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

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Sean Hannity jealous of Glenn Beck?

Seems so. Megyn Kelly, Greta, Fox and Friends and Brett Baier talked about it. Bill O'Reilly dedicated a whole hour to Glenn Beck's restoring honor rally, but, one host was conspicuously silent on the historic event on Saturday.

Maybe it was because he was on his last leg of his Freedom Concert Tour.

I doubt it; it vaguely got any attention in comparison to 8/28. But, he did tweet: “Had a great weekend on the final leg of the @FreedomAlliance concerts. Thank you all for coming out and supporting the cause!”

Could it be because rumors are floating around that Glenn Beck may be getting a prime time slot? If that comes to pass, consider this: There is a finite amount of prime time on Fox News, if he does get a slot, that means someone has to go. But, for now, it's only a rumor.

Even the other major network news talked about Glenn Beck's rally on Saturday. So, that begs the question: Why didn't Sean Hannity even give a brief mention of it?

Jealousy, maybe? I think so. Not even two years on Fox News and he quickly surpassed Hannity's ratings and is quickly catching up to O'Reilly. I think it's the chalkboard.

As of this month:

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 2,521,000 viewers (624,000) (1,238,000)

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,252,000 viewers (464,000) (875,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity– 1,924,000 viewers (428,000) (907,000)

That's gotta hurt!

Gloria Steinem - About as unenlightened as they get

It is often said that you never learn anything new from someone who always agrees with you. I would like to amend that with, "you also never learn anything new from someone that's uneducated."

Responding to Sarah Palin on Katie Couric's panel of the unenlightened, Gloria Steinem says:

"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't have an abortion."

Really? Says who? Well, Gloria Steinem says and she further states in regards to Carly Fiorina:

"I defend their right to be wrong."

So let me make sure I understand this. If a woman is pro choice and chooses life, then she is wrong and not a feminist?

This ranks right up there with the ten most stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. What I seen from the "interview" with Couric's "enlightened" panel was fear.

Watch these imbeciles cackle. The only thing missing from this "enlightened" panel is a cauldron:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Dial 911 and you may die

Let me ask you a question:

If a criminal targets you, would you rather have a telephone or a gun?

You may say that the government promises to protect you, but, is it an empty one? The short answer is yes. The only guarantee of who will be at the crime scene is the criminal and you, with the forensic team coming later to photograph your body then make a chalk outline.

Let me ask you another question:

If a criminal is looking to target a victim, what's the likelihood that he or she would target someone they think may be armed?

If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answer. This is not to say that a criminal high on drugs, or desperate wouldn't make an attempt, but, what's the likely outcome? People that have a criminal intent don't waste time and will choose the time and place to do their deed and someone bent on committing mass murder will most likely pick a place that is a gun free area, such as a school or mall. So, "gun free" zones are in reality "crime spree" zones.

So here's the rub. Do we allow government to "carefully" control guns, or do we allow law abiding citizens to own them? Or, as the pinhead elitists at the New York Times sees it, "Americans are better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth." Far be it from little ol' me to make an observation, but, NOBODY has the right to deprive the means of someone defending themselves.

I would ask the rhetorical question as to how many school or mall shootings it will take to convince gun control advocates that criminals are not deterred by gun laws. But, it wouldn't do any good. However, I will ask these self appointed intellectuals how we would be better off in a gunless country. Criminals would like nothing better than to live in a society where they have the upper hand.

Since these "erudite" intellectuals seem to have all the answers, they conveniently ignore dozens of studies reviewed by the National Academy of Science and couldn't find one single instance where gun regulations reduced violent crime or murder. As a matter of fact, when Washington D.C. enacted their handgun law, violent crime sharply increased.

So, the next time you hear that another house was broken into in your neighborhood, look at a photograph of a handgun and look at your phone. Then ask yourself, "Which of these poses a better chance of surviving a criminal threat?"

White House to the Netherlands - Thanks, but no thanks

I am of the opinion that presidents get far too much blame for disasters when there's really not much they can do. However, when another country offers their expertise to help and the response they get is, "Thanks, but no thanks" is when the blame falls squarely on the Oval Office.

Three days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and was sent to Davy Jones' Locker, the Dutch offered assistance with as much of their resources and expertise as possible. According to Geert Veeser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks...’”

One can interpret the response from the White House any way they want to. I personally see it as a response of selfishness, in respect to  not wanting to show the world that America is too weak and incompetent to fix the problem ourselves. When not accepting the offer shows just the opposite. After all, and contrary to popular environmentalist beliefs, the Dutch gets most of their energy from offshore oil drilling and are resident experts at building dikes.

The official reason why the White House refused help from the Dutch is the Jones Act, a maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S. flagged ships, which has prevented Dutch ships with equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

And Veeser asked the right question in his response, “What’s wrong with accepting outside help? If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands.” I'm sure that this law could have been thrown out the window on this instance, particularly since hindsight is 20/20.

Then there is bureaucratic red tape. For instance, a Maine businessman by the name of John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn who has more than enough oil containment booms to assist in the effort. With the help of Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Governor John Baldacci, word was sent to the Secretary of Interior and NOAA that John Lapoint and Packgen could help.

On may 24, ABC reported this:

On May 2, Gov. Jindal requested that federal authorities and BP provide three million feet of absorbent boom, five million feet of hard boom and 30 “jack up” barges. Of that, less than 800,000 feet of hard boom has arrived — less than a fifth of the request. About 140,000 feet of that hard boom is sitting waiting for BP to tell contractors where to take it.

“It is clear we don’t have the resources we need to protect our coast, we need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply,” Jindal said today. “Let’s be clear, every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies.”

Lapoint made a risky decision and began manufacturing oil boom, thinking that his company could sell it to help in the containment and cleanup effort. He added shifts and employees, and started cranking out the oil boom right away. It was a huge financial risk, but he also figured that in an emergency of that magnitude, you had to act quickly, and figured that BP and the government would have to act quickly too.

Well, he thought wrong and the risk he took was all for naught. Why? Once again, the White House declined the help.

Oh, let's not forget this:

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt

Doctors and psychologists say that the first step to recovery for an alcoholic or drug abuser is admitting they have a problem, if they don't do that first, the problem will continue and progressively get worse.

So it seems with other aspects of day to day life.

Nearly nine years after the September 11 attacks and the subsequent response in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been twenty four failed or foiled attempts of terrorism in the United States.

December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking radioactive-laced "dirty bomb" to use in an attack against America. Padilla was convicted of conspiracy in August, 2007.

September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda after attending jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with plotting to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.

June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers.

August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up natural gas refinery in Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline, and a refinery in New Jersey. Reynolds was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to bomb New York City train tunnels.

August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.

May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using assault rifles and grenades.

June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men are accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries that run through residential neighborhoods at JFK Airport in New York.

September 2007, Islamic Jihad Union: German authorities disrupt a terrorist cell that was planning attacks on military installations and facilities used by Americans in Germany. The Germans arrested three suspected members of the Islamic Jihad Union, a group that has links to Al Qaeda and supports Al Qaeda's global jihadist agenda.

September 20, 2009, Najibullah Zazi: Authorities arrested a Denver-area airport shuttle driver, his father and another man late Saturday in connection with a suspected plot to launch a terrorist attack within the United States. On February 22, 2010, he pleaded guilty of conspiring to detonate explosives in the United States.

November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan: After entering a reception center at Fort Hood, Texas, he shot and killed 13 service members and civilian employees. He was shot by a Department of Defense police officer and paralyzed from the waist down.

December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: A Muslim Nigerian citizen who attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009.

May 1, 2010, Times Square, Faisal Shahzad: A naturalized Pakistani, authorities have arrested and charged him plotting to explode a massive car bomb in Times Square New York.

The attempted bombing in Times Square sent the state run, lamestream media into overdrive. Senator Charles Schumer stated that it was probably a "lone wolf". Mayor Bloomberg tried to link the attempt to someone with a "political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something." Janet Napolitano said that it was being treated as a "potential" terrorist attack and was probably an isolated incident.

And the state run, lamestream media went even further, absurdly. Contessa Brewer at MessNBC stated, "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country." [audio]. The lunatic fringe bloggers at the Daily Kos took a poll shortly after the event was broadcasted showed that 32% felt it was a tea partier.

When you get down to it, the lamestream media was hoping that the events that took place in Times Square was going to have a Tea Party connection. Now that events have unfolded, will they start back tracking? Not likely, it doesn't fit their template.

All Muslims are not terrorists, but, most terrorists are. The average American gets it, yet many of our politicians and the lamestream media doesn't. Until they admit they have a problem with not recognizing that Muslim extremists want to kill American citizens, it will continue.

Our security agencies have to be right 100% of the time, a terrorist only has to be right once.

Why Arizona did what they had to do

“We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.”
- President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996

Before I launch into my tirade, rant, mantra or whatever detractors will call it, let's review some history on the subject. Before I do, let me make this crystal clear: The United States has the largest mixture of immigrants than any other country in the world and was the vehicle that made it into what it is today. Without immigration, this country would never exist.

Illegal immigration started in the late nineteenth century when a federal law was passed in 1875 prohibiting entry of convicts and prostitutes. The distinction of being legal or illegal immigrant began when President Chester A. Arthur virtually denied all Chinese immigration to the United States and later denying paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering the country.

In 1892 Ellis Island opened and became the port of entry for newly arriving immigrants. When they arrived, they were required to prove their identity then answered a series of questions, find a friend or relative who could vouch for them and scanned for physical ailments; any immigrant who was thought to have an ailment was marked with chalk. If it turned out to be correct, they were placed in a cage. Ellis Island ended operations in 1954 and between the time of opening and closing 12 million immigrants were processed.

For a brief time line of US policy on immigration and naturalization, please visit The Flow of History.

Americans already know that it's illegal to enter the country without permission. What many Americans don't know that it's a misdemeanor on the first offense, due to the fact that they can be returned to their country of origin quickly. If it were a felony, then the offender would have to go through a trial. A second offense, however, is a felony.

Typically there are three ways someone becomes an illegal alien: Illegal entry, Visa overstay and Visa fraud. However, there are more statutes that fall under the umbrella of being an illegal alien:

Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323] - Unlawfully bringing aliens to US and unlawful harboring illegal aliens. Fine: $3,000 for each alien.

Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] - Employing, Recruiting, or Referring Illegal Aliens for Jobs.

Sec. 274C. [8 U.S.C. 1324c] - Illegally Forging Documents for Illegal Immigrants or violate Identity Theft Laws.

Sec. 277. [8 U.S.C. 1327] - Aiding or Abetting Illegal Immigrants.

Sec. 312. [8 U.S.C. 1423] - Legal Immigrants Must Know English, US History, US Laws, and Principles.

Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] - Legal Immigrants Must Display Moral Character and No Crime Record.

Sec. 335. [8 U.S.C. 1446] - Legal Immigrants Must Be Investigated and Screened for past crimes and terrorism links.

Sec. 232 [8 U.S.C. 1252] -It is Illegal For Illegal Aliens to Bypass Medical and Physical Exams for illnesses and infectious diseases.

Sec. 250. [8 U.S.C. 1260] -Illegal Aliens Deported are ineligible for readmission to US Under Current Laws.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32] - It is Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to possess a firearm or ammunition.

Unfortunately, the federal government has been negligent enforcing some of the above mentioned statutes causing Phoenix to be the number two kidnap capital of the world. Moreover,with the drug wars going on just over the border, the fear of it spilling into Arizona is a justifiable concern for citizens and government officials.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik says he'll refuse to enforce the law. Aside from calling it "racist", he also says, "We don't have the manpower for so many arrests, and it would cost taxpayers a lot of money in prosecutions."

Really? I suppose that he hasn't heard of the ICE 287(g) MOA.

Here's the problem. Politicians always make hollow promises in regards to immigration issues during their campaigns, yet never follow through when they get elected. With the crime rates spiraling out of control, the governor of Arizona did what she felt she had to do with 63% of her constituents support.

Why did the governor of Arizona pass SB1070? Because the federal government has done a less then dismal job at doing it themselves.

Let's see what Obama had to say about illegal aliens in 2006:

The Housing Crisis Timeline and Those Involved

"The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people's money. No professional politician is ever actually in favor of public economy. It is his implacable enemy, and he knows it. All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man."

- H.L. Mencken

If you spend more than five minutes listening to radio shows or watching the news, you will eventually hear about the economic crisis we're facing. Continuing to listen, you will most likely hear one side pointing the finger of blame at the other while ignoring where the other three are pointing at.

So, who is to blame for the current economic crisis we're in now? Is it the democrats? Is it the republicans? Was it Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? Alan Greenspan?

The answer is everyone, including those that took out loans that were well above their means. In other words, YOU, if you were on of those consumers that took out loans that were way out of your means.

Did some politicians raise the alarm about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Most certainly as will be noted in the time line.

I have been working on this off and on for over six months to get the information I needed to piece together this time line and those politicians and financial executives that were chiefly involved in creating this mess. I'm sure that there is more to what I am writing here, but, sufficient enough to give a clear picture of what occurred. I'll do my best to cite references, which I'm sure many will dispute. But, remember this: If you dispute it by name calling, I'll kick your account and possibly ban you.

Away we go.

Before we begin, we must go over some 20th Century history. However, let's take a look at the Constitution first.

Article 1 Section 8 (Article 1 refers to the Legislative Branch and Section 8 refers to the powers of Congress)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give powers to Congress to delegate the coining of Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Yet, they did it anyway when the Fed was created in 1910 on Jekyll Island and fully implemented in 1913. Whether you like it or not, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.

Done with the brief history and moving on.

1914: Federal Trade Commission Act was signed into law that prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices.

1933: Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law that separates commercial banks focusing on consumer activities from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers.

1968: Truth in Lending Act was signed into law that required banks to disclose loan terms & fees.

1970: Bank Holding Company Act Amendments allowed commercial banks, via holding companies, to both accept deposits and make commercial loans.

1978: SCOTUS's Marquette decision gives banks the right to make loans in states other than where they are headquartered.

1980: Interest rates rise 13 percentage points in two years, President Carter signs law gutting Glass-Steagall. The measure, pushed through by Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah), destroys usury caps for mortgages and raises standards for prosecuting lenders.

January 1981: Sen. Garn becomes chair of Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee with M. Danny Wall as majority staff director.

1982: Sen. Garn coauthors Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulates savings and loan industry.

And here, in my opinion, is where our economy started to take a nose dive.

1984: Savings and Loans start crashing in Texas as oil boom wanes. More than 1,000 thrifts nationwide will fail between 1986 and 1995, that costs $500 billion, to include $124 billion in taxpayer money.

April 2, 1987: Sen. John McCain meets with federal regulators to discuss investigation of Lincoln Savings and Loan. The owner, Charles Keating, was the McCain business partner and campaign contributor.

September 1987: Drexel Burnham Lambert creates "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOS); securities made up of myriad loans and bonds with different risk levels.

December 9, 1988: Silverado S&L collapses, leaving taxpayers a $1.3 billion liability. Board members included Neil Bush, who engineered loans to friends in what federal Office of Thrift Supervision will call "multiple conflicts of interest." Bush later tells Congress a few of his deals may have looked "a little fishy."

February 6, 1989: President George H.W. Bush bails out S&L industry; among those helped is his son, Jeb, as government takes over most of a $5 million second mortgage on his Miami office building.

September 30, 1995: Congress enacts Truth in Lending Act reform, easing regulations on creditors. This bill was pushed through by Rep. Bill McCollum (D-Fla.), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations to the tune of $136,000 between 1993-94.

December 22: As part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, Congress enacts a measure making it more difficult to sue companies for securities fraud.

August 2, 1996: Office of Thrift Supervision issues rule preempting almost all state laws regulating S&L credit activities.

March 4, 1998: First Union acquires The Money Store, nation's 5th-largest subprime lender.

April 1998: Citicorp and Travelers announce biggest ever corporate merger ($70 billion). This transaction would have been illegal under the Glass-Steagall Act. It's noteworthy to mention that CEO Sandy Weill launches $12 million campaign to repeal law.

June 1998: Conseco purchases mobile home lender Green Tree in $6 billion deal.

July 1999: North Carolina General Assembly throws aside the deregulation trend, passing a landmark measure to curb predatory lending.

November 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act dooms Glass-Steagall, setting off a tsunami of mergers among banks and insurance and securities companies. The chief proponent was Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who received $4.6 million from FIRE sector over previous decade.

June 20, 2000: Treasury and HUD urge the Fed to investigate subprime units of major banks. No action by the Fed was taken.

June 26: First Union closes The Money Store, takes $2.8 billion write down.

December 14: Just prior to Congress taking its obligatory Christmas recess, Sen. Gramm attaches a 262-page amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill. Commodity Futures Modernization Act will deregulate derivatives trading, which caused the Enron disaster, which in turn started a tidal wave of new, unregulated securities.

December 27: American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender required insurance. National Association of Realtors lobbied for it, spending $9 million and making $4 million in contributions.

March 6, 2001: The Federal Trade Commission sues Citigroup and its subsidiaries, the nation's second largest subprime lender. They charged that Citigroup used "systematic abusive lending practices" (ie. predatory lending) involving 2 million borrowers. A year and half year later Citigroup settles for $215 million.

April 6: Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan signals concern with "abusive lending practices that target vulnerable segments of the population and can result in unaffordable payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure."

July 27: Ameriquest chairman Stephen W. Prough tells Congress, urging rollback of subprime regulations. Because, "'Predatory' is really a high-profile word with no definition,"

April 22, 2002: Georgia's new anti-predatory law signed; Ameriquest helps lead campaign against it and announces that it won't do business in Georgia until law is changed. Standard & Poor's refuses to rate Georgia mortgage securities, choking credit supply to state's home buyers; law gutted within a year.

October 7: Swiss investment bank UBS announces that Sen. Gramm is joining it to "advise clients on corporate finance issues and strategy"; he will also lobby Congress, Treasury, and Fed on banking and mortgage issues as industry pushes to eliminate predatory-lending rules.

December 18: Conseco files for bankruptcy, primarily due to its purchase of subprime lender Green Tree.

Continued...


March 2003: HSBC acquires Household Finance, the nation's fourth largest subprime lender.

May 1: New Jersey's anti-predatory lending law signed. Ameriquest and other lenders launch campaign to kill it and Standard & Poor's says it won't rate certain New Jersey securities. The law was gutted within a year.

September 10, 2003: Treasury Secretary, John Snow tells Congress that "We need a strong world class regulatory agency, to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's..." Later in the hearings, Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis..."

January 7, 2004: Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issues final rule to preempt states from applying most of their credit laws to national banks and their subsidiaries.

February 17, 2005: During a hearing in Congress, Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan states, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size, and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes, we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

March 2005: Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) introduces Responsible Lending Act. Supporters of the bill included New Century Financial, the nation's second largest subprime lender. Consumer advocates call it "Loan Shark Protection Act."

April 6, 2005: At another hearing, Alan Greenspan states, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

April 6, 2005 : Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a staunch defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac states, "I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done a incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best housed people in the world. If you look over the last 20 or whatever years they've done a very, very good job."

April 2005: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act makes it far harder for consumers, but not businesses, to discharge debts. Chief sponsor, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

September 1: As housing bubble begins to deflate, administration economist Patrick Lawler announces, "There is no evidence here of prices topping out. On the contrary, house price inflation continues to accelerate."

September 22: Illinois Supreme Court hands mortgage lenders a victory, blowing away a 3% cap on fees for loans with more than 8% interest.

January 23, 2006: Ameriquest settles 49 state investigation into deceptive subprime practices for $325 million.

April 27: Fed chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledges "signs of softening" in housing market, but says a "sharp slowdown" unlikely.

May 25, 2006: John McCain (R-AZ) raises the alarm in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He cosponsors a bill that would further push regulations, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the sheer magnitude of the companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay." It never made it to the floor because all democrats would have voted against it.

July 10: Henry M. Paulson Jr. sworn in as Treasury secretary, leaving job as Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO.

Here's where the economy went into free fall and got us where we are today.

Jan 2, 2007: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) assumes chairmanship of House Financial Services Committee.

January 29: Paulson tells Congress, "One of the pleasant surprises I had coming to government has been the strong economy we have today."

February 22: HSBC's head of mortgage lending business resigns. Its losses reach $10.5 billion.

February 28: Bernanke tells House Budget Committee the housing sector "is a concern, but at this point we don't see it as being a broad financial concern or a major factor in assessing the course of the economy."

February 28: New home sales reported down 20.1% from previous year.

March 12: Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign announces that Sen. Gramm will join it as cochair and economic policy adviser.

April 2: Subprime giant New Century Financial files for Chapter 11 after being forced to repurchase billions of dollars of bad loans.

May 3: UBS shuts down Dillon Read Capital Management, its US subprime arm. GM's finance unit announces deep losses on subprime mortgages. SEC task force begins meeting to examine Wall Street's handling of subprime loans.

June 9: In Wall Street Journal interview, former Fed governor Edward Gramlich accuses Greenspan of blocking a 2000 proposal to increase scrutiny of subprime lenders. Greenspan responds there are "a very large number of small institutions, some on the margin of scrupulousness and very hard to detect when they are doing something wrong."

July 19-20: In congressional testimony, Bernanke cuts growth forecasts for 2007 and 2008, blaming problems in housing market. He then warns that a subprime crisis could cost up to $100 billion.

August 6: American Home Mortgage, one of the largest US independent home-loan providers, files for Chapter 11.

August 16: Countrywide, biggest US mortgage lender, narrowly avoids bankruptcy by taking out emergency $11.5 billion loan.

August 31: Ameriquest goes out of business.

September 14: Sen. Barney Frank in Boston Globe: Mortgage crisis "was in large part a natural experiment on the role of regulation."

September 20: Treasury secretary Paulson tells House Financial Services Committee that "fundamental reappraisals in the pricing and appetite of risk have taken place numerous times...We are in the process of another such reappraisal."

September 30: UBS announces 3rd-quarter losses of $690 million.

January 2008: Number of homes facing foreclosure up 57% compared to same month of previous year. US unemployment rises sharply.

January 10: Cleveland files lawsuit against numerous financial institutions alleging that their activities in connection with securitization of subprime mortgages created a "public nuisance." Currently, litigation still pending.

January 15: Citigroup reports $9.8 billion loss for 4th quarter and writes down $18 billion in subprime losses.

January 22 & 30: Fed makes biggest rate cut in 25 years; 1.25 percentage points, to 3%.

February 6: Longest period of decline in nationwide house prices since 1990.

March 7: Former bosses of Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and Citigroup questioned by a congressional panel about the $460 million in compensation they received between them during 5 years of subprime boom.

March 16: Bear Stearns announces takeover by JPMorgan Chase in Fed-engineered bailout; measure approved by Fed Board of Governors with fewer votes than required by law, under a post-9/11 "national security emergency" exception.

March 25: In speech on housing market, Sen. McCain states, “In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital and financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”

April 18: Jerry Bowyer, chief economist for financial services firm Benchmark, says in New York Sun op-ed that fault for subprime crisis "lies with the small army of hard-left political hustlers who spent the early 1990s pushing risky mortgages on home lenders. And the fault lies especially with the legislators that gave them the power to do it."

April 29: Foreclosure activity reported up 112% from first quarter of 2007.

May 6: Bush announces he will veto legislation directing $15 billion to neighborhoods ransacked by foreclosures. Also threatens to veto legislation to provide $300 billion for struggling homeowners (and force lenders to renegotiate some mortgages) because it would be a "burdensome bailout" that "opens taxpayers to too much risk."

September 15, 2008: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy. Lehman borrowed significant amounts to fund its investing in the years leading to its bankruptcy, a process known as leveraging or gearing.

Despite the fact that MANY of our politicians and lending companies are responsible for our current economic mess, it becomes even more clearer that democrats made every attempt to thwart legislation for more regulation, hide the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were getting out of control, force legislation that allowed consumers to take out loans that lenders knew they couldn't pay back and some outright lying.

On the following page there are several videos that don't lie. What they will show is a clear message that democrats were the chief instigators of this entire mess.

Previous...Continue

Have democrats crossed the Rubicon?

When Roman legions returned to Rome from battle, generals were required by law to disband their armies and disarm before crossing the Rubicon. On January 10, 49 BC, Julius Caesar was having nothing of it and decided to cross over the river starting the invasion of Rome.

When a person or group of people commit themselves and act on a decision we use the euphemism of crossing the river Rubicon, because it is the point of no return.

And the democrat party has done precisely that. From causing the housing melt down, bank bailouts, taking over auto industries to passing Obamacare, the democrats Holy Grail of progressivism, they have crossed the Rubicon and many of them know it and are bailing out like rats on a sinking ship.

Make no mistake. The republican party is just as guilty in much of the economic turmoil we're in, but, democrats have accelerated the problem exponentially. During the Bush years, liberals were yelling of malfeasance, impeach Bush for starting an unjust war, the Patriot Act is being used to arrest Americans, though there hasn't been any evidence of it. The list is endless.

Now that liberals have gotten their wish, though temporarily, critics of the Obama regime have been endlessly berated and called racist and ask, "Where were you when Bush was president?" Well, we were saying something, but nobody was listening. If you were expecting us to launch into venomous and vitriolic tirades, sorry, we conservatives and libertarians don't see the need to act in such ways.

However, since Obama has been in office, he has made the economic situation worse, as well as stepping up combat operations in Afghanistan. You asked us where we were when Bush was causing problems, well, we can ask you the same thing now. Why aren't you yelling from on high about the current situation? Where is the vitriol you showed Bush? Or is that the problem? It's ok because it's a democrat doing it, but not ok if it's a republican.

Oh well, it doesn't matter. Rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Dans le doute, abstiens toi." we're in no doubt now and we are going to do something this November. All we need to do is vote out many of the incumbents and replace them in he House, where the purse strings reside.

Then we can starve these reprehensible bills out of existence.