It's the People's Seat!

Who would have thought it? There actually is a close race in Massachusetts; the Republican candidate has a shot!

The other night, Scott Brown, the Republican candidate running in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy, had a shinning moment during the debate; almost a Reagan moment.

At one point, the moderator turned to Scott Brown and asked him, being that his election could jeopardize the health care bill's passage, would he be willing to be the person who stops the health care bill while occupying "Ted Kennedy's seat". Brown turned to him and strongly answered, "This isn't the Kennedy seat or the Democratic Party's seat. It's the people's seat."

It was the moment any campaign dreams of during a debate; similar to Reagan's "I paid for the microphone Mr. Green."

It showed the candidate's strength and conviction. It showed the people of Massachusetts the clear difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, between a party that celebrates the individual's freedom and a party that believes in oppressive government control.


It brought perspective to anyone who follows politics. Our government was and is meant to be a unusual creature. As President Abraham Lincoln ( a Republican by the way)so eloquently described our government as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". When those words were uttered on the battlefield of Gettysburg, the country was at risk of imploding. The Civil War was raging on, Americans spilling the blood of their fellow countrymen. A end not in sight. The Civil War was about ensuring that America remained a country that cherished liberty, freedom and human dignity.

America is faced with another existential threat. Once again, our liberties are being challenged. This time, thank g-d, the battlefields will be polling sites across the country in 2012. At, the first shot being fired, so to speak, the "shot heard around the world" will be in the state of Massachusetts.

The Democratic controlled government from the president to the congress are ruling this country the way they see fit, with little concern for what the people want. Americans oppose the health care bill as it stands; it passes nevertheless. Desperation swallows Americans as the unemployment rate increases; yet elected officials spend money on "special" projects. Americans are suffering through a recession causing them to be more frugal, yet the government is growing the deficit.


Historic changes are taking place in Washington. Corruption and spending is flying out of control. The very core of the American system of government and even more so, the very fabric of freedom and liberty that defines this country is being attacked by the Democrats. They are ruling this country unchallenged. However, if they loose this senate seat, the seat held by Ted Kennedy, a major shift in power will take place. The "Blue Dog" Democrats will rethink their health care votes.

Whether Scott Brown wins or loses, the fact that it is even close is already a victory. A war is brewing, and Americans are going to side with liberty, personal freedoms, small government, less regulations and commonsense policies. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that means that they loose.

Where is Our Hero?

America is the greatest story ever told, but we are missing our lead character.

Every story has the “narrative arc”. In other words, for a story to be decent let alone great it needs some basic elements of style, some structure; mainly a beginning, middle and an end. The truly great stories that have been told since the creation of the written word have had more than just a flow of events. They are saturated with conflict, opposition, struggle and most importantly resolution, triumph and victory.

But, the drama of those events hinge on the characters in the story.
A great story always has a courageous, self-less hero who sets out to defeat a heinous villain. Is there anything more compelling than a epic battle between good and evil, between annihilation and survival?

The embattled hero is the most beloved character of all time, and he can be found in every variation of storytelling from the bible to hieroglyphics in Egypt; from a elementary school history book to the Loew’s movie theater down the block. He is in comic books and the Disney movies of my youth; he is in the songs song around a campfire; in the lyrics belted out by rock bands. The hero is ever-present in the folklore of nearly every culture, and the story that is America is saturated with heroes.

Our history books are flooded with stories of bravery, courage, vision and ingenuity. The pioneers ventured to this great land at tremendous peril escaping religious persecution in Europe. They struggled and survived through the first vicious winters only to see their families flourish.



Our country was founded by a brave band of rebels; revolutionaries who stood on the battlefield facing the most powerful empire in the known world with little more than a few rifles and raggedy horses.

The curious minds of young student s are filled with images of George Washington stealthy crossing a fog-covered river escaping utter demise at the hands of the British or sitting tall upon his horse surveying the battle camp during the freezing winters; of Thomas Jefferson tirelessly working on a document by candlelight that would forever alter the destiny of mankind.

As young students, we imagine the lanky, tall Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address at a battlefield soaked with American blood.

Immigrants from all walks of life and from the four corners of the earth sacrificed all they knew to come to these shores in search of a new life. And, when opportunities dried up, they moved their families to the great prairies that stretch to the stony Rockies. The spirit of exploration thrived. Thousands of Americans entered the emptiness beyond the Mississippi; an unknown, uncharted land: the Wild West. Fear of Indian raids or the brutality of Mother Nature was not enough to weaken the American spirit of adventure. Who didn’t love the stories of law and order facing down the mayhem of corruption in Tombstone and Wyatt Earp shooting it out at the OK Corral?

One hundred brave Texans stood up to the Mexican army at the Alamo; refusing to let their country down; every last one of them perishing on the dusty courtyard of a old chapel.

Who doesn’t feel a tremendous sense of patriotism when they see video footage or photos of America’s finest young men storming the beaches of Normandy prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice for our country and the cause of freedom?

Neil Armstrong walking on the moon declaring that one of the last frontiers had finally been breached, just as President Kennedy said it would.

Ronald Reagan, standing before a crowd at the gates of ‘the Evil Empire”, demanding that the madness ends and that the wall that represented one of the most murderous governments be torn down.

Of course, who will ever forget the scene of the brave men and women of New York’s police and fire departments running into two towers ablaze on 9/11? And who cannot feel anything but deep admiration, love and appreciation for our troops fighting the War on Terror?

Our pop culture has always tapped into the emotions of Americans with the story of the hero. Countless movies tell of epic battles between good and evil; the power of one on the side of Right against the masses on the side of Wrong. TV shows, songs, cartoons and comic books all retell the story of our hero.

But, being a hero isn’t all that easy.

We want our heroes just, honest, and tough. We want knights of goodwill; people who will fight against evil no matter how perilous the journey, no matter how hopeless the fight, no matter what the sacrifice. We want our heroes to be the ultimate expression of who we are and what we believe in; our ideals incarnate.

People are drawn to the hero because the hero represents everything that we hope is in each one of us. Where we fall short, we want the hero to exist. The fights we are afraid to fight, we want the hero stepping in. The hero is more than a icon, a symbol. The hero is the embodiment of everything we want for ourselves and our families, he believes in the same things we do, he cherishes our ideals, he is willing to fight for the hopes and dreams of us all. He is our amplified voice; he is all we wish to be.

America is more than the sum of its borders; it is a living creature. Freedom and Liberty flows through its veins of democracy keeping its heart, the American people, pumping strong. America has always had and always needs a hero.

Americans love America and all this nation stands for. Even those of us who shy away from the word “patriotic” are patriots deep down. We cherish liberty and freedom and we always have been and we are willing to fight when the existence of those ideals are threatened. Americans are a kind and generous. We despise evil. We have a shared vision for a brighter and better tomorrow for ourselves and our families. We believe deeply in our Declaration of Independence and it eternal proclamation, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We believe in America and all it stands for. We are a proud society. Americans are not willing to settle for mediocrity or second best. We know that we are better than that. Most of us still believe that this is a greatest nation on earth and, as Ronald Reagan described: the last best hope of man on earth. And, no one can tell us differently.

Our culture, our history is filled with folklore; stories about the hero who withstood all opposition, who overcame diversity and brought deliverance to the suffrage. We are our past. We tell the stories not just to hear them, but to relive them. We teach our children history in hope that they will learn more than just dates and names. We celebrate our heroes and our nation's successes so that generations to come will internalize the American character.

We are Americans. We are proud. And we need heroes who will fight for and protect this nation and what it stands for.

We want our politicians, but more importantly ( after all, we need to be realistic), our president to be of such stock. We want a hero in the Oval Office, a guardian of American values, a protector of our hopes and dreams. If you think back to all the men who have occupied the highest office in the land, who comes to mind as great - not good, but great - presidents? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Truman? Reagan? All the great presidents were men who were living heroes; who protected our way of life and fought to keep America the great nation that it is. Sure, there have been other good presidents,fine men. Some of you will count Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Clinton among them and others might be inclined to count John Adams and Jefferson. But, only the heroes have that mystical allure about them and their presidency; only the heroes were great.

Heroes rise to the occasion. Would Lincoln have been Lincoln without the Civil War? Would Reagan have been Reagan with the devastating presidency of Carter or the Soviet Union? Would Washington have been a nameless farmer if not for the Revolution?

Each of these men certainly lived in trying times; moments in this country’s history when hardships were swallowing the American spirit whole. There is a common saying that “the times make the man.” That is certainly true, but the man makes the hero. Tough times are an opportunity and only the hero, the man of integrity, of sound character, of upstanding morals, of vision, of guts can rise to the occasion. Did Carter rise to the occasion during the Iran hostage crisis?

America once again is facing tough times. Everyone is feeling the economic crisis. Countless Americans are losing sleep over their jobs. Our nation was the victim of another attempted terrorist attack this week. Our troops are engaged in a war that spans two countries against a faceless enemy.

We need a hero; a president who could comfort our concerns, someone we can believe when he says he is doing all he can to keep us safe. America needs a leader, a man who can rise to the occasion and carry us out of the devastation of hopelessness that surrounds us.

We need another iconic figure to deliver us from evil, to keep us safe, to ensure us that better times truly are ahead. While so many believed this was going to be Barak Obama, most of us now know what we feared to be true: he cannot and has not risen to the challenges that our country faces. He is not the embodiment of all that makes this country great. He is not a leader, merely a bureaucrat.

As 2010 is gearing up, the eyes of the nation are looking for someone who can fill our void, ease our suffering and make America truly great again. A hero has yet to emerge, and we are waiting.

Americans Agree: Health Care Will Pass This Year; And They Oppose It

A new Rasmussen Poll this week shows a huge jump in the number of Americans who think that health care will pass this year. But, that doesn't mean they like it.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters nationwide now expect that health care reform legislation will pass this year. That’s up from 49% before the Senate passed its version of the legislation on Christmas Eve - and by far the highest level of expectation yet measured.

And, as most of you might have guessed, opposition to the bill still runs strong.

However, while expectations for passage have risen dramatically, support for the plan has not. Just 40% of voters nationwide now favor it while 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This is the sixth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%

When it comes to health care reform, Americans are worried about: costs and quality. And, the current legislation falls short of easing those concerns.

When it comes to the costs of health care, a shockingly low "13% now believe the proposal will achieve its stated goal of reducing the cost of health care."

Well, if something costs more, it's usually because it's better, right? Nope.
Most voters, 54%,"now believe that passage of the plan will make the quality of care worse. Those figures have remained fairly consistent for months."

I have a rule of thumb: if the majority of people share an opinion, that opinion is more likely than not a reality. I am baffled that the "policy makers" in DC aren't wising up to the mood of America.

Read the full Rasmussen Report here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Americans Feel that the Economy Has Not Been Stimulated

A new Rasmussen poll released last week show for the first time that a plurality of Americans believe the stimulus plan has hurt the economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. However, 38% believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy. This is the first time since the legislation passed that a plurality has held a negative view of its impact.

Well this seemed inevitable, I think that there are two interesting points highlighted in this poll.

Firstly, this poll shows a massive move away from Liberalism. Keep in mind, that the Democratic Party and Liberalism has always believed in a massive, central government. The government, according to this ideology, is the cure to all social ailments. Republicans and Conservatism, on the other hand, believes that the government should mind its own business favoring a small, non-intrusive central government. Obviously, I adhere to the latter. After all, all it takes is a visit to the post office or your local DMV to realize that the government is inept at handling anything well. And, it seems that most Americans do not want a large, free-spending government:

50% of voters believe increasing government spending is bad for the economy. Just 28% believe that increased government spending helps the economy.

Concerns about federal budget deficits also play a role in evaluating the stimulus spending. Voters continue to think that the president’s top budget priority should be cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. But they see it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.

Government spending equals a growing government, a more entangling bureaucracy and Americans are getting tired of it.

I believe that these numbers reflect a ideological shift towards Conservatism, even if we don't call it by a name.

This paradigm shift is greatly seen amongst the "unaffiliated" voter.

Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 52% believe the stimulus plan has had a negative impact.

The second interesting point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the "Political Class" and the American public.

The Political Class has a much different view than the rest of the county. Ninety percent (90%) of the Political Class believes the stimulus plan helped the economy and not a single Political Class respondent says it has hurt.

Clearly, the average American, the backbone of our society, the folks who work hard for the money they earn, are unhappy with the economy and, perhaps more importantly, unhappy with the way their government has addressed the issue.

The economy is the number one issue gnawing at the minds of Americans. People are afraid and uncertain. Will they have their job next week or fall victim to unemployment? When their sons and daughters graduate college, will they find a job? Will the economy ever recover? Why is the government spending my tax-payer dollars on nonsense?

As Americans search for answers, the government continuously fails to offer sound minded policies. Americans are saving their money, the government is spending it. And, as a result, Americans are going to be looking for real change in 2010.

I hate to always look at things through a election lens, however, if Americans are fed up, the only thing they can do it vote. If their representatives fail them, Americans need to fire them; vote them out of office. Our vote is our voice and I have a feeling Americans are going to be loud in 2010.

For the full Rasmussen Report, click this link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/december_2009/for_first_time_plurality_believes_stimulus_plan_hurt_the_economy

What Is the Difference Between the House and Senate Health Care Bills?

Most of us haven't read either health care bill that has been approved by the House or the Senate. Beyond being filled with typical ambiguous legislative wording, these bills are monstrosities and they are beyond the scope of the Average Joe.

As Americans, we have the right to know what our elected officials have in store for us; especially when their votes and policy decisions directly impacts the health and well being of our families. Before these bills go to conference, I think it is important to know what the fundamental differences are between these beasts of bills.

The Heritage Foundation, one of the leading and only voices of Conservatism today, has prepared a fantastic, concise paper that outlines these differences.

The giant House and Senate health care bills[1] reflect a common ideological foundation: a profound congressional faith in the efficacy and desirability of federal government control over the financing and delivery of Americans' health care, ranging from federal control over health benefits to the dramatic expansion of government coverage--notably Medicaid--for new classes of American citizens.

Nonetheless, there are consequential policy problems to be resolved. Before a final bill reaches the desk of the President, House and Senate negotiators must iron out these differences and engage in further compromise and concessions. Read the full document: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2740.cfm

Obama: You Don't Want Someone Slick

Obama has been stomping the campaign trail hard for Creigh Deeds, the Democrat in the Virginia gubernatorial race. He made one comment, recently, that struck me as odd.

In describing Creigh Deeds at a rally, Obama seemed to try and convince his audience to vote for the candidate who can offer real solutions, not someone who is merely "slick" looking. Obama's message seemed pretty darn simple: Sure, Deeds might look like a wreck adn his opponent, McDonnell seems well groomed and put together. But, does that really matter? Vote based on the issues! Here is a little of that exchange:

"Are you looking for someone slick?"
The crowd shouts back: No!
"Are you looking for someone who will be fighting for you...I hope you are going to be voting on his track record."

But, Mr. President, and forgive my ignorance, but weren't you viewed as the "cool, hip" candidate in 2008? If I remember correctly, your "style" was part of your whole image, right?

I don't know, maybe my memory is failing me. I just thought the comment was ironic. Check out the video link below.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8930953

War Against FNC, Chamberlain Reborn

When it comes to foreign policy, President Obama has been called an appeaser. If you had any doubt about that being true, look at the president's recent attempt to censor the media and the character it reveals.

In case you missed it, President Obama went to war with Fox News trying to block their access to a White House czar. Fox was triumphant in this little struggle as other news agencies refused to partake in the interview if anyone was banned from access.

So, Obama tried to control the media and silence what the White House considers opposition to their policies. This is exactly what was going on in England during the late 1930s.

One of the most infamous appeasers in the last century was Neville Chamberlain. Fueled by his immense stubbornness, Chamberlain pursued peace at all cost even has the horrors of Hitler's war machine were becoming know. One of the tactics Chamberlain and his government used leading up to disastrous meeting in Munich was to control the press and the information the general public received.

The media has the overwhelming responsibility to deliver the truth. While Chamberlain and his government never officially censored the press, they did all they could to suppress any anti-appeasement sentiment.

Jack Margach, a reporter for The Sunday Times, later remarked in his book The Abuse of Power: The War Between Downing Street and the Media from Llyod George to Callaghan (p. 50):

"From the moment [Chamberlain] entered No. 10 in 1937, he sought to manipulate the press into supporting his policy of appeasing the dictators...In order to cling to power, Chamberlain was prepared to abuse truth itself. He made the most misleading and inaccurate statements, which he was determined to see published so as to make his polciies appear credible and successful. Quite simply, he told us lies."

Officials from Chamberlain's government (Lord Halifax in particular), expressed envy when talking about Hitler's ability to control the German media. The government determined which politicians were able to speak on BBC radio and what exactly they were allowed to say. Controlling the media and determining what people are told, how they are told it and who delivers the message is a central character trait of any politician and/or government blinded by the falsity of appeasement.

America, like the British, are a proud people. We have a heritage soaked with patriotism. Our forefathers waged a revolution that defined the very meaning of liberty and freedom. Most Americans are extremely proud of that heritage and this country's place in history.

Appeasement does not sit well with the majority of Americans. Firstly, we are not nor should we be apologetic of who and what we are as a nation. Our ideals are of the finest; we never have to apologize for what this country stands for. Appeasing dictators inevitably means apologizing for celebrating individuals' freedoms; it inevitably means that we are wrong.

Secondly, while I wish to believe that we are all peace loving, I know that we are not willing to sacrifice security, liberty and freedom for the sake of a empty peace. We are not foolish enough to believe that every world leader values freedom, desires peace or is a rational partner in negotiations. If history has taught us anything at all, is that there are truly evil people in this world and some of those people rise to power.

President Obama, like Chamberlain, is blinded by his childish belief that peace can be achieved. All we have to do is apologize for who we are and compromise what we believe in and than we will all be able to lovingly hold hands. Thankfully, Americans aren't buying it.

The recent attempt to muscle Fox News isn't shocking. The president and his administration were only acting in character with a administration of appeasement.
Over the last couple of months,Fox News Channel and its highly talented staff was the lone voice of reasoning; questioning the ridiculous numbers of White House czars, covering in depth the town hall meetings, releasing real economic figures, and exposing ACORN for the criminal enterprise it truly is. Fox News alone has been the watchdog in the media. Fox News was and is exposing the flaws in this administration's policies. In Obama's mind, they therefore needed to be silent. So Chamberlainean.

Gosh, I'm Annoyed!

President Obama is bothered by all the criticism.

No, not about his handling of the war or his failure to unite the nation under his health care reform effort. Nope, not the summer full of town hall meetings.

What annoys the president the most so far...being criticized for spending over $278,000 of taxpayer money on a date.

The New York Daily News reports:

He told this Sunday's New York Times Magazine the criticism he received for whisking his wife up to Manhattan for dinner and a Broadway play was the single most annoying experience since arriving at the White House
Read more:

Gosh, that is annoying!I would be annoyed too if people were totally overlooking my significant flaws, misjudgments and failures and focusing on a date!

Is Andy Afraid of Rudy?

Yesterday, the New York Post reported that the New York Attorney General and aspiring gubernatorial candidate sent a message to Rudy Giuliani: I'm all in!

The Post reported that:

"The confidential message, conveyed through intermediaries, was delivered to Giuliani recently and is expected to play a central role in the former mayor's impending decision on whether to run as the Republican candidate for governor in 2010, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
It was sent as a courtesy -- Giuliani says he's "friends" with Cuomo -- and as a warning that the former presidential candidate would face a brutal and, according to a dozen recent polls, losing battle against the highly popular attorney general."

It was an interesting move and I would be satisfied with the explanation that Cuomo was courteously giving Rudy a heads up except for one bothersome fact: who didn't know that Cuomo was running for Governor?

Cuomo has made his intentions very clear: he is going to challenge his Party's current governor in 2010, assuming the Governor Paterson chooses to run again. Cuomo has already begun fund raising for his campaign. The potential match up between Paterson and Cuomo even gained national attention when it was alleged that one of the President's political advisers asked Paterson to step down and not run for re-election. And than there was the debate over the Obama hug/snub when he was in upstate New York a few weeks back.

So, again, it is safe to assume that Rudy - and the rest of the nation - has long known of Cuomo's political aspirations. Why, then, the warning, or the heads up, or whatever else you choose to call it?

Cuomo is getting nervous. A primary against Paterson will be ugly, unpleasant ( Paterson is New York's first African American governor) and, most importantly, costly. And, there is a very realistic possibility that it might become a three-way Primary, only complicating Cuomo's life even further.

Rudy is the only New York Republican that can wage a legitimate campaign for the governorship - sorry Lazio, but you ain't got a shot. Rudy might be running behind Cuomo in the polls now, however, if Cuomo gets caught up in a rough Primary, voters' opinions of him will inevitably change and for the worse.

If Rudy does run, Cuomo's life becomes very difficult. When developing a campaign strategy, he will be forced to build up reserves for a legitimate General Election campaign whereas if Rudy chooses not to run, Cuomo can focus a far larger number of resources - both money and manpower - in the Democratic Primaries to ensure his victory against Paterson and whoever else emerges in that contest.

And, while Cuomo is entangled in a brutal battle with his own Party, Rudy can travel the state, build a a robust grass-roots organization, and raise huge lumps of cash( don't forget, the mayor still has a large national donor base from his presidential bid).

If Rudy runs, Cuomo might very well win the Primary but find himself stretched too thin.

This note was a scare tactic. Cuomo knows that his future is jeopardized by facing a formidable candidate in the General Election. Cuomo needs Rudy to stay out of this thing enabling him to go full throttle during the Primary and than coast through the General Election against Lazio. Therefore, in his desperation, Cuomo sent his little note.

Whatever Rudy decides to do, I think it is fair to say that Cuomo is not as confident as some people think; despite the encouraging polls. And, I don't think Rudy is the kind of man that backs down from a challenge.

For Full Article

Isreal Take a Hike, We Love You Iran

It became clear today that America is no longer Israel's close friend and ally.

This morning, the United Nations Security Council voted today on a proposal that demands that Israel give up its atomic weapons, and it passed. Yep, that wasn't a typo. The world has demanded that Israel disarm and face the hungry wolves with nothing but sticks and stones.

And where did America stand on this resolution? Well, last September America opposed a similar resolution that targeted Israel's nuclear arsenal. Not this time. This time, Obama's administration abstained.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens points out that America was strategically motivated.

"...the factors that chiefly seemed to drive the administration's decision to abstain from this morning's vote were more strategic than personal. Western negotiators have been pressing Iran to make good on its previous agreement in principle to ship its nuclear fuel to third countries so it could be rendered usable in Iran's civilian nuclear facilities. The Iranians, in turn, have been adamant that they would not do so unless progress were made on international disarmament." (Read the full artcile here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454782341597654.html)

Than, Mr. Stephens quotes a senior administration official:

"The Iranians have a point...The U.S. can't forever be the enforcer of a double standard where Israel gets a nuclear free ride but Iran has to abide by every letter in the NPT... How can we tell Tehran that they're better off without nukes if we won't make the same point to our Israeli friends?"

Look at what this official is say: Iran has a point? In what twisted version of realty does Iran even have a opinion on the world stage? At what point did we begin taking policy advice from foreign dictators?

The White House should be ashamed. The president's approach to nuclear disarmament is naive, dangerous and irresponsible. Nuclear disarmament has never and can never work. The good guys, the nations that would never think of attacking a foreign sovereignty are always the first to drop their weapons while evil rulers who wish to further their own agenda while destroying anyone in their way simple sit int eh corner snickering with their stockpiles of weapons. Disarmament always leave the innocent vulnerable to the violent attacks of aggressors. Every move that the world has made towards peace has been negotiated through strength.

is Obama foolish enough to think that peace can be achieved in the Mid East if Israel disarms? He cannot be serious!

What would have happened if Ronald Reagan moved America towards disarmament in the early 80s? Hundred of millions of innocent people would be living under the brutal communist regime in Russia. Liberation from fear and the deliverance of liberty to countless millions was only made possible because America became stronger and built up our arms. Reagan knew that you can only negotiate with a bully from a point of strength.

Israel is the only thing that keeps some resemblance of order in the middle east. Iran, Syria and other hostile nations are kept in check from the fear of Israel's might. Israel is the only deterrent in the region. And, I promise you no matter what Iran says over a cup of coffee in front of a fire place and no matter what Israel does, Iran's current regime will never cease to pursue a nuclear arsenal.

This White House official claims that we are trying to tell Iran that they are "better off without nukes." No! No we are not. We are telling and must continue to tell Iran that under no circumstances will America and world allow them to have nukes. America has never been a enforcer of a " double standard".

A double standard is when you have different expectations from similar sources. Israel is a peaceful nation and always has been. They have never invaded the borders of their neighboring countries. Israel has never mobilized its army provokingly. They have never sent verbal threats to their enemies. Israel's leaders have never displayed a apocalyptic disillusion. Israel has never said another nation does not have the right to exist. Israel has never funded terror groups who constantly attack women and children, targeting civilian centers of life. Iran has done all of the above and more. Clearly, America and the world must treat Iran differently. And, that is not a double standard.

All Ican say is: Shame on you Mr. President. Today, your administration has drastically changed our country's foreign policy. Today you have abandoned a long time friend in the region. Today, you have brought the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off within the borders of Israel a bit closer. Today, your administration has failed this country.

Psss...What Would You Do?

Yesterday on CNBC's Squawk Box embattled Governor Paterson came out swinging at the ghosts challenging would be candidates to explain what they would do.

"If you had any courage ... get up and say what you'd do now."

It sounded to me like poor Dave was desperately fishing for some free advice. Can he really be that lost? Well, he just might be, but, Paterson would never have the sense to realize it. Instead, he was actually trying to turn up the heat as it becomes more and more apparent that his own Party wants him out.

Than the Governor threw a swing while dropping his guard:

"When all these phantom people who say they are running for governor get into this race, they're going to have to answer the same questions that I've been answering for 18 months,"

Well, most New Yorkers really don't think you have been answering our financial crisis, Mr. Governor. In fact, roughly 80% DISAPPROVE of the way you are executing the duties of your office. We simply do not like your "answers".

And if you are taking a swing at potential candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani, you are way out of your league.

Do you really want to know how Rudy Giuliani would handle New York's financial crisis? Look how he governed as mayor.

When he became mayor, New York City was in severe financial trouble. His pro-growth, conservative policies cut unemployment in half, created 423,000 private sector jobs, and increased personal income by nearly 50%.

Like you, Rudy faced a massive budget deficit; $2.3 billion dollars. However, by 2001, he turned that into a $2.9 billion dollar deficit.

Stop scratching your head Dave, I will tell you how he did it. As mayor, Rudy slashed the wasteful spending and drastically reduced the size of government. In fact, he eliminated 20,000 full-time city-funded city jobs (or nearly 20%)excluding teachers and uniformed police officers. I know Mr. Governor, what about all those jobs lost! Unemployment must have spiked! Actually, 640,000 people were able to come off the welfare rolls.

And, the answer was never to burden New Yorkers with more taxes. Rudy reduced or completely eliminated 23 taxes, including sales, income and business taxes. This resulted in over $9 billion dollars in tax savings for hard working New Yorkers.

Mr. Governor, if you want to know what Rudy would do, I suppose the answer is simple: he would rise to the occasion and tackle the tough issues facing New Yorkers day in and day out with common sense solutions built on the principles of accountability and responsibility. Rudy would get us on the right track. Unlike you, Mr. Governor, he would actually work on our behalf.

If you want to challenge candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani on economic policies, you are way out of your league.. I hope your suit cases are ready ( oh, and leave the $20,000 rug your wife bought to decorate the mansion in Albany. That belongs to the taxpayers silly!).

Is the First Lady Anti-Family???

The First lady, Michelle Obama, spoke to a group of family advocacy groups and health care professionals. Get what she said, as reported by Bloomberg.com:

Mrs. Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

“Women are the ones to do it,” she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. “Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses.” Read the full article here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTUFlFQHNlEI

Now, I grew up with a stay at home mom. Whenever I had the sniffles, she was there with a tissue. When a viscous bee stuck me for the first time in kindergarten, she came and picked me up. When I stayed home from school, she would make me soup. When I got older and went away for high school and I felt a cold of some sorts coming on, she was the first person I spoke to. AND WE HAD INSURANCE!

So, as you can imagine, the First Lady has left me kinda of confused. Is she saying that the uninsured families around America have a harder time taking care of their children or is she saying that a government-run health care system would lessen the burden of raising children by swiping away the sick ones in the middle of the night? Hopefully a comprehensive health care bill will be passed that truly helps ease the costs of health care in the country and enables everyone to be covered. However, I hope and pray that when we get a strawberry on our kneed after falling off our bikes, or when we get our first stitches or when we need to be covered in pink lotion and take goo baths to ease the itching of chicken pocks, our moms will still be there to make us feel better, to give us a hug, to ease the pain and, yes Mrs. Obama, to sometimes take us to the doctor.

You Cannot Silence Us

The draft of a new bill (S.773) seems to give the president ( obviously, that would currently be Obama) full authority to shut down the internet access to a private sector as he sees fit.

To be fair, the assumption is that the president would use these new powers only when the nation or a specific sector is being attacked. But, as we all know well, powers granted can easily be abused. After all, who is to say what a true emergency is? Perhaps, blogs criticizing the new health care plan might be considered a "threat". Or, maybe the lunatics in our government might come to the conclusion that the town hall "mobs" threaten public safety and shut down the internet as a way of "protecting" Americans? POOF! There goes Twitter. And, what was that sound? Oh, it was the crashing sound of Democracy being thrown out the window.

It has long been known that the mainstream media has lost its way and has become extremely liberal. They do what they can to twist the truth in favor of liberal ideals and to destroy any and all opposition, i.e. the conservatives and Republicans. We clearly saw this during the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaigns and we continue to see it in the current coverage of this White House.

This week, the mainstream media has hit another low. As the health care debate is heating up, numerous third party ads have hit the airwaves, some in favor of and others against the current health care proposal. This is the healthy process of democracy. Everyone's voice should be heard and heard as loud as someone wants to shout it. However, some networks disagree. ABC and NBC have refused to air a ad that is critical of the health care proposal. ( Read more here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543940,00.html)

Censorship is a critical aspect to any tyrannical government. The Nazis used censorship to control their propaganda machine. Communists used it and continue to do so in China and North Korea. More recently, in Iran, when thousands of the country's citizens organized and protested the recent elections, what was one of the first things the tyrannical government did to suppress the threatening uprising? They shut down access to the internet.

And now in the nation that redefined liberty and freedom is seeking to do the same? Where is the outrage?

Censorship has long been a weapon of the anti-democracy arsenal. Control what people hear, say and see. Manipulate them with your own version of the story; lead them to believe in the lies you are creating. Now, our very own government is trying to seize control of the First Amendment.

Is this what we are becoming? A government that uses fear and power to control our lives? Look what our government is doing to our freedoms. They are willing to sacrifice everything that makes America the "last best hope for mankind". Just look at what they are trying to do: control the media, suppress the outlets for the First Amendment and silence the opposition. Well, we will not and we cannot be silent. We are Americans and we cherish the tremendously profound ideals that have made this country great far too much. This is a young country, but one with a rich history. If our history says anything about us it is this: we are willing to do everything and anything, even offer the ultimate sacrifice, to protect America and all it stands for. We are a nation of fighters. We are kind and compassionate. But not weak or naive. We are the American people and we will only take so much.

The outrage you see at the town hall meetings is Americans at their best. The elderly folks who flock to these events to voice their opinion are the same Americans who lived during the last Great War. They have seen what this country is willing to suffer to ensure that freedom and liberty endures. They are the protect of such sacrifices. The young married couple are the Americans who fear that their children will inherit a America that vaguely resembles the one they grew up in, if at all.

We are America, the greatest country on earth. Try to take away our freedoms, and you will see what we are mad of. Test our resolve and commitment to liberty and you will hear our voices. Try to silence us, we will only shout louder. We do not back down and we will not be bullied.

*text from the bill http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf