Stopping the EPA's aggression

Now that the GOP has taken over the House of Representatives, and will most likely take over the Senate in 2012, they appear to be gearing up to reign in the EPA's aggression by using a rarely used law called the the Congressional Review Act. The CRA was created in 1996 that allows Congress to veto regulatory changes that were created in the Executive branch agencies, such as the EPA.

According to GOP lawmakers, they intend to turn the EPA on its ear to include using the CRA. It allows the GOP to do an end run on democrats, because it allows them to skip Senate filibusters; which means that the GOP doesn't have to negotiate with Harry Reid to bring a vote to the floor to secure a 60 vote majority.

Due to the historic upset in the House, it's likely that some democrat lawmakers may support the GOP's efforts in curtailing the EPA's contentious regulations. With a year to go until the next election cycle, many of these democrats are supporting the effort for fear of losing their seats.

Whatever the case is, it seems that GOP lawmakers are prepared to use whatever means necessary to put the out of control EPA on a short leash.

We'll see.

Related stories: GOP plans strategy to stymie EPA

Auto Draft

Auto Draft

Why we need the 2nd Amendment more than ever

If there ever was a reason for needing the Second Amendment more than ever, then look no further than John Podesta. In an interview at the Daily Caller, he suggests that the President should, "use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward." The head of the George Soros funded group, Center for American Progress released a report that the president can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”

This is the early stages used by tyrannical leaders to gain power over its citizens and force their agenda upon them. This is exactly why our Founders put the Second Amendment into our Constitution; in the event the government tried to impose its will over its citizens, they have a means to fight back.

And it also begs the question as to why Podesta feels the need for Obama to use these means to force his agenda on American citizens. If his policies and agenda are going to fix our economy, he certainly wouldn't see the need to use military force to accomplish it. The answer is obvious, once you see who is behind the curtain.

What this report is showing is nothing more than abject fear. Anyone, or any group that recommends using our military to further our government's agenda does so because there is no legitimacy behind it, thus Americans will reject it as was shown on November 2nd.

Now we have Senator Rockefeller issuing a threat to shut down free speech (aka Fox News), via the FCC, which has no authority over cable networks; of course, this won't stop the progressive agenda. In his speech, which you can find on the front page, can be summed up by the old phrase, "The ends justify the means".

Stock up on ammo, folks.

Climategate one year later.

I don't normally repost an article from another website, but, I felt that this particular piece was worthy because it underscores what occurred a year ago and where it may be going now. We rational folk always knew that the anthropogenic global warming/climate change was a hoax and when science colludes with government, disastrous legislation is always looming in the District of Crime we know as Congress. To be sure, Cap and Trade was passed in the House, but died in the Senate.

On November 17, 2009, person, or persons still unknown to this day, "hacked" East Anglia's Climate Research Unit servers and uploaded data to a Russian FTP server and subsequently announced it, via a post at Air Vent. This post went viral within hours and the contents of the file was eventually broken down and posted in a searchable database.

These emails, which contained datasets, should have ended this hoax once and for all. Alas, this wouldn't be the case. However, events on November 2nd, which changed the House of Representatives red, may change the tone and set the course for a proper investigation into these emails.

Courtesy goes to Marc Sheppard via American Thinker.

Excerpt:

It’s been one year to the day since hero or heroes still unnamed and unrewarded bestowed upon the world a virtual dossier, the contents of which should have ended the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate abruptly and evermore.  Remarkably, it didn’t.  Despite the revelations exposed in the now public climate huckster’s handbook, one year later the specter of governance and wealth redistribution both national and international based largely, if not solely, on pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus persists.

By all measures, last year’s U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen was an embarrassing flop for those who again tried to sell an international progressive fund reallocation scheme as the “last chance to save the planet” from runaway climate change.  But with Cancun’s “last chance to save the planet” climate talks just around the corner, the media is working overtime to explain away previous failures as anything other than the product of bad policy toward unproven hazards that they indeed were.

Read the entire article at American Thinker

Obama admin hands out 111 Obamacare waivers

Proof that Obamacare is a jobs killer. Unions and franchises are fighting to get waivers to keep their businesses going as the White House handing out 111 waivers to businesses and companies, so they are not required to have it and escaping any penalties as mandated by the jobs killing legislation.

And locating the list of waivers isn't exactly easy to find, which means staffers buried it deep on the White House website to hide it; you have to click no less than six links to see it.

Proof positive dems heard the message, but ignoring it.

The Republican party got the message on November 2nd and so far appear to be heeding it, as some new Republican faces in the House will be in leadership positions. By contrast, the losing democrats say they got the message, but their actions are saying, "Screw you, America. We still know best."

The Hill reported today that new democrat faces are being sidelined for leadership roles, while the senior rank and file members take them over. Despite the fact that these new faces in the democrat minority haven't publicly complained...yet, there does appear to be some grumbling within. As reported by  The Hill, one democrat aide,, said “We can’t let them sit on the bench for too much longer."

Then there is the battle for minority whip in the House of Representatives between Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn. Wanna bet who will be "sitting at the back of the bus" when it's over?

Let's not forget the worst Speaker of the House in US history. Pelosi's ousting by American voters didn't seep through the botox either; despite losing the Speaker role, she has dug in her heels and will most likely get another leadership position within the hallowed halls of Congress.

If this isn't proof positive that democrats are ignoring the message sent by American voters on November 2nd, then I don't know what else would convince you. They got the message, but, acting like a spoiled brat child, are ignoring it. And they do it at their peril, because the next election cycle is going to be even worse for the dems.

A message for Joe McGinniss: Go pound sand

H/T to Weasel Zippers and a courtesy to Slate

Talk about irony. This dirtbag has shown what it means to be the epitome of what a hypocrite is. Hey, Joe. If you can't take the heat and all that jazz. Talk about being at the bottom rung of evolutional society.

Edward Sabin, COO
Eileen O’Neill, President
The Learning Channel (TLC)

David Zaslav CEO
Peter Liguori, COO
Discovery Comm., LLC

Mark Burnett, President
Mark Burnett Productions

RE: “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” // Invasion of Privacy of Joe McGinniss

Dear Ms. O’Neill, Mr. Sabin, Mr. Zaslav, Mr. Ligouri and Mr. Burnett:

This law firm represents Joe McGinniss. It has come to our attention that the first episode (titled “Mamma Grizzly”) of the above referenced television show, scheduled to air on Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 9:00 PM on TLC, contains unauthorized videotaped images of Mr. McGinniss which were obtained without his knowledge or consent. In addition, you have already placed a video clip containing this image of Mr. McGinniss on your website and it has been picked up and reproduced by the Huffington Post and many other online sites.

Mr. McGinniss was not asked if any production crew could videotape him as he read a book on the secluded deck of the house he was living in at that time. He was not aware that any camera crew was in fact videotaping him. Mr. McGinniss had a reasonable expectation of privacy under those circumstances. The mere taking of the video therefore gives rise to an actionable claim for invasion of his privacy. The publication of the video on your website and in the television show constitutes an additional wrong – the unauthorized use of the likeness of Mr. McGinniss. Finally, the manner in which Ms. Palin describes Mr. McGinniss in the episode is defamatory: Mr. McGinniss has never invaded the Palins’ privacy, contrary to the many statements made by Ms. Palin and her husband, both prior to this television production, and now repeated in the episode referenced above.

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE upon each of you that all images of Mr. McGinniss be removed from any television show produced by any of you, and removed from any website controlled or operated by any of you. If you do not do so, Mr. McGinniss will be forced to pursue all his available remedies. Please confirm in writing by November 12, 2010, to this office that you will remove these images.

Mr. McGinniss reserves all of his rights.

If you would like to discuss any of the above, contact this office.

Very truly yours,
Dennis Holahan

It wasn't a message, it was a repudiation

People in California, Delaware and New York? You deserve everything you get. As for Nevada, what can I say except that Sharon Angle was fighting against the machine.

With still more votes to count, we may see more seats changing hands to Republicans. With a 59 seat pick up, this wasn't a message to Obama and the democrats, it was a repudiation of his agenda. Senate races in Alaska and Washington are still too close to call and still may count towards Republican gains.

And the apparatchik bloggers and the left wing media crowd are already spinning this repudiation of the anointed one's agenda as being ready to "compromise", or "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisanship".

Not quite.

Where was this compromise and reaching across the aisle when the democrats were running things since 2006? They shoved health care down our throats. They passed Cap and Trade in the House. They passed a number of other legislation under the radar and all without compromise or reaching across the aisle.

If there was a message in last night's elections, it was one of no compromise. What's good for the goose...

Obama has two directions he can go, as I see it.

A. ) He can continue to go full steam ahead and fight the Republican led House, in which case he'll try to pin the blame of not compromising on the GOP and try to use it against them during the next election cycle in 2012.

B.) He can move towards the center, as Bill Clinton did. In this case, he'll alienate his far left base even more and dashing all hopes of a second term.

As for those incumbent senators who narrowly won, it certainly sent a message for those who will be up for re-election in 2012. When legislation is passed in the House and moves to the Senate, those senators will be thinking twice before they vote. After witnessing what happened last night, they are not about to rubber stamp Obama's agenda as they did for the last four years, knowing that they may be next for retirement.

What about those democrat senators that vote so close to the Republican line that it's hard to tell what party they are in? My guess is that they will be courted to flip sides. Then there are those two independents. They may caucus with democrats, but, Lieberman is known for voting along Republican lines quite often.

What we need to hope for in this Congressional split is gridlock. In this case, nobody can get things done, thus preventing any of Obama's agenda from getting anywhere. Gridlock is good.

What concerns me at this point are those establishment Republicans who would try to co-opt the fresh faces in the House and the Senate, such as Trent Lott. This cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, then we'll back to where we were that ultimately led to GOP defeat in 2006 when we couldn't tell who the Republicans were.

In closing, I have a message for Karl Rove. Christine O'Donnell may have been defeated, but, if she had not defeated Castle, he would most likely have lost to Coons anyway. What Christine O'Donnell did was galvanize conservatives in Delaware and proved that sticking to those principles can work wonders. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman lost, because they were willing to compromise and that's not what Americans were wanting when they went to the polls last night.

When liberty is threatened, the American people will fix it

"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights."

- Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

Isn't it interesting what happens when Americans feel that their liberty is being threatened. In 1994, it was nothing more than a shift of power. If the GOP gain 55 seats or more in the House, it's a clarion call to our government that the American people has had enough. And if miracles do happen and the GOP takes over both houses of Congress, what kind of message will that be?

But, I issue this warning to the GOP. Screw it up this time and the Republican party is done for...permanently.

And if you think the Tea Party movement didn't have anything to do with it, then you are living in La La Land. Before Obama was anointed, the American people were pissed off at Bush and the Republican party and wanted change; they got it, but it wasn't the change they were looking for. Yes, this mess started during Bush's watch, but, the democrats were in complete control of both houses since 2006. When Obama was anointed, he stated that, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming this great country..."

Yet, those who wanted change didn't ask the obvious question: "If this is a great country, why does it need to be transformed and transformed into what?" It didn't take long for the answer to that question to be fully realized and then Rick Santelli said the words that started a movement.

A great awakening.

And don't kid yourself into thinking that Obama's people will go away quietly. During early voting, the SEIU were already up to their old tricks and will do anything to ensure that they don't lose this year; they have A LOT at stake and they know they will lose it all if their puppets lose.

I'll echo the words of Mark Steyn, "It will be a victory by the margin of lawyer."

America Rising

Many attempts have been made to scrub this video from the Internet. I captured, downloaded and uploaded it to my domain.

Please, feel free to send this page to anyone you know.

America Rising

If the GOP wins both houses, will they impeach Obama?

There is little, if any doubt that the GOP will take control of the House of Representatives on November 2nd. As for the Senate, who knows, they may just take it over as well. Assuming that the GOP does take back both houses of Congress, what is the possibility of impeaching the president?

And the accusations of voter fraud is already being bandied about. Do you think democrat operatives are a bit worried that the President's impeachment is inevitable?

It most likely won't happen. But, let's assume, for the purpose of this missive, that it will. What charges would he be charged with?

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Members of the House would have to determine which of these the president has committed. Assuming that they charge the president with High Crimes and Misdemeanors, what, specifically would those be? Clinton was impeached for perjury, but, he was caught dead to rights when the GOP led House figured out what is is.

But, I digress.

So, what could the president be impeached for? How about offering Joe Sestak a high level position in the White House. When the White House offered Sestak a position in the White House, if he dropped out of the race against Arlen Specter, they violated 18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

This is an impeachable offense. You say, "The president wasn't aware that anyone in his administration did that!"

That's irrelevant, the buck stops with him. And if you honestly believe he didn't know anything about it, then the word naive comes to mind.

Then there is the National Endowment of the Arts. On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other groups of influence in the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.

The use of taxpayer dollars to fund federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the primary strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful. Using government e-mail accounts, or any other electronic means, as well as government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a violation of the law.

To see more violations, read Representative Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

But, impeachment is very unlikely. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

Seeing how it's unlikely that either house of Congress will agree to impeachment, it wouldn't gain enough steam. And, I might add, that it doesn't look promising that the GOP will take control of both houses anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is going through his mind every day as November 2nd gets closer. One congressman has mentioned it already.

At any rate, here's how it works in a nutshell:

Impeachment proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives, where a motion is submitted into Committee describing what specific crime(s) or misdemeanor(s) the president has committed. If the committee votes to accept the motion to impeach, it then goes to a full vote in the House. If the House votes with a simple majority to impeach, then a separate committee of managers or prosecutors is chosen and the procedure then moves to the Senate.

The trial is held in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. After the managers and the president address the Senate, the Senators are allowed to debate the issue. If the Senate votes with a simple majority to convict, then the President is removed; if less than a majority votes to convict then the President is acquitted.

Two top republicans are on record stating that impeachment will not happen. Of course, this was months ago. Besides that, would you really want Smokin' Gaffes Joe Biden running things?

Juan Williams, a victim of left wing tolerance. Watch out Mara Liasson

Now that the story of Juan Williams' firing from NPR has made the media rounds, I'll add my two pence.

“I Always Thought the Right Wing Were the Ones That Were Inflexible, Intolerant”

Well, now he knows better. Since he has been bitten by what amounts to a dog biting its owner, will Juan change his views of who is tolerant to free speech and who is not? He knew his days were numbered when he became a Fox News contributor and NPR was just looking for the right moment to pull the trigger.

And if you think that George Soros didn't have anything to do with it, then you're still blind; dumping $1.8 million into the left wing media isn't a coincidence. Moreover, the billionaire's charity to NPR should be a clarion call to remove federal funding, after all the head of NPR did say that federal funding is minuscule compared to donations and George Soros's grants.

Hopefully the reprehensible action by NPR will be a wake up call to those who thought they were a "diverse" and "tolerant" media organization. Which leads me to this question,

Is Mara Liasson next? She may want to see a psychiatrist.

Here we go again. The misuse of Separation of Church and State

If there is one term in our lexicon that has been misused and abused more often than any other, it's the Separation of Church and State. In a recent debate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell asked Chris Coons where in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state, while the audience laughed, to which the Bearded Marxist replied, "It's in the First Amendment..."

To begin with, the term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; try as you might, you will not find it...ANYWHERE.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn't even imply such a thing. It only states that the federal government cannot favor or establish a national religion, such as the case in Europe where the church is always in the governments business. Because of the dumbing down of children in our nation's schools, a vast majority of Americans don't even realize that, prior to the colonies becoming states, each colony already had an established religion. In fact, when the colonies became states, seven of them still had established religions. Thomas Jefferson was successful at dissolving Virginia's state religion in 1786, other states following suit soon after.

As a matter of fact, While Thomas Jefferson was a state legislator, he tried to pass a bill for a state "day of prayer". When he was elected as president, he was asked if he would do the same thing and he stated unequivocally that the FEDERAL government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

Justice Joseph Story clarified this amendment when he said that religious laws are left to the states,

“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.”

Americans must understand that simply looking at the Constitution isn't enough. They must read the Founders personal letters and arguments when dealing with these matters. For instance, James Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others. In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance", he stated,

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

In other words, if the federal government can establish a national religion, then they will have the authority to force it on others and this was counter intuitive to the stated goal of the Constitution.

How, when and why has this term come to be misused and abused?

For starters, we need to understand where the term came from. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson stated in part,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared that THEIR legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

He was talking about the "state" as a whole in regards to the First Amendment, not the individual states. Recall his attempt at establishing a day of prayer while he was a state legislator and what he said when he was president of the United States. This is where the metaphor of Wall of Separation came from.

Jefferson's terminology was perverted by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 Supreme Court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education. American University professor Daniel Dreisbach asserts that his ruling was due to his anti-Catholicism learned in the Ku Klux Klan. In the ruling, Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1,1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

To read more about this ruling, please visit, Justice Black's bigotry gets misread as Jefferson's belief: scholars challenge the theory of separation of church and state as a mid-20th century myth concocted by ideologues by Larry Witham.

So, the next time you run into another one of these fallacious arguments in regards to Separation of Church and State, refer back to this article.

Tides CEO to FoxNews advertisers: Drop Glenn Beck Or Have Blood On Your Hands

As much as I have disdain for the apparatchiks at the Huffington Post, I think this is worthy of posting.

It would seem that Glenn Beck must be on the right track, or why else would Drummond Pike threaten violence? Allegedly, Pike and his organization were recently targeted by Byron Williams, a mentally deranged nutcase and "assassin" who claimed to be inspired by Beck exposing Tides.

“To say we were ‘shocked’ does not adequately describe our reaction. Imagine, for a moment, that you were us and, had it not been for a sharp eyed highway patrolman, a heavily armed man in full body armor would have made it to your office with the intent to kill you and your colleagues. His motive? Apparently, it was because the charitable, nonpartisan programs we run are deemed part of a conspiracy to undermine America and the capitalist system, which is hogwash.”

Nonpartisan? Yeah, right. I wonder how many Republican organizations they've funded?

So, let me get this straight. This Byron Williams, who apparently is mentally unstable, makes an attempt to assassinate Drummond Pike and blames Glenn Beck? This coming from people who could have easily blamed the hostage situation at the Discovery Channel on Al Gore, but didn't.

Keep it up, Glenn. You know you have somebody cornered when violence is all they have left.

Delaware is a lost cause

Sorry, Christine, but the NRSC is funding races that are tight where the Republican running against a democrat has a chance.

HotAir -

O’Donnell’s comments in her exclusive interview with Fox News followed an offhanded remark she had made in her ninety-minute exchange with Coons: “I’ve had to fight my party to be here on this stage to win the nomination, and to some extent I am still fighting my party.”…

But when this reporter asked O’Donnell herself how she is fighting her own party, the Republican nominee was ready to cite chapter and verse. The Democratic senatorial committee is running ads against me. The Democratic Party is running ads against me,” she said. “The Republican Party on the state level, or on the national level, neither have come in to help me close the gap in the polls. And my opponent, there’s so much to attack him on, yet the NRSC refuses to play, and that, that baffles me. Because he’s a – he’s a sitting duck. There’s a lot to go after him [on].”

Delaware is too blue and like California and New York, it's a lost cause.

AM radio talk shows owe their survival to Rush Limbaugh

If there were a Mount Olympus of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh would be alone at the peak.

One hot summer day, I was driving the 169 mile, one way trek from Fort Lewis to Yakima to meet up with my new girlfriend, who is currently my wife. Not in any big hurry, I decided to take the I-5, I-405 to I-90 East route and about the time I reached I-90 at around 11:00 AM, I had accidentally pressed the AM button on the radio. Not wanting to play around with locating the local classic rock station while driving, I decided to leave it on the current station until I got to the first rest stop.

That was in 1988 and pressing the wrong button planted a seed in my psyche that changed my whole outlook on politics.

Listening to this person just going off on democrats was entertaining, though, I will admit I was 22 years old at the time and didn't have an interest at all in politics. Being in the Army, my life was pretty much laid out and I was on a mission to propose to my girlfriend, whom I only knew for a little over a month.

I had no idea who the person was that was railing on democrats and lauding Ronald Reagan was Rush Limbaugh (aka. ElRushbo, MahaRushie, Americas Truth Detector, The Doctor of Democracy). I was captivated by his rhetoric and even though I had no interest in politics, I agreed with everything he was saying. Odd, I know, but it felt right.

I'm not exactly sure how long he was on when another person got on the radio and began railing against the Republicans. I don't recall who he was, but, at twenty two years old, I needed blood pressure meds every minute I listened. What I do recall is people calling in and just giving this guy Hell; I seem to remember one caller mocking him with the voice of Elmer Fudd and another practically calling him a homosexual; I know now that they didn't have call screeners then like they do now.

About the time I got to the first rest stop, the signal was too weak to hear and I tried locating another station that might have been airing it to no avail.

I was hooked. I listened to Rush as often as I could until I was sent to Germany in 1992 for six years, returning to Fort Carson in 1998 where one of my first priorities was to locate a radio station that aired the talk show and pick up where I left off. Only to go back on another hiatus in 2001 when the Army decided I would make a great drill sergeant; the hiatus was due to the enormous pressures of drill sergeant duty causing a lack of interest. If you were ever a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, you will understand.

What I didn't know prior to 1988 was a law called the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh, AM radio was on life support with the doctor's hand getting ready to yank the plug. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan tossed the Fairness Doctrine into the waist bin, that Rush Limbaugh breathed life back into the nearly dead medium.

I attribute Rush Limbaugh with my current involvement in politics. Now that I am retired from the Army, I can openly voice my views without fear of reprisals. On a side note, ever since Glenn Beck started airing on my local radio station, he has pushed me even farther into politics, as well as my wife of 22 years, who just loves "Glenny".

With about 20 million listeners across the fruited plane, as well as on the Armed Forces Network, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Doctor of Democracy has emerged as the leader of the Conservative MOVEMENT.

Boxer, Waxman, Code Pink treachery heating up

The Daily Caller has finally picked up the story of US senators and their treasonous actions when they gave diplomatic letters to Code Pink anti war activists to enter Fallujah, Iraq with $600,000 worth of aid to terrorists that killed Americans during an operation there in 2004.

The Daily Caller

Two top California legislators are coming under fire after new evidence has emerged that they helped a group of radical antiwar activists cross the Iraqi-Jordanian border in order to deliver aid to families of enemy insurgents in the war-ridden Iraqi city of Fallujah. In December 2004, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D) each sent letters of diplomatic courtesy to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, requesting assistance for members of the radical group Global Exchange and the antiwar group Palisadians for Peace.

After being exposed, Islamic website pulls article showing Senator Boxer aiding Fallujah terrorists

Gateway Pundit is breaking a story that Barbara Boxer approved a Code Pink trip to Fallujah to donate $600,000 to extremists to murder US soldiers

It seems that Code Pink was able to secure diplomatic courtesy letters that allowed them to travel to Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 to donate $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to the people who had killed 51 Americans and wounded 561.

Below is a screen capture of the page that was yanked from the Islamic website after it was exposed. Click the image to enlarge.



The paragraph in question:

Secured diplomatic courtesy letters from US Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Congressmen Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Henry Waxman of California.

It's no secret that Senator Ma'am has very close ties to Code Pink.

Big Sis breaks the deportation record. The silence is deafening in the White House

According to Janet Napolitano (aka. Big Sis), she has broken the record of deporting illegal aliens this year.

She claims that the Obama administration deported 393,000 illegal aliens, breaking the 2009 record of 389,000 and half of the them were criminal arrests. If these numbers are accurate, then she broke Bush's record by 81,000 in his last complete year in office. Not only did she break the deportation record, she claims an audit of 2,200 businesses resulting in 180 criminal charges.

These numbers and results are impressive. But, it begs the question as to why the White House has been silent on these record breaking results. The New York Times had buried the success story so deep, you could only find it by accident.

Could it be that the White House doesn't want to jeopardize the Hispanic vote?

Read the full story at CNS News

Bill Owens (D-NY), I voted 63% of the time with...Boehner?

You just can't make this stuff up. Is this the new democrat strategy? To ride the coat tails of Republicans during the midterm campaigns?

Why doesn't he campaign on Obamacare, which he voted for?

Read the rest at Politico

Rats on a sinking ship. Dems distance themselves from The Anointed One

Ever since the midterm election campaigns started, I have yet to hear one single democrat incumbent air an ad that says they voted for Obamacare, TARP or Cap and Trade. Now, there are some democrats that are doing their best to distance themselves from Obama. Governor Joe Manchin (D-W.VA) is well behind Republican John Raese. In a FoxNews interview, Manchin says he's open to repealing Obamacare and in one campaign ad, it shows him shooting holes in the Cap and Trade bill.

"The president's plan — 'Obamacare,' as it's been called — is far too reaching. It's overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed," Manchin. "If you can't fix that, repeal the whole thing."

So, he was for Obamacare before he was against it? He also claims that he's against Cap and Trade,

"The bottom line is cap-and-trade is dead wrong and President Obama is dead wrong on cap-and-trade."

Apparently, nobody could tell what his position on the jobs killing bill he was on. According to a Hunnington News article, he seems to try and have it both ways,

That's why Governor Joe Manchin's position on one of the most important economic issues facing West Virginia--Cap-and-Trade--is so perplexing. President Obama is a staunch supporter of this effort to cap the amount of carbons used by power plants and other coal-burning facilities, all based on the questionable science of climate change.

Certainly Governor Manchin appeared to be in support of Obama's Cap-and-Trade agenda when he appeared on "Power Lunch," a CNBC talk show, just one day before the 2008 elections.

Sounds like desperation. It also appears that President Obama has all but lost his mojo.

Uh oh! Trouble in Scranton, PA

The lead in to this story sounds like the beginning of a joke, unfortunately, the punch line isn't so funny. It smacks of intimidation, arm twisting and downright thuggery. You would think that if Obamacare was so popular as he claims, bullying hospitals wouldn't be necessary.

Courtesy to American Spectator

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

Hypocrite in Chief? Remember the untraceable, prepaid debit cards in 2008?

The Obama administration has recently made allegations that the Chamber of Commerce has been using foreign money for campaign ads. Despite the fact that this against the law, you will recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign it was discovered that team Obama was accepting untraceable prepaid debit card contributions.

Washington Post - Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Then there's an article that describes Obama using a bogus blog post to make these allegations against the Chamber of Commerce. Of course, when it was pointed out that the blog post was baseless, he seemingly throttled back on the rhetoric.

The Daily Caller - President Obama on Sunday stepped back from categorical charges he made earlier this week that foreign money was funding conservative TV campaign ads, telling a rally in Philadelphia only that such a scenario was possible. The softening of Obama’s language reflects the impact of a Saturday report on the issue by the New York Times, which concluded that charges originally made by a blog run by a Democratic-aligned think tank were baseless.

Yet, speaking to thousands at a rally in Philadelphia Sunday, he had the gall to say, “You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.”

Mike Pence: Odds are looking good of SCOTUS smackdown of Obamacare

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third-ranking House Republican, who serves as conference chairman, said he saw enough votes on the high court to strike a blow to President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

"It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana.

Courtesy The Hill

That's right Michael Mann, science and politics don't mix

Science is a strange area of our world that many don't understand, some don't care and others think they know, but don't. Despite all of that, science is a necessary part of life that has put us in the world we are in today.

The problem comes when science and government collude in order to push legislation. One particular issue that's been at the forefront of Congress is global warming/climate change; a ridiculous notion that the modern human industrial population is somehow responsible for the planet's climate to change.

Climate change/global warming skeptics, which have been likened to Holocaust deniers, have always known that the science was being manipulated, we just never had concrete evidence. That is until last fall when someone had the cajones to swipe years worth of back and forth emails between scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.

One particular scientist came to the forefront of the scandal, who was investigated by Penn State University and was quickly exonerated, wrote a piece on the Washington Post today complaining that politicians need to stop attacking climate change scientists.

If you don't who Michael Mann is, just Google his name with "misused Keith Briffa tree ring data". I'm not going to get into this issue, but, there is no doubt that Mann's conclusions were completely wrong. Whether it was done purposely or not is up to you to decide, but, suffice it to say that the infamous and thoroughly debunked "Hockey Stick" was born out of it. If you want to see the email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann on his "nature trick", click here.

In his WaPo article, Michael Mann bemoans:

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

You're right, Micheal. But, not having a stake in it prevents further grants to continue the man made climate change absurdity.

He further complains:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

You reap what you sow, Michael. I'm sure you've heard of the old saying about sleeping with the devil. As to wrongdoing, the emails make it quite clear what was going on, just looking at the data tells us that. If there wasn't anything to hide, then why force other scientists to use FOIA to get the data?

Continuing on, he talks about his quick exoneration:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Which means nothing. I wouldn't expect anything less of Penn State University to support their faculty members, particularly when it means no more government grant money if they threw you to the wolves. As for the EPA, they have the same agenda as climate change scientists do, so there's no surprise there.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

That's right, Michael. Because the questions still haven't been satisfactorily answered. We all know that it's not the emails in and of themselves, it's the data contained within those emails that screams abuse. Particularly when it's used to sway Congress to pass job killing legislation, like Cap and Trade.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Gee, I don't know Michael. How about REAL questions, instead of the likely softball queries you got from Penn State? You claim Issa wants to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, however, you fail to understand that it's not the research, it's the suspect data that is vomited from it.

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton's attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

That was in 2005 and your point is?

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.

You just had to go there. Remember this from Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This logical fallacy of a weak analogy is how they are trying to steer this issue. During Congressional hearings, it was discovered that the CEO's of big tobacco had lied all along about their research. This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future.

The rest of his article can be read at the Washington Compost

Guess who's coming to dinner? Why, it's your friendly Hamas terrorist.

You just can't make this stuff up.

It would seem that on September 27, the FBI escorted known Hamas operative and and unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, Kifah Mustapha through the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the FBI's training center at Quantico during a six-week "Citizen's Academy", hosted by the FBI as "outreach" to the Muslim community.

According to Diana West at Townhall,

"The plugs had to be pulled on our (watch) system" just to get Mustapha in the NCTC door, Poole, writing online at Big Peace, quoted a Department of Homeland Security official as saying. After all, "the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have."

I searched for that quote on Big Peace and I couldn't find it anywhere. If someone locates it, please send it to me.

To read the full story, visit Diana West's revealing article.

Gloria Allred all but admits her agenda

It seems that Gloria Allred is a glutton for punishment. Greta schooled her, yet again. Once you watch the video, it becomes quite clear what Gloria Allred's agenda is.

“I think she would have been a lot smarter to talk to a lawyer who worried about whether she would be deported than some sort of public statement on someone running for office… You know what Gloria? The first thing for a lawyer to do is to protect the client not throw the client out to the wolves. If you can’t protect the client you shouldn’t do the job… You can’t just keep making this stuff up.”

That's right, Gloria. A lawyers primary goal is to protect the client. Which begs the question as to why you threw her to the wolves when you outed Mrs. Santillan.

This video says it all. NFL flyovers and a message at the end

The message will become obvious at 4:27

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgGXnJ0t-U

Hot off of Gretawire

The Hollywood, publicity hound lawyer, Gloria Allred and Meg Whitman's former housekeeper has filed a $6,210 lawsuit (Yes, you read that right).

As Greta has posted on her blog, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, but, my question is who's paying Gloria Allred's fee? I seriously doubt that she's doing it pro bono, that doesn't appear to be her style.



The moral of the story here seems to be that Republicans should scrutinize everyone before they hire them, particularly if they're running for public office. It seems that if said applicant is an illegal alien and has falsified documents and is hired, they can sue you.

Read more at Gretawire

My understanding - The Nicandra Diaz Santillan, Meg Whitman issue

This is what my understanding of what this issue is. If I have something wrong, please drop me a line.

Five weeks before the gubernatorial election in California, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, a former maid for Meg Whitman, comes out of the shadows and claims abuse (something about not being reimbursed for mileage). Though, nobody is asking how a $23/hour job can be construed as abuse, that's beside the point.

Gloria Allred comes out of thin air and apparently, via a third party, says that she is representing Mrs. Santillan.

Mark Levin is the first to break it wide open when he gets the Hollywood lawyer to come on his talk show, where he excoriates her and eventually gets the name of the lawyer that is representing Mrs. Santillan, who we now know is Mark Van der Hout. Who's he? According to Reihl World View, Mark Van Der Hout is a far left activist lawyer, who's activism goes back years.

From what I'm gathering of this whole thing, it goes something like this:

In 2000, Meg Whitman hires Nicandra Diaz Santillan as a maid for $23/hour. Unknown to Meg Whitman, she entered the country on falsified documentation. At some point in 2008 or 2009 (I'm not sure of the exact date), Meg Whitman's husband gets a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration, which essentially means that the information they have about Mrs. Santillan doesn't match with what they have on record. Meg Whitman's husband writes something on the letter for Mrs. Santillan to resolve it, however, Meg Whitman kept Mrs. Santillan in her employment.

According to immigration lawyers, she did not act unlawfully by keeping the housekeeper employed. Had she done so, based on that letter, Meg Whitman would have put herself in legal jeopardy.

Sometime in 2009, Meg Whitman fires Mrs. Santillan, but, keeps her illegal status to herself. Quite noble, if you ask me.

Now that Gloria Allred and Mark van der Hout has come out to represent Mrs. Santillan, they have put a huge neon sign on her head and have put her and her children at risk of being deported; though ICE has not decided what they are going to do as of yet.

As far as I'm concerned, Mrs. Santillan is being used as a political pawn in a dirty campaign that may ultimately lead back to Jerry Brown. It's just a guess, but 12 million illegal aliens in this country and Mrs. Santillan just happens to come to the forefront in a hot button issue during a gubernatorial race, in California?

Just sayin'

Related articles

Listen: The Great One excoriates Gloria Allred

Watch: Meg Whitman smear attempt blows up in Gloria Allred’s face

A political tsunami in November?

According to a new Gallup poll, it's not looking too good for democrats this November.

On its generic ballot question, it asks, "which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives?" Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%. What's even more interesting is Gallup's numbers on both the high and low end models:

On the high turnout,Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its low turnout Republicans lead 56%-38%.



What these numbers mean is nothing short of a repeat of 1994 and possibly even 1894. Politics being the way it is, as well as the amount of pissed off Americans there are, who knows what can happen.

Read the rest at The Washington Examiner and Gallup

Murkowski threatens Alaska broadcasters

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK - R-ino) threatened Alaska broadcasters not to air Tea Party Express backed ads on the air claiming that they are, "littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations" about her and her write-in campaign.

In a letter to broadcasters sent by Murkowski's attorney, Timothy McKeever on Monday said they are under a "legal and moral obligation" not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express, which is supporting Joe Miller.

The issue is an ad that the Tea Party Express unveiled Monday, entitled "Arrogant Lisa Murkowski -- You Lost!" The ad attempts to portray Murkowski as a sore loser who thinks she's entitled to the Alaska senate seat. The ad also shows that she tried to manipulate the libertarian party and that she didn't earn the seat she currently holds.

According to Murkowski, some friends took it upon themselves to approach the party to see what could be done for her name to appear as a libertarian candidate, which we know was turned down.

According to Scott Kohlhaas, the libertarian parties chairman said that party leaders waited for Murkowski to ask for a ballot line but she never did.

Sen. Murkowski Asks Alaska Stations Not to Air Tea Party Ads

UK eugenesist - Suffering children should be smothered

If this doesn't shock you, then you are heartless.

Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’
She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’

If you can stomach it, read the rest of what this disgusting, reprehensible and pathetic excuse of a human being says - The Daily Mail

Lindsey Graham Betrayed - Obama regime tanks bipartisan shot at Cap and Tax

Courtesy The Daily Caller

In a remarkable story in the New Yorker, journalist Ryan Lizza reveals that President Obama, who frequently complains about the intransigence of congressional Republicans, may have tanked action on one of his top priorities by spurning the pivotal Republican senator negotiating the bill.

Lizza’s story, which provides new details about negotiations between key Washington insiders, threatens to alter the conventional wisdom that Obama has encountered lockstep Republican intransigence at every turn.

In fact, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham spent months negotiating with the liberal Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and the more moderate independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in pursuit of a cap-and-trade bill loathed by conservatives.

Cap-and-trade is one way government could limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions scientists say are warming the planet.

But at a pivotal moment, the White House betrayed Graham by leaking details of the negotiations in a way particularly damaging to Graham politically, Lizza reports.

One Nation Rally falsely claims larger numbers than Beck's Restoring Honor Rally

As Winston Churchill once said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

And it's not bad enough that leftist hypocrites left the National Mall looking like a landfill, as well as disrespecting the World War II monument, now they are claiming that their rally had a larger turnout than Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28 (not 8/29 as Ed Schultz claims). Even more disturbing is why CSPAN decided to use footage from the 8/28 Rally to make it appear as though there were more socialists than there really was.

Far be it from us to make any off the cuff observations, but, it doesn't take a genius to see that by comparing an aerial photo from the leftist, wingnuts at the Huffington Post and one from the Restoring Honor Rally, which was larger.

But, don't take our word for it, use your own eyes.

Below is an aerial photo posted at the Huffington Post. For a larger view click the images

Now, here is a photo from the Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28

Nope...it doesn't take a genius to see which one was larger. Oh, we're still waiting for the satellite photo from Ed Schultz, that'll put the matter to rest. Of course, Photoshop experts need time.

Update: Gloria Allred worked for Brown campaign

Anyone else not shocked?

Courtesy goes to California Watch

Gloria Allred, the attorney at the center of this week's spectacle over Meg Whitman's illegal immigrant housekeeper, spent time working for Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign in the mid-1970s, according to a decades-old article in an American Bar Association magazine.

Allred has downplayed her ties to Brown. But to the Whitman campaign - which released a photograph of Allred and Brown at a C-SPAN panel in 1994 - the celebrity attorney is long-time supporter of the former governor and a partisan Democrat.

It kind of reminds me of the annoying thread you see hanging on a piece of cloth. When you pull on it, the cloth starts to come undone. So it seems with this political dirty trick. Sadly, when it's all said and done, Whitman's former maid will be the one getting the short end of the stick.

Leftists leave our nation's capital looking like a landfill

When people left Glenn Beck's 8/28 Restoring Honor Rally, they left it cleaner than before they arrived. On the leftists 10/2 No Nation Rally, they left it looking something similar to a landfill. Of course, we wouldn't expect anything less from socialist union members.









I mean really? Should anything else be expected from people that don't care about anyone else but themselves?

Meg Whitman smear attempt blows up in Gloria Allred's face

How many cliche's can be used in this smear campaign? How about, stupid is as stupid does?

The recent smear attempt against Meg Whitman (and that's what it is) has blown up in Gloria Allred's face and is quickly unraveling. According to immigration lawyers, Whitman acted within the law by keeping Nicandra Diaz Santillan employed. If she had fired her, then she would have violated the law, the California gubernatorial hopeful would have potentially put herself in legal jeopardy.

What Meg Whitman's husband received is what's referred to as a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration. This letter is to inform the employee that the information does not match and to verify it. Whitman's scrawl on the letter merely indicates that Diaz needed to follow up on it.

However, in light of Gloria Allred's involvement, Meg Whitman's former maid now has a big neon sign on her head that outs her as an illegal alien and potentially puts her at risk of being deported.

Watch Greta literally destroy Gloria Allred:

One Nation astroturf rally a bust?

It was supposed to rival Glenn Beck's 8/28 Restoring Honor rally, but the head of the AFL-CIO Tweeted this image.



Looks rather dismal. Here is a picture from the 8/28 Restoring honor rally and you decide.



Guess they didn't pay union members enough astroturf money to show up.

The Great One excoriates Gloria Allred

The left has always screamed that illegals should be allowed to work freely in this country. Currently there is about 12 million illegal aliens in the US, yet one out of these 12 million just happened to have worked for Meg Whitman, who is currently campaigning for the California gubernatorial race.

So, the question is why aren't the left screaming at Gloria Allred for going after Meg Whitman hiring an apparent illegal alien?

Listen to Mark Levin excoriate Gloria Allred.

Basic performance tuning for your PC

I am often asked, "How do I give my PC a tuneup?" The answer isn't really straight forward as you might expect. All you you need are some simple, free programs and do some house cleaning in the Windows startup environment.

Note: I am assuming that you have a basic knowledge of doing some tasks in Windows.

First, let's get some simple tools.

CCleaner is a free utility that removes temporary (aka junk) files from specific areas of your hard drive, some of which are hidden. To download click here and look on the upper right hand corner of the page. When you install CCleaner, be sure to uncheck the box that asks you if you want to install the Yahoo! toolbar (more on toolbars later).

Once installed, run the program and you should see the below image. Check the boxes as I have done:



Once you are finished, click the "Run Cleaner" button at the bottom right. Depending on how much temp files are on your hard drive will determine how long it will take to finish.

Note: In order to clear the temporary Internet cache files, you must have your browser closed.

Once complete, CCleaner will give a summary:



Next, we need to clean up the registry. The system registry is a sort of database that stores configuration information from file extensions to what programs load into memory after Windows loads. Some companies that make registry "boosters" claim that their software will fix your ailing machine, such as RegCure and UniBlue Registry Booster. However, these programs alter settings in the registry that ought not be messed with. CCleaner, on the other hand merely deletes unused entries.

Now, click the Registry icon in CCleaner. At the bottom left, click on the "Scan for issues" button. Depending on how many unused entries are in your registry will determine how long it takes to finish.

Once complete, you'll see something like the figure below:



Backing up the registry is your option and is not required. I don't do it, but may want to. If something goes wrong, you can reimport them back into the registry. I have yet to see anything bad happen, so you're probably safe not to. Another box will pop up prompting you to either fix one issue at a time (y-a-w-n), or Fix all. Fixing all will remove everything on the screen, which is what we want.

Keep pressing the "Scan for issues" button until it says "No issues found.

Continue...



Now that we're done cleaning the junk out. It's time to look at the startup environment.

Either hold down ALT + CTRL + Delete and let go, or locate an empty area on the taskbar, right click and select Task manager to bring up...you guessed it, the Task manager.



What we're looking for are the processes down at the lower left. So, let's talk a bit about processes.

Processes are what's going on in the background after Windows loads into memory. Some are required, some are not and the general idea is to get them as low as you can. If you look at the system tray in the lower right corner where the clock sits, look at the icons. Those are only some of what's loading that's not needed, with the exception of your antivirus program. Some of them reside in the startup folders, while others reside in the system registry.

Sidebar: There are two types of Windows operating systems, 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64). A 32-bit operating system can only address 3.25 gigabytes of RAM, a 64-bit Windows operating system can address 16 gigabytes.

Now, you may be tempted to open up the MSCONFIG utility, click on the startup tab and uncheck some boxes. This is a newbie way of doing things and will only cause your machine to start slower. Why? Because once you uncheck any of those boxes, the startup mode will change from normal to selective, which is what we don't want. Selective startup literally goes line by line, asking the operating system if it wants to load a process or not, depending on which items that were unchecked or not.

Et tu, Brute: Karl Rove still ain't gettin' it.

Prior to the Delaware primaries, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity that Christine O'donnell was bad for the GOP and couldn't be guaranteed to win in the general elections and Mike Castle was a shoe in. He further stated that her background was 'sketchy' and had a lot to answer for.

For example, Mr. Rove asks: Why did it take her 12 years to pay off a student loan? Why did the IRS come after her?

News flash, Karl! She is one of millions of Americans that struggle to pay off student loans and you blatantly failed to mention that the IRS admitted they made a mistake. Ergo, she's an average, everyday American that many others can identify with.

Let's not forget that Karl Rove has earned the moniker of "The Architect", but, part of that moniker was that he created the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, which currently has a stranglehold on the entire country and is bankrupting our economy. He was also the "architect", along with Ted Kennedy, of the failed amnesty bill.

The problem with Mr. Rove is that he is part of the power complex that's currently in power now and it's being threatened with extinction. Needless to say that Mike Castle's voting record says it all and for Mr. Rove to work on his campaign and try to convince the 9/12 Project, as well as Christine O'donnell to drop out of the race and support Castle speaks volumes.

Sour grapes, maybe? I think so and he needs to get over it. His language about her victory is the very thing that pushed her to the finish line. Americans across the country are very angry at the elitist, power hungry politicians that are in there now.

But, he doesn't stop there.

After Christine O'donnell's stunning upset of Mike Castle in Delaware, Mr. Rove bemoans to Hannity:

"I'm for the Republican, but I got to tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win."

He still ain't gettin' it. He's putting party over principle and that's exactly what Americans are sick and tired of. He further whines:

Hannity: "You may be right in the end, I don't know. We can look into our crystal ball and can say things. I would argue back to you gently that I don't think we can make progress in stopping the Obama agenda with rhino Republicans that, you know are not going to be there when the solid votes are needed."

Rove: "I agree. But we also can't make progress if we have candidates who got serious character problems, who cause ordinary voters who are not philosophically aligned with us to not vote for our candidates out of concern of what they said and what they do."

Character problems? Where was this acrimony when Scott Brown and Joe Miller won in their primaries? Why isn't anything being mentioned about Rangel and his 13 ethics charges, yet still won hands down in his district? Character problems, indeed.

Here's the problem. Karl Rove is a strategist and right now he's feeling the heat from millions of pissed off Americans and he isn't liking it. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to and politicians they elect are not listening to the will of the people. He is part of the Republican party that would rather seize control, conservative principles be damned and this is what Americans across the fruited plane are removing from Washington D.C.

Senator Jim DeMint said it eloquently: "I’d Rather Lose Fighting for the Right Cause"

As Julius Caesar was being murdered by members of the senate, he says to his closest confidant: "Et tu Brute?" What's it going to be, Mr. Rove? Are you going to stand behind Christine O'donnell or are you going to sink the knife into her?

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Better known as the Poverty Pimps

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.

–Charles A. Beard

The Southern Poverty Law Center (aka poverty pimps) is a group of left wing radicals created by Morris Dees in 1971. Their sole purpose is to demonize groups they deem as racist by concocting "hate crimes" for one reason or another. According to Ken Silverstein, even though SPLC doesn't receive government funds, they get their money through direct mailing by hyping hate crimes, yet do virtually nothing for the "victims". [FN173]

On their website, they claim: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."

Really? According to Millard Fuller,

"Morris Dees and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared one overriding purpose: to make a pile of money. We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together we never wavered in that resolve."

So, their sole purpose is to separate wealthy liberals from their money, yet, do nothing to help those that they claim to be representing. It's noteworthy to add that the American Institute of Philanthropy has repeatedly given SPLC an 'F' rating for nearly a decade.

In a Baltimore Sun article, they characterized the SPLC in a not so flattering way,

“Its business is fund raising, and its success at raking in the cash is based on its ability to sell gullible people on the idea that present-day America is awash in white racism and anti-Semitism, which it will fight tooth-and-nail as the public interest law firm it purports to be.”

In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser won a journalism award for a series of damaging investigative articles, titled, A complex man: Opportunist or Crusader?, exposing the unethical fund raising practices of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In 1979, Maureen Bass Dees accused Morris of having a homosexual encounter during their marriage and having sexual relationships with his daughter-in-law and his underage step daughter. According to the file, the primary cause of the breakup was due to his mistress, Vicki Booker McGaha, whom he had a permanent relationship with starting in 1977.

Want to see how well Morris Dees has done for himself all these years, helping the down trodden? Visit his residence.

In 2007, the SPLC presented itself to the public as a non partisan watchdog and publicly labeled the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as a 'hate group'. However, they deliberately withheld the fact that they partnered with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and not one single person in the media investigated it. With the aid of their media allies, the "Stop the Hate" campaign gained steam and eventually gave FAIR the venomous label as a hate group by the SPLC, which gives credence to the allegations that they became NCLR's propaganda arm.

According to SPLC's most recent IRS Form 990, the top ten earners are,

Morris Dees — Founder and Chief Trial Counsel — $348,420
Richard Cohen — President/CEO — $344,490
Joseph Levin — Director and General Counsel — $189,166
Rhonda Brownstein — Legal Director — $179,806
Jeff Blancett — Former COO — $159,301
Teenie Hutchinson — Chief Financial Officer — $155,414
Mark Potok — Intelligence Director — $143,099
Wendy Via — Development Director — $140,428
Mary Bauer — Director Immigrant Justice — $141,484
Jennifer Holladay –Strategic Affairs — $137,900

Not listed is Michael Toohey, the SPLC’s current COO, because he only earns a paltry five figure salary of $89,975.

Continued...



Rather than being an organization that helps the down trodden and mistreated against 'hate groups', the SPLC has done nothing more than exploit the gullible through direct mailing tactics and much like sex, hate sells. According to Dees' former partner, they weren't above unethical practices and "We were not particular about how we did it..."

As one example of blatantly misleading its donors, the SPLC conducted a mailing campaign in 1995 stating that the, "strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history." However, they failed to mention that they were, and still are, the wealthiest 'civil rights' group in America with a bucket of $60 million during that time.

Their tactic is to smear anyone or any group that has a different point of view as racist hate mongers and their latest target is the Tea Party movement, by attempting to link it with domestic terrorism and militia groups. According to the SPLC:

The Patriot movement — largely comprised of white supremacists — was animated in the 1990s by a shared view of the federal government as the enemy and a belief the Federal Emergency Management Agency secretly runs concentration camps.

“The ‘tea parties’ and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, wrote in a piece titled “Rage On The Right: The Year In Hate And Extremism” from the group’s Spring 2010 edition of its Intelligence Report.

Read the rest at the Daily Caller

So, in other words, people that practice their First Amendment rights in regards to smaller government are considered by the SPLC as 'domestic terrorists'? Yet, the mealy mouthed Potok hasn't cited one piece of credible evidence, but, shoots off at the mouth with endless innuendo.