of pages of evidence gathered in the "Muslim Mafia" investigation. Prosecutors subpoenaed the evidence shortly after
the book was published last fall.

 
CAIR, which has not been charged with a crime, denies allegations it works for Hamas – even as it refuses to condemn the terrorist group by name.

"CAIR is not a front group for Hamas," insisted CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, "or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with."
CAIR maintains it is simply a Muslim-rights group, but the Justice Department says it is a front group not only for Hamas, but for its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood – a worldwide jihadist
movement that prosecutors say has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on
the U.S.

 
"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists," said assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a separate court filing.

 
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, implicated in a major terror case, shakes hands
with undercover intern Chris Gaubatz at CAIR headquarters in Washington.

 
In 2007, U.S. prosecutors first named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their
families. A jury in 2008 convicted the charity and its leaders on all 108 felony counts.

 
"CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization – a conspiracy from which CAIR never
withdrew," said assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.

The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it is not a terror front.

"Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," advised assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 
Media outlets – including Fox News, which is financed by the same Saudi prince funding CAIR – continue to invite Awad and other CAIR leaders on the air to argue against airport profiling and other issues
on CAIR's agenda. Fox has offered CAIR guests full segments unopposed by critics and without viewer caveats regarding CAIR's court-documented terror connections.




DRAGNET 2010 - Obama gets questioned by Joe Friday!

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

Rest of story: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232073

Sunday, November 21, 2010

The Night Watchmen - A wonderful illustration of your Government at work!

The Night Watchmen

A wonderful illustration of your Government at work!


Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.

Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"

So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions,

and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?"

So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies, and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?"

So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an Administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $180,000 over budget,

we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in...

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn’t think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...

the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??
It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-77, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2010 -- 33 YEARS LATER --
AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR.

THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES;

AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD

AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, Yes -- good ole bureaucracy.
AND, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE,

AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?


HELLOOO!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

Congressional Reform Act of 2010




1. Term Limits.


12 years only, one of the possible options below..


A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms


2. No Tenure / No Pension.


A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.


3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.


All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.


4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.


8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.


The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.




Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.




If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

IT HAPPENS EVERY FRIDAY! WERE YOU AWARE?

IT HAPPENS EVERY FRIDAY! WERE YOU AWARE?

Mornings at the Pentagon

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a year long tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30.. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

"Did you know that?

The Steady Drip is back in business and we are back home!

Friday, November 12, 2010

This Blog and the Blogger Are on Vacation!

My son, who is looking for an excuse to take advantage of Florida's "shoot to kill" law, will be keeping an eye on things.
Does This Document Make Me ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (or get a passport to go on a Dream Cruise?)
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-this-document-make-me-eligible-to.html
Bunny and I are about to leave on an all expense paid CARNIVAL DREAM CRUISE , compliments of Shaklee Corporation.
The link below shows features the ship, the largest and newest in the Carnival fleet. Length: 1,004 feet
http://www.carnival.com/cms/fun/ships/carnival_dream/default.aspx?shipCode=DR
Click this link above to see a virtual tour of our destination!

Monday, November 1, 2010

When Republicans Win, What Then?

If Republicans Win, What Then?
November 1, 2010 by Bob Livingston


If actual election-day results confirm conventional wisdom and House — and maybe Senate — Democrat majorities are swept away like yesterday’s trash, Republicans will have every reason to be giddy. Constitutionalists, conservatives and Libertarians, however, should temper their enthusiasm.

That’s because Republicans have not yet shown they understand what the original Tea Parties — that is those not co-opted by selfish, big money or globalist interests — stood for, nor have they shown they appreciate the mood of the country. This misunderstanding was made manifest in the Contract with American 2010 that House Republicans released in September and are now touting as their action plan if they gain the majority.

This attractive position paper with a fancy cover, lots of photographs of the Statue of Liberty, politicians, Mt. Rushmore, horses, town hall crowds and elegant buildings and monuments, and filled with highfalutin language is simply a propaganda piece designed to appease the simpletons. Republicans understand that Senate Democrats will filibuster sound legislation and Obama will veto whatever they manage to get passed. In other words, the Contract is classic political doublespeak.

While some of the ideas it contains are good first steps — repeal Obamacare, get the government out of the mortgage business by cutting off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, extending the current tax rate and requiring the Constitutional authority for each new bill to be cited — others demonstrate the progressive mentality that has infected the GOP — and all of Washington D.C. One of these is the pledge to cut spending back to 2008 levels.

Two thousand eight, you’ll recall, was the last year of “compassionate conservative” President George W. Bush’s term. With the help of six years of a Republican-controlled Congress and two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents that preceded him, including Lyndon Johnson, according to Veronique de Rugy of the George Mason University Mercatus Center.

“During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent,” de Rugy writes.

So what the Republicans pledge to do involves rolling a massively over bloated, overregulated, profligate government back to a hugely over bloated, overregulated profligate government. And while the Contract talks in nebulous terms about cutting back on regulations and eliminating fraud and waste, it says nothing about eliminating unConstitutional government agencies, repealing unConstitutional laws, eliminating (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve, requiring the President to prove his Constitutionally-required eligibility to hold office or defunding the offices of Obama’s dozens of unconstitutional czars.

Nor does it mention ending the permanent, ineffective and fabricated war on terror, except to say that it promises to pass “clean” bills to fund the troops. In essence, Republicans are promising more of the same never-ending, undeclared wars foisted on us by the last four Presidents and funded by fiat, and apparently a Republican Congress intends to continue abdicating its responsibility by allowing the military invasion of the Middle East to continue — and even plans to expand it by strengthening sanctions against Iran.

Those who predict such things anticipate a Republican gain of at least the 39 House seats they need to take the majority… and perhaps a gain of as many as 60. Some are even throwing out numbers like 70 to 100. In the Senate, the Real Clear Politics average gives Republicans 45 seats and Democrats 49, with six races too close to call. In other words, a Republican-controlled House is as safe a bet as there is in politics. But a Republican-controlled Senate is a long shot that would either require all six of toss up races to break for Republicans, or a major surprise to occur in one or more of the leans- or likely-Democrat seats.

With all the Tea Party-backed candidates invading the “hallowed” halls of Congress come January, Representative Ron Paul (D-Texas) — the man establishment Republicans love to hate — is going to have a lot of company and prospective new House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is going to have a lot of headaches. But at least Boehner has been on board endorsing Tea Party candidates.

Not so Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He’s as firmly entrenched an establishment Republican as there is, having been in the Senate since 1984. He endorsed Rand Paul’s Kentucky primary opponent Trey Grayson. He’s not been very receptive to the Tea Party message and, like most of the rest of the Republican establishment, sees Tea Party candidates as a threat to the status quo. It’s going to be interesting to see how he’s able to lead should the Democrat collapse become complete and Republicans win control of the Senate.

For McConnell, keeping the likes of new Republican Senators such as Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Colorado’s Ken Buck, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Utah’s Mike Lee, Alaska’s Joe Miller, Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, West Virginia’s John Raese, Washington’s Dino Rossi, Florida’s Marco Rubio and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomy in Republican lockstep will be akin to herding cats — and probably as successful.

In other words, Tea Partiers and Constitutionalists, tomorrow is just a first step. While the election will probably derail — or at least slow — Obama’s Marxist agenda, there will still be a lot of work to be done. First, establishment Republicans must be held to their promises in the Contract. Second, establishment Republicans have to be willing to work with their newly-elected brethren by putting them into leadership positions and listening to their ideas — particularly those ideas that got them elected. Establishment Republicans must realize that if they don’t embrace the new batch of Representatives and Senators then there will be more establishment seats on the chopping block in two years.

And finally, the new batch has to stay true to the principles they espoused on the campaign trail. If they betray their voters their terms will be short indeed.

It will behoove the establishment to understand once and for all that the Tea Party is not interested in Republican Party insider politics as usual and has no interest in playing their silly political parlor games. Karl Rove and his establishment ilk can denigrate king-and queen-maker Sarah Palin and Tea Party favorites like O’Donnell and prove their own irrelevance and allow the Republican Party to die, or they can embrace Tea Party candidates and change the GOP’s paradigm.

Tea Partiers are fed up with politics as usual and are clamoring for a return to the Founding principles of small government, free markets, sound money and secure borders. The elected class ignores these issues at its peril.