Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush could still win the Republican nomination in 2012 and become the next president of the United States.  Really.  In fact, Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie still have a chance too.  How could this be?  Well, it has now become clear that there is a very real chance that no Republican candidate will hold a majority of the delegates by the time the Republican convention rolls around.  If that happens, that would mean that we would have the first "brokered convention" in decades.  The truth is that the Republican establishment does not want this, but they are also scared to death of having someone like Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul as the nominee.  So exactly what is a brokered convention?

The following is how Wikipedia defines a brokered convention....

A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential-candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.

Usually by this time in the election cycle, a clear frontrunner has emerged.  But in 2012 this has not happened.  Mitt Romney was presumed to be he frontrunner, but he just can't seem to rise any higher than the mid-20s in the polls.  A whole host of candidates have filled the role as the "anti-Romney candidate", but each has faded.  First it was Michele Bachmann, then it was Rick Perry, then it was Herman Cain and now it is Newt Gingrich.

For a while it looked like Newt Gingrich was going to become the clear frontrunner, but at this point he is clearly fading.

The conservative backlash against Newt Gingrich has been enormous.  Glenn Beck can't stand him.  Rush Limbaugh has come out against him.  And now conservative commentators all over the nation have jumped on the anti-Newt bandwagon.  The following comes from a recent article in the Washington Post....

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out today, you’re already seeing the anti-Gingrich mobilization among conservative thought leaders: Here’s George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Tom Coburn and Ann Coulter, just for starters. There’s this Politico story about all the Washington Republicans who hate Gingrich.

So what we have is a situation where there are 7 candidates and none of them can seem to break out in the polls.

There are three candidates that are pretty much guaranteed to go all the way - Gingrich, Romney and Ron Paul.

The rest seem fairly likely to stay in it until at least Super Tuesday.  Michele Bachmann is rising in most polls, Rick Perry seems to be bouncing back a bit, Rick Santorum is gaining a significant amount of traction in Iowa and Jon Huntsman is seeing his numbers move up in New Hampshire.

Sure, one or two might drop out in January, but the field would still be very muddied even if that happens.

In addition, a big factor in candidates wanting to stay in longer this year is the fact that proportional representation will now be used in all the early Republican primaries.

In the past, "winner take all" rules made it very easy for a frontrunner to lock up the nomination very, very early.  But now the rules have changed.  Delegates in the early states will be distributed among all the candidates.  This is going to extend the nomination fight and it is going to give weaker candidates an incentive to stay in and rack up delegates.  Those delegates may not win them the nomination, but it will give them leverage.  And in politics, leverage means a whole lot.

A recent article posted on Real Clear Politics described the rule changes that have been implemented by the Republican Party....

Basically, the Republican National Committee looked enviously at the lengthy Democratic primary from 2008 -- which strengthened the Democrats by forcing candidates to conduct registration drives and set up infrastructure in all 50 states -- and decided that a longer primary system would benefit the GOP as well.

So, it decided to require primaries and caucuses held prior to April 1 to allocate delegates through a proportional representation system. To greatly oversimplify, a candidate who receives at least 25 percent of the vote in any given state will receive that same percentage of the delegates (some states have a 20 percent viability threshold, and some states will have “mini-races” in each congressional district). A total of 1,277 delegates will be awarded prior to April 1, so it is nearly impossible for a candidate to rack up the 1,145 delegates needed to win the nomination outright by the end of March.

Proportional representation is the key to a brokered convention.  In the past, if someone won a state with 30 percent of the vote, they would get all the delegates.  Now a candidate with 30 percent of the vote will only get about 30 percent of the delegates in the early states.

Plus there is the Ron Paul factor.

Even if Ron Paul does not do well in the early states, he is going to stay in the race for the long haul.  His supporters are the most committed and he has shown that he can continue to raise money no matter where his poll numbers are at.

And at this point he has raised a ton of cash.  For the quarter ending September 30th, Ron Paul raised more than $12 million.

But the Republican establishment would do just about anything to keep him from winning.  The odds of him becoming the Republican nominee are not real great.

But it is very realistic to think that Ron Paul could be sitting there with 20 or 25 percent of the delegates by the time the convention rolls around.  If two other candidates such as Gingrich and Romney counterbalance one another the entire time, there is a real good chance that neither one of them will have accumulated 50 percent of the delegates by the convention.

Plus, remember, there will be other candidates sitting out there with their own chunks of delegates.

In addition, the growing dissatisfaction with the Republican field is making it much more likely that we could see a late entrant into the field.  Late entrants would not be on any of the early ballots, but they could get on lots of ballots in April, May, and June.

In such a scenario, the late entrant would have a very hard time locking up the nomination by convention time, but it would help to ensure that nobody else locked it up either.

In fact, there are rumors that some in the Republican establishment are already pushing for a late entrant or two to enter the race.  The following comes from a recent Wall Street Journal article....

Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.

The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

The truth is that a late entrant that gets into the race on February 1st could still potentially compete for more than 50 percent of all the delegates.

A brokered convention would be really strange, but this is the way that it was always done in the old days.

As William Kristol recently pointed out, brokered conventions have nominated some pretty famous names in the past....

In 1860, the second convention of the Republican party met in Chicago and nominated, on the third ballot, after considerable deliberation, our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. In 1932, the Democrats convened in Chicago and nominated on the fourth ballot—after a few days in which the balloting was suspended for deliberation—Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So yes, there is actually a very real possibility that Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush could win the Republican nomination in 2012.

It would be really weird, but stranger things have happened.

Hold on to your hats folks - this is going to be one wild election season.

It is absolutely mind blowing that any Republican would ever consider casting a single vote for Newt Gingrich.  The truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.  He isn't even close.  After he left Congress, he spent years portraying himself as a "progressive" and he devoted a lot of time and resources to promoting liberal causes.  But now that he is running for office as a Republican again, all of a sudden he is trying to sound like a conservative.  And it is fooling a whole lot of people.  One recent poll had his support up to 38 percent.  But a Gingrich administration would be a total disaster for America.  A Gingrich administration would essentially be just about the same as a second Obama administration.  That is how liberal Newt Gingrich is.  Gingrich is a big time RINO ("Republican in name only") that is so liberal that he should actually be in the  other political party.  If you believe that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative and you plan to vote for him, then you are being incredibly foolish.

So what is so wrong with Newt Gingrich?

Well, for one he is for an individual health care mandate.

Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet a huge percentage of them are supporting a candidate that was pushing an individual mandate way before Obamacare was ever even invented.

In June 2007, Gingrich made the following statement....

“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”

That doesn't sound very conservative.

Gingrich says that he will repeal Obamacare, but back in 2008 Gingrich wrote a book entitled "Real Change" in which he endorsed an individual health care mandate.

The truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.

He just plays one on TV.

Gingrich has reaffirmed his commitment to an individual mandate over and over.  The following is an excerpt from an exchange between host David Gregory and Gingrich during an interview earlier this year on NBC's Meet The Press....

MR. GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. GINGRICH: ...or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

REP. GINGRICH: It's a variation on it.

If you are against Obamacare, you must be against Newt Gingrich.

There is no middle ground.

But this is not the only issue where Gingrich has been showing his liberal tendencies.

For example, before he was running for president, he was running around the country with Al Sharpton promoting the socialist education policies of the Obama administration.

Also, back in 2008 Gingrich actually did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he declared that "our country must take action to address climate change".

The following is the sickening video that he did with Nancy Pelosi....

Not only that, Gingrich also has promoted the idea of a "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme.  Back in 2007, Gingrich said the following....

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

In addition, as we have seen during the recent debates, Gingrich openly supports amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

So how in the world is Gingrich still leading in the polls?

Are Republicans this stupid?

It is almost as if they don't even care about all of the corruption that has been revealed.

For example, according to Bloomberg, Gingrich earned somewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million lobbying for Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2008.  He was supposed to lobby Republicans in Congress and convince them that Freddie Mac was doing a good job....

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

But now Gingrich says that he was not doing any lobbying.

The truth is that it is really hard to know that if we can believe anything that Gingrich is saying these days.  Just check out the amazing video posted below.  You have got to see this....

So why are so many Tea Party activists supporting Newt at this point?

Newt represents everything that they are supposed to be against.

For example, In 2008 Newt Gingrich declared that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.

Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be against bailouts?

The Tea Party is supposed to be against higher taxes too.

But Newt Gingrich voted for higher taxes on numerous occasions.

In fact, while Newt was the Speaker of the House the amount of taxes collected by the U.S. government soared from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion.

Does that sounds conservative to you?

In addition to everything else above, Newt Gingrich has shown that he does not have the character to be president.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of "family values", but they are getting ready to send someone to the White House that has a track record that would make Bill Clinton blush.

The following is how a recent Business Insider article described the "skeletons in the closet" from his personal life....

Newt's personal baggage is either weird or scary. He married his high-school geometry teacher. He cheated on her and divorced her while she had cancer. So he married Marianne Ginther six months later. But that wasn't to last.

Gingrich conducted a tawdry affair behind her back with one of his staffers while making political hay out of Clinton's affair with a White House intern. He then divorced Marianne and married the staffer. 

How in the world can Republicans be supporting this guy?

The following video has more about Newt's marital issues....

If the Republicans nominate this guy, Christians should leave the party in droves.

For much more on the skeletons in Newt's closet, just check out this shocking website.

The sad truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.  He is not even close.

His tough talk about Obama is just an illusion.  It is just a trick to get elected.

Yes, four more years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare for America.

But so would four years of Newt Gingrich.

And then after Gingrich failed as president we would almost certainly get Hillary.

Is that what you want?

Please share this information about Newt Gingrich with as many people as you can.  There is still time to turn this election season around.

***The following is a guest article for The Truth by Left Coast Rebel.  I think that you will agree that Left Coast Rebel has definitely knocked the ball out of the park with this one.***

The Washington Post has it that "GOP Leaders Rebuked on Spending;" Politico has it that "Vote shows Boehner's Lack of Control."

Per usual, the lamestream press is missing the point.

I'll put it simply here: John Boehner and Eric Cantor think that they can "get along" with the Democrats, quietly pushing through destructive legislation that aids and abets the statist agenda.

They don't even put up a fight.

They just roll over and expect conservatives in the House and the Tea Party grassroots to go along.

No. And they must go.

CNS News has the real reasons behind House conservatives voting down the Boehner/Cantor continuing resolution (a fancy way of saying short-term) budget:

(CNSNews.com) - The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.

Sweet. Attaboy for standing by your principles, House conservatives.

Republican leadership is known for saying one thing and doing the precise opposite. Limited government! Taxes! Ooohh, those wascally Democrats!

Then, they don't even put up a fight. How's this for throwing social conservatives under the bus:

An analysis of the CR published by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said that it “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

And fiscal conservatives, too:

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

During that time, it would have funded the government at an annualized rate just $7 billion less than the level of federal spending for fiscal 2011--but $24 billion more than the Republican-controlled House approved in the budget resolution they passed earlier this year.

How about throwing all limited-government conservatives, independents, libertarians et al. under the bus?

Obamacare -- the same Obamacare that Boehner/Cantor rode into House majority status with, promising to repeal/replace/de-fund gets funded in Boehner/Cantor budget:

“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” said the study-committee analysis.

Imagine that there isn't anyone railing against this abomination over at Memeorandum. "Conservative" bloggers and talking heads are too busy waving their 'R' red-white-and-blue flags to consider that they are being used and bamboozled by the very leadership that they put into power positions November of last year in the first place.

Boehner and Cantor have no interest in promoting or furthering the righting of our financial ship. Can we afford that right now?

Another question: What happens when we have a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney and these two guys are still the leaders in the House?

Think about it.

***The following is a guest post for The Truth by Alisha Venetis, co-founder of The Prep Room - an online store specializing in emergency preparedness supplies.***

America the Beautiful

Probably like most of you, our family spent this past July 4th celebrating the official birthday of the United States of America’s Independence. We were fortunate enough to go on a friend’s boat on Lake Michigan in Chicago to watch an amazing fireworks display. Unlike previous years, Chicago did not host this celebration. Similar too many other cities across the nation, Chicago cancelled their fireworks due to being financially broke.

As we watched the celebration and listened to patriotic music playing in the background, I found myself covered in goose bumps. I looked at my children, as they oohed and aahed, wondering if they understood the unique greatness of this country and how God has blessed it so. And, more importantly, if we fail to educate them on how we gained the freedom we celebrate every year, will it one day be no more?

The greatest concept in the history of civilization is that man should be morally free (not free without morals) and that no man, or anything else for that matter, should take that away from him. The further we get from this ideology the further we get from truth and freedom.

A recent Marist survey revealed that only fifty-eight percent of those polled knew that the United States declared its independence in 1776, and three out of four knew from which country we gained our independence. Not surprisingly, the younger the respondent, the less likely he or she was to know the answer.

A similar question is being raised by many, including a recent Time Magazine cover story, which asked whether or not our Constitution still matters? When Americans were asked how much they knew about the U.S. Constitution, sixty-seven percent responded that they only knew “some”.

Is it just a sign of the times and we are no longer interested in how we became a great nation? Or has there been an intentional “dumbing down” effort, carried out by the leaders of our educational system? Is it possible that, when we took God out of our schools, we also began taking away any remnant of God's handiwork? After all, if you can't teach about God, how can you teach about a God-inspired document, such as the US Constitution?

Rewriting History

In 2006, State Senator Obama visited Europe and the Middle East, where he made a series of speeches. Before his final speech, Obama stood next to Turkey's President and stated that in the US, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." Perhaps this is what recently led Michelle Obama to say that President Obama ”knows we are going to have to change our traditions and our history”. I wonder if some of that history-changing has to do with denying that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles created by God-fearing men?

As cities decide to do away with Fourth of July celebrations we give rise, once again, to not celebrating what God has done for our country. The signing of the Declaration of Independence is arguably one of the greatest days in our nation’s history. These are not just my words, but the words of John Adams, a Founding Father. In anticipation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Adams wrote to his wife Abigail:

“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more”.

Inherited By Our Creator

The United States Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and gave rise to the United States Constitution. The Declaration announced that the thirteen original Colonies (then at war with Great Britain) were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire.

The Declaration had 56 signers, which included a “Committee of Five”, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were an intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Half of the men held seminary or Bible school degrees and four of the signers were current or former full-time preachers

One of the best-known sentences in American History is the preamble. This section states the ideas and ideals of the Declaration; that everyone has certain rights given to them by God. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The next section of the Declaration is often called the “right of revolution". It states that the government can only get their power from the people. If the government violates the rights of the people; then the people have not only the right, but the duty to "alter or abolish" that government and provide a new one for future security.

The next two sections are a list of charges against King George III. The Declaration states that he violated the people’s rights and was therefore unfit to be their Ruler. The King no longer made laws for the public good and got rid of those that did. He created a

multitude of new offices, officers and laws to harass the people and he imposed taxes without consent. The signers described their unsuccessful attempts to appeal to the Parliament of Great Britain.

The document’s last sentence ends just as powerfully as it begins, demonstrating the signers reliance on God, the Supreme Judge of the world, to know their moral conscience in creating this document. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

God Shed His Grace on Thee

The Founding Fathers were not all Christians or conservative in their theology, however they were all God-fearing. To take God out of the equation would in essence change our history.

As Patrick Henry once stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians”. John Adams reiterated this sentiment when he wrote to the Officers of the First Brigade, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Lastly, for many that believe that the separation of Church and State was to keep God out of the schools, let us read the prophetic words from the “Father of our Public Schools”, Benjamin Rush. “Let the children be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of removing Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind it was improper to read the Bible in our Schools.”

The signers knew how powerful the Declaration of Independence was; so much so it may cost them their lives. After Congress signed the Declaration, John Hancock supposedly said they must now "all hang together" and Benjamin Franklin replied, "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

If our nation turns away from our founding documents, we turn away from what God ordained. Only God can give people the freedom to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not the government (no matter how big it is). Our Founding Fathers were willing to hang for this truth. At the very least, we should be willing to hang onto this truth as well.

Free Money

by Tucker Scofield

An acquaintance of mine had an opportunity this week to make as much as $25,000.00…she turned it down.

She is a property owner on the Gulf and she received a phone call from a friend regarding BP. They are settling damage claims with anyone who may have been affected by last summer’s oil spill and the caller, who knew others affected by the spill, was passing along the fact that the money was available and ripe for the picking.

There it was…free money. Was BP really going to audit every claim before paying it out of their $20 billion slush fund? Not in a million years. All she would’ve had to do was exaggerate the facts, maybe tell a little white lie or two and POOF, the Oil Fairy would grant a wish that could make the struggles of the past two years disappear. One small bit of paperwork and it would be dead presidents raining down from Heaven! Get that money, dollar-dollar bill, y’all!  But she wouldn’t do it. For her, this was a matter of principle.

I asked why she turned it down. “It’s not right,” she said. She didn’t feel as though she’d been negatively affected by the spill at all, despite having received numerous phone calls from concerned renters regarding conditions on the beach. Her rental income was pretty much unchanged from the previous year and she felt as though filing a claim would have been fraudulent.

Not too many people could have turned down such a temptation. Right or wrong, money talks and everything else walks, at least for most. Obviously, our politicians are very aware of this and use their powers to pass various entitlement programs – “free money” – in return for votes. For the moment, put aside your opinions regarding the necessity of such programs and focus instead on this: A large percentage of our population now depends, to some degree, upon entitlement programs and the money to fund those programs is rapidly disappearing. The recipients of entitlement programs don’t want the free money to stop so they continue to vote for the whores – sorry, I meant to say politicians – who gave it to them in the first place. That is, of course, unless someone else promises them more free money.

Margaret Thatcher was right – eventually, you run out of other people’s money, and that is precisely the position in which we now find ourselves. So how do we escape this death spiral of ever-increasing entitlement programs?

Fiscal responsibility. Somebody – or more accurately, a group of somebodies – has to grab a clue, wake the hell up, and smell what the dog just plopped down...we are in trouble and our current path is unsustainable! Any other assessment is just pure and total nonsense. The electorate recognized this and made a statement, loud and clear, on November 2^nd; fiscal responsibility is the mandate given the 112^th Congress and I’m relieved to see them following through, at least for the moment.

In your personal household you have two options when faced with “deficit spending” (spending more than you make, as with running up your credit cards) and/or budget crunches (not having enough money to pay the bills): You either make radical adjustments to your lifestyle by curtailing most of your activities and watching every single penny, or you file bankruptcy. You cannot bring your budget under control by spending your way out of it, and borrowing only delays and exacerbates inevitable financial collapse.

Since filing bankruptcy is not a national option, our only recourse is to buckle down and make the hard choices necessary to save our country. That means cutting spending with a chain saw and ridding ourselves of many of these entitlements.  It won’t be fun and it’ll make a lot of people mad but that’s just the way it needs to be.

Oh sure, there will be those who blame conservatives for being a bunch of racist bigots who believe that entitlement recipients are lazy and they just need to get a job. Whatever. I hate entitlement programs, I really do. And frankly, I can’t stand the bleeding hearts that continually whine in their support. But it may shock you as to why I hate them.

Entitlement programs, in my opinion, reduce human beings to little more than government pets. Like a dog eagerly snatching up whatever crumbs may fall from the table, recipients of entitlements surrender control over their own destiny and become subservient to the system established to “help” them. The acceptance of entitlements robs the individual of a chance at exceptionalism and turns them into slaves of the system. Think I’m being unreasonable?

Riddle me this, Batman: Cite me just one success story out of the millions of success stories this country has incubated since our inception in which a person has succeeded without countless trials and tribulations. I’ll wait. Thought of any? You won’t, either. It is the trials that tempered the individual’s desire to succeed; without the trials, there IS NO SUCCESS STORY.

Entitlements blunt the pain of trials; recipients accept mediocrity and are never forced to find the best in themselves. Right now, the ghettos, the housing projects, and the trailer parks are filled with potential Oprah Winfrey’s and Warren Buffetts who will instead remain John and Jane Does because they are receiving just enough to prevent them from channeling their exceptional potential. And that’s a damned shame.

Turn off the free money. Obviously it can’t be done overnight but create a deadline and then stick to it. Let people feel the pain, let them discover their own potential, let them recover their dignity. It’ll be good for the country but it’ll be better for the individual.

And that “acquaintance” who chose not to file the claim with BP? That was my wife. I’m proud of her.

Tucker Scofield’s writing is shaped by his extensive business travels in the manufacturing sector. He is also a musician, a daddy, and a husband. His articles appear weekly at www.TheDCPost.com.
--
Tucker Scofield



It turns out that a lot of pro-Obama organizations ended up receiving a lot of "economic stimulus" money.  For example, it is being reported that the Obama administration gave General Electric $24.9 million in grants under the stimulus law.  Keep in mind that General Electric was the corporate owner of NBC, MSNBC and CNBC during the 2008 election.  These various news outlets were absolutely shameless when it came to promoting Barack Obama during the 2008 election.  In fact, MSNBC was more radically pro-Obama than even CNN was (and that is saying a lot).  Apparently Barack Obama was quite grateful for all the help.  25 million dollars is one heck of a tremendous thank you gift.  General Electric was the primary recipient of 14 separate economic stimulus grants.  In addition, the recipients of four other economic stimulus grants hired GE as a contractor.  So is this the way that the game of politics is played in 2010?  Sadly, the truth is that this is how the game of politics has been played for decades in this country. 

It isn't as if GE isn't doing well.  According to Standard & Poor's, GE had $156 billion in revenue during 2009.  But we all knew that the "economic stimulus" money wasn't really about stimulating the economy, didn't we?

A big percentage of the economic stimulus money went for the pet projects of individual members of Congress and for "payback" to those who helped Obama and other Democrats get elected.

In fact, if you want to get a really good idea of just how much money was horribly wasted by the stimulus law, just check out this great article.

So we shouldn't be surprised that GE was handed 25 million dollars.  This is the way the world works now.

The truth is that MSNBC could be aptly renamed "The Obama News Network".  They are perhaps the most clearly partisan news channel that the U.S. has ever seen....

Here you see Chris Matthews openly admit that his job is to help make Barack Obama's presidency successful....

Even Bill Maher (who hates George W. Bush and the Republicans) admits that the pro-Obama coverage by MSNBC has been way over the top....

Liberals whine and moan constantly about the supposed "conservative bias" on Fox News, and yet they have no problem with the extreme liberal bias on MSNBC, CNBC and NBC News. 

If George W. Bush had tried to hand Rupert Murdoch 25 million dollars the liberals would have yelled and screamed about it for years.

But when Barack Obama hands his friends at General Electric 25 million dollars hardly anyone notices.

The truth is that both political parties are deeply corrupt and the way that the game of politics is played in this country needs to be seriously reformed.

Is Donald Trump going to run for president in 2012?  Don't laugh.  It just might happen.  Up until now the truth is that very few people would have conceived that Donald Trump could possibly be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, but now Trump says that he is "absolutely thinking about it".

Yes, you read that correctly.

Regarding a potential run for president, on Tuesday Trump told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the following....

"I can tell you this - for the first time in my life, I am absolutely thinking about it."

In other words, fire up the engines because Trump is ready to rumble.

Of course he is not fully committing himself yet, as he added the following caveat during the same interview....

"I don't know that I'll do it. It's probable that I won't do it. But I can tell you, I'm thinking about it."

Now Trump will probably run a bunch of polls in states with early primaries to see if his candidacy would be viable.

In fact, all of this recent speculation has been brought on by a New Hampshire poll in which voters were asked 30 questions regarding their thoughts on Donald Trump as a presidential candidate in 2012.

Trump is denying that he was involved in the poll, but he says that he is very interested in seeing what the results were.

Apparently they were quite favorable for Trump.

So would he definitely run as a Republican?

Yes.

"If I were interested, I'd be a Republican," Trump told Time during a recent interview.

So is this actually going to happen?

Well, we will see.

But for now, Trump is at least talking like a candidate....

"We are losing this country. This country will not be great if something isn't done rapidly."

Apparently there have been some people that have been urging Donald Trump to run for president for years....

"I am being serious about it. I've been asked for years to do it. And I had no interest. This is the first time I am -- at least I'm considering it."

So would Trump position himself as a mainstream Republican or a Tea Party Republican?

The answer might not be as clear cut as many would think....

"I am a Republican but have great respect for what the Tea Party has done because they have brought to light what's going on. I mean, we have trillion-dollar deficits. ... The country is going bankrupt, let's face it."

In the end, Trump is going to do what is right for Trump.  Anyone with the kind of monolithic ego and the massive resources that Donald Trump possesses is going to be tempted to make a run for the White House at some point.  There seems little doubt that Donald Trump actually believes that he is fully capable of being the president of the United States.

So really, only one question remains.

Is Donald Trump going to run for president in 2012?

We won't get that answer for a while, but it sure would be entertaining.

Today, many among America's liberal ruling class have openly declared war on the U.S. Constitution. It turns out that the U.S. Constitution just does not fit well with the radical green agenda and European-style socialism that they are trying to impose on all of us. In particular, many in America's ruling class are deeply alarmed about the rise of the Patriot and Tea Party movements in recent years. Both of these movements stress fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and to the values that our founding fathers founded this nation on. Unfortunately for America's liberal ruling class, the values of our founding fathers were completely contrary to the direction that they are trying to take us in. They tend to portray our founding fathers as racist, sexist, homophobic neanderthals who did the best they could at the time. They insist on referring to our Constitution as a "living, breathing document", which is code for saying that they feel free to alter the meaning of it any time they wish, because after all, they know better. The truth is that the U.S. Constitution stands in the way of what America's ruling class is trying to accomplish, and so now many of them have actually resorted to openly trashing it.

These days you will rarely hear any liberal speak of the founding fathers with any kind of veneration whatsoever. At best, they will make excuses for them, and at worst they will openly mock and attack them.

The most recent round of Constitution bashing began with a Constitution Day lecture by Michael Klarman of Harvard University Law School at Johns Hopkins University on September 16th. His address was entitled "A Skeptical View of Constitution Worship", and it was a scathing attack on the U.S. Constitution.

Now keep in mind that this is someone from Harvard University Law School that is making these remarks.  At Harvard University Law School many of the future Obamas, Bushes and Supreme Court Justices of the world are being educated.  In many ways, Harvard University Law School is one of the pinnacles of the U.S. education system.

So the remarks you are about to read were not made by some radical professor at some obscure university.  These remarks were made by someone deeply embedded in the establishment.

In another day and age remarks like the ones you are about to read would have caused national outrage.  Klarman would have immediately lost his job and would never be put in a position to teach others ever again.  But today the world is a much different place.

The following excerpt from Klarman's speech summarizes his four key points about "constitutional idolatry"....

I have four points I want to make today against constitutional idolatry, which is my label for our misguided tendency to blindly worship the Constitution, giving it credit for all the things we love and honor about our country.

(4) The rights protections we do enjoy today, the importance of which I do not minimize, are mostly a function of political and social mores, which have dramatically evolved over time and owe relatively little to courts using the Constitution to protect them.

As you read through the rest of Klarman's speech, you can almost feel the hate that he has for the U.S. Constitution rising off the page.  You can find a full transcript of the speech right here.

A columnist writing for The Economist picked up on Klarman's remarks and published an article with this disturbing headline: "The Perils Of Constitution-Worship".  It is an open secret that The Economist has deep ties to America's liberal ruling elite and the big money interests behind them, and so it was only natural for them to jump on the bandwagon.

Right away the article in The Economist made it abundantly clear who the real targets of the article were....

At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”.

Yes, the liberal elite love to bash Tea Partiers.  They represent everything that the liberal elite believe is wrong with America.  In the article, those who support the Tea Party and believe in the U.S. Constitution are portrayed as "infantile"....

Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century.

According to the article, when we revere the Constitution and the values that this nation was founded upon, apparently "truth is the victim"....

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

But the Constitution bashing was not done yet.  Just a few days ago Joshua Keating had an article entitled "Are Americans Too Constitution Obsessed?" published on the website of Foreign Policy - the official magazine of The Council on Foreign Relations.  Considering the fact that every single U.S. Secretary of State since the 1950s has been a member of the CFR, it is very disturbing that they feel free to bash the U.S. Constitution as well.  In fact, those who know the history of the CFR know that it has an absolutely enormous amount of influence over the U.S. government.

In the article, Keating makes the following statement....     

I also suspect most Americans don't realize quite how old the Constitution is by world standards.

And that is what liberals want us to think - that the U.S. Constitution is archaic, that it is outdated and that it simply does not work in the modern society that we are now living in.

But they are wrong. 

A republic can still work in 2010.

Individual freedom and liberty can still work in 2010.

Limited government can still work in 2010.

The Bill of Rights can still work in 2010.

But liberals are becoming increasingly open about the fact that they want to take all of those things away from us.  They are no longer afraid to publicly bash the U.S. Constitution. 

In fact, many of them are willing to do just about anything to impose their version of a politically correct socialist paradise on all of us.

A war on the U.S. Constitution has been declared.

Will the American people rise to defend it, or are we about to lose the Republic that our founding fathers fought and died for permanently?

10 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

#1 "Islam has always been part of America"

#2 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"

#3 "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."

#4 "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

#5 "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed"

#6 "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality"

#7 "As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."

#8 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."

#9 "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

#10 "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

10 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity

#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"

#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

#3 "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?  Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination?  Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"

#4 "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

#5 "The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."

#6 From Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope: "I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount."

#7 "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.  I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.  That's just not part of my religious makeup."

#8 "Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will--they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths."

#9 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount."

#10 "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

1950: The total U.S. national debt is about 257 billion dollars.

2010: The U.S. national debt is increasing by over 4 billion dollars per day.

1950: If a member of Congress doesn't tell the truth it is a felony.

2010: If a member of Congress doesn't tell the truth they are just playing politics.

1950: Americans dress up in suits and dresses to get on an airplane.

2010: Americans are forced to walk through full body security scanners that give gawking security workers a clear view of their naked bodies before they can get on an airplane.

1950: American schoolchildren openly read the Word of God and pray in public schools.

2010: Attempting to read your Bible or pray in a public school will get you slapped with a lawsuit by the ACLU.

1950: Wealth redistribution is considered communist and anti-American.

2010: Wealth redistribution is the official policy of the U.S. government.

1950: The U.S. Constitution is deeply loved and highly revered.

2010: Federal authorities are instructed to be on the lookout for anyone who talks about the U.S. Constitution too much because they might be a domestic terrorist.

1950: Mass murderers are executed and unborn babies are protected by law.

2010: Unborn babies are being mass murdered and mass murderers are protected by law from being executed in many states.

1950: We mobilize the entire U.S. military to protect the borders of South Korea.

2010: The U.S. government barely lifts a finger to do anything about the millions of gang members, drug dealers and serial criminals that are pouring across America's borders.

1950: We actually attempt to parent our children.

2010: We pump our kids full of Ritalin and let video games and television raise our children.

1950: If a company makes too many bad decisions they go out of business.

2010: If you have connections in high places or you are "too big to fail" your business gets bailed out by the U.S. government.

1950: Socialized medicine is considered a bizarre scheme that only communist nations would be stupid enough to attempt.

2010: Congress and the president ram a bill down the throats of the American people that they did not want which basically socializes our entire health care system.

1950: The American people believe that the free market should run the economy.

2010: The American people are told that the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve should run the economy.

1950: American industry provides great jobs for hard working Americans and the United States has the biggest middle class in the world.

2010: Giant global predator corporations ship our manufacturing base and millions of great jobs to the third world and our politicians pretend that it is our fault when we can't get jobs.

1950: Cities such as Detroit, Michigan are shining examples of the great American economic machine.

2010: Cities such as Detroit, Michigan are decaying, rusted-out war zones where houses sell for as little as one dollar.

1950: The United States lends more money to other nations than any other country in the world.

2010: The United States borrows more money from other nations than any other country in the world.

1950: The American people are the envy of the world.

2010: The American people are some of the fattest people on the planet.

1950: The American people are extremely well read and are deeply interested in politics.

2010: The American people are obsessed with American Idol, Dancing With The Stars and with how their favorite sports teams are doing.

1950: If children act up they are tanned on the behind and taught a lesson.

2010: If children act up they are told they have ADHD and pumped full of pharmaceutical drugs.

1950: Communists and socialists are considered dangerous extremists and the American people are taught to love the U.S. Constitution.

2010: Those who love the U.S. Constitution are considered dangerous extremists and we have a communist in the White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a decision which is going to further push Christian groups on college campuses into the background.  In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law school can refuse to recognize a Christian student group that "discriminates" against gay students and other non-Christians.  While this decision is not going to change that much in the short-term, the truth is that it sets the stage for some earth-shattering legal decisions in the future.  For example, the Supreme Court could use the same reasoning to rule that any church that "discriminates" against homosexuals should not receive an income tax exemption because it does not comply with anti-discrimination laws.  Also, localities across the country could decide to start refusing to give building permits to churches because they openly "discriminate" again homosexuals and it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court is going to back them up.  The truth is that the implications of this decision are absolutely staggering.

So exactly what were the facts of this case?   

Well, this case had originally been brought by the Christian Legal Society at the University of California-Hastings College of Law.

School officials had refused to recognize the Christian Legal Society and grant it student-activity funding, meeting space and other privileges because they said that the group "discriminated" against gays students.

But the group did not specifically "discriminate" against homosexuals.  What they did was require that group members adhere to standards of Christian morality which included not being involved in sexual immorality.

But today if you insist on sexual morality that means that you are a bigot.

This is what America is turning into.

Dissenting from the Supreme Court decision were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Writing for the dissenters, Alito states that this new decision, "arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."

Indeed it does.

Christian groups all over the United States are now going to be pushed off campus.

But that is only the beginning.

Eventually churches and Christian organizations across the United States are going to lose their tax exemptions because they supposedly "discriminate" against gay people.

That is where things are headed.

Taking a stand on sexual immorality is going to increasingly get Christians into trouble in the years ahead. 

So decide right now where you are going to stand.  Because things are not going to get any easier.

Barack Obama's latest nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is almost certain to be confirmed, and that is truly frightening news for America.  Why?  Because the truth about Elena Kagan is beyond shocking.  When she is confirmed, she will become the most liberal member of a Supreme Court that is already extremely liberal.  She is radically pro-abortion, extremely sympathetic to the gay agenda and has no respect for life whatsoever.

Just consider a few of the startling facts that have come out about Elena Kagan....

*After the election of Ronald Reagan, a young Elena Kagan openly yearned for a more "leftist left".

*As an aide to President Bill Clinton, Kagan took a lead role in fighting a Republican bill to limit abortion.

*Kagan once referred to the Pentagon's Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as "a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order".

*One newly produced document from the Clinton archives has revealed that Kagan once defended ex-President Bill Clinton's veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions.

*White House memos from 1997, when Elena Kagan was a top domestic policy advisor to President Clinton, show that she recommended that the Clinton administration permit cloning of human embryos for research purposes.

Cloning of human embryos for research?

Is that the kind of future we are headed towards?

Well, the answer is yes if Elena Kagan has anything to say about it.

The truth is that Elena Kagan would give new meaning to the term "liberal activist judge".  Between Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the Democrats now have a liberal core of judges on the Supreme Court that could last for decades.

America cannot afford for Elena Kagan to be confirmed, but with the Democrats firmly in control that is exactly what is going to happen.

This is yet another indication of just how far America has fallen.

The United States is heading straight into the moral toilet, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. 

What a horrible nation we are becoming.

The anti-illegal immigration law recently passed by Arizona has created an absolute firestorm of controversy all across the United States.  But why should it be so controversial?  The only thing that Arizona is outlawing is already against the law.  The truth is that it is simply not legal to come into the United States and stay here without going through the proper procedures.  There is nothing earth-shattering about that.  We need immigration, but those who desire to immigrate should be forced to go through the front door.  Instead, we have made legal immigration a complete and total headache, but at the same time we have allowed tens of millions of people to come in illegally through the back door.  So we are keeping out the kind of people that would be a benefit to our society while at the same time keeping the door wide open for serial criminals, gang members and drug dealers.

Does that make any sense at all?

What in the world is going on?

Is there a reason why the U.S. government refuses to secure our border with Mexico?

After all, we seem more than happy to help other nations secure their borders.

In fact, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has just agreed to help Saudi Arabia secure its dangerous border areas near Yemen.

Not only that, we have secured the border between South Korea and North Korea so well that not a single North Korean has crossed over the border illegally in over 50 years.

And yet we continue to leave our border with Mexico completely wide open.

Not only is doing so insanely bad public policy, it also greatly endangers our national security.

Border officials tell us that a growing number of radical Muslims are sneaking over the Mexican border into the United States.

And we are doing almost nothing to stop them.

What sense does it make to have our airports completely locked down and crawling with security if radical Muslims can just hop over the Mexican border any time they want?

The truth is that no politician should claim that they are serious about national security until they are willing to do something about securing our borders.

But instead, many of our politicians are acting as if trying to do anything about illegal immigration is equivalent to racism.

For example, U.S. Representative Linda Sanchez claims that white supremacist groups are behind Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law.

It is this kind of nonsense that has got to stop.

But in today's "politically correct" Washington D.C. it is not going to.

So millions of illegal immigrants (and thousands of radical Muslims) will continue to pour unchecked across the Mexican border and into the United States.

It is a recipe for disaster.

Well, it is official.  40.2 million Americans received food stamps in March, which represented a 21 percent increase from a year earlier.  That means that more than one out of every eight Americans is now dependent on the federal government for their daily bread.  But the truth is that things are going to get even worse.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture is projecting that more than 43 million Americans will be on food stamps by the end of 2011. 

Ouch!

40 million Americans on food stamps?

The old timers used to tell us that one day we would all be standing in bread lines, but this is ridiculous.

The United States is rapidly becoming a socialized welfare state and nobody seems to be able to do anything to stop it.

You see, it is not only the food stamp program that is exploding.

Virtually all government handout programs are exploding.

For example, nearly 51 million Americans received $672 billion in Social Security benefits in 2009.

It seems like almost everyone is getting money from the government these days.

But of course all of these government handouts are also creating a huge problem.

It is called debt.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, on June 1st the U.S. National Debt was $13,050,826,460,886.97.

We have piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world and there is no possible way that we are ever going to be able to pay it off.

In fact, this crushing debt load will almost certainly destroy the U.S. economy.

But the tens of millions of Americans that are getting handouts from the government each month do not want to give them up.

In fact, it is those handouts that are keeping many of them off the streets.

Millions of Americans are finding it really hard to make it these days - especially the millions of Americans that don't have jobs.

Long-term unemployment has never been this bad in the United States in the post-World War II era.

In fact, 45.9% of those currently unemployed in the United States have been out of work longer than six months.  That is the highest percentage since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1948.

And the truth is that there are fewer and fewer good jobs out there.

You see, we shipped millions and millions of good jobs to other countries after our politicians promised us that "free trade" and "globalism" would be so good for us.

Well, they were good for the greedy CEOs that raked in record profits by exploiting third world labor pools, but they were not so good for the millions of Americans that have now lost their jobs.

Increasingly, the U.S. is becoming a "two tier" society.

The very rich are thriving while tens of millions of other Americans have never had it harder.

So where will all of this end?

50 million Americans on food stamps?

60 million Americans on food stamps?

Will we all be on food stamps someday?

This is getting ridiculous and it has to stop.

The U.S. is on the path to economic and financial oblivion.

But the politicians in Washington D.C. seem content to continue business as usual.

As long as they keep getting elected they really don't seem to care much about what they are doing to the long-term future of this nation.

But of course ultimately it is our responsibility for electing such a bunch of absolute losers to represent us.

The truth is that the United States of America is falling apart and Obama, Pelosi and Reid are completely incapable of fixing things.

Not that the Republicans did much better when they controlled Congress and the White House.

The truth is that both parties are filled with corrupt career politicians that shouldn't be hired to run a Burger King much less make decisions for this entire nation.

But this is where we are at.  We have come to a time of great national crisis and the leadership in Washington D.C. is pretty much completely incompetent.

So is there a way out of this mess?  Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion....

The Obama administration has big plans to "reshape" the way news is delivered in the United States.  The truth is that whenever the far left takes control in a nation, they simply cannot resist trying to manipulate and control the media.  Whether it is socialists (the Nazis for example) or whether it is communists (the old USSR for example), history has taught us that freedom of the press is always endangered whenever leftist radicals gain power.  Unfortunately, the far left has control of the White House and the U.S. Congress today, and they are getting ready to make their move.

Well, so what are their plans?

First of all, they want to prop up the liberal-dominated mainstream media and newspapers.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Obama administration is conducting "a major internal study" intended to design a major government rescue plan for America's newspapers.

So why not let newspapers that nobody wants to read anymore simply die?

Well, that is just not the "liberal" way.

After all, most of those newspapers constantly spew liberal propaganda.

So what are some of the proposals in this major internal study?

Well, according to the Los Angeles Times, the following proposals are being considered....

*Major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions

*Government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models

*Antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls

*Establishing a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists

*Tax incentives per news employee

*Increased funding of public broadcasting

*A 5% tax on consumer electronics and assessments on users of public airwaves

*Allowing taxpayers to direct a portion of their taxes to a specific media institution as payment for media services rendered

Perhaps you read those proposals and you think that they are utter insanity.

Well, the truth is that we live in insane times.

Secondly, the Obama administration is looking for ways that they can get away with shutting down conservative and libertarian news outlets.

There have been a number of suggestions from officials in the Obama administration that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be resurrected in one form or another.

Implementing the "Fairness Doctrine"  would mean that conservative radio shows, television broadcasts and Internet sites would have to give "equal time" to liberal points of view.

Of course liberal sites and broadcasts would likely not see much enforcement against them since they would be considered to be so "balanced" and "reasonable" already.

But even if the "Fairness Doctrine" is not brought back to life, liberals are looking for many other ways to "regulate" what we see and hear.

In fact, a coalition of more than 30 far left organizations recently sent a letter to the FCC arguing that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate "the facts" from "bigotry masquerading as news".

Of course they define "bigotry" as anything that disagrees with Barack Obama.

The truth is that the liberals working for the Obama administration are evaluating what they can legally get away with in terms of media censorship. 

The temptation is far too great for them to resist.

They simply cannot leave well enough alone.

So we are likely to see an increasing number of attempts to "regulate" speech on the radio, television and Internet for the "good" of the American people.

 Enjoy your freedom of speech while it lasts.

Bill Clinton has discovered a truly unique way of raising money to pay off his wife's campaign debts. He is raffling off the opportunity to spend a day with him.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Bill Clinton is now a lottery prize. 

He has sent an email to millions of people who supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008 that asks this question:

"How would you like the chance to come up to New York and spend the day with me?"

Doesn't that sound cozy?

Reportedly, an online donation of as little as $5 gets you into the lottery.

Considering the fact that Hillary's campaign debt is now down to $771,000, and considering the fact that her campaign has approximately $624,000 in the bank, it is not as if the Clintons need this money so badly.

Or maybe this is just a way for Bill to meet chicks.

In any event, the opportunity to spend a day with Bill Clinton is out there.

I wonder what he would do if a hardcore conservative won?

That could be fun.

You could spend half the day just asking him about the truth regarding the scandals during his administration.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more appealing a day with Bill Clinton sounds.

So if the opportunity came up, sure, I think I would hang out with Bill Clinton for a day.

But I would never give Hillary a dime, so I guess I am out of luck.

But if you are interested, feel free to give the Clintons a donation. 

Who knows?

You might get lucky.

As you read this, there are not enough doctors and hospitals for everyone in America.  But thanks to the health care bill that Barack Obama and the Democrats rammed down the throats of the American people, that shortage is about to get a whole lot worse.  The truth is that the new health care law is going to force many doctors out of the system and it is already forcing the cancellation of many planned doctor-owned hospitals.  What you are going to read below will frighten you.  It should.  It is the truth and it isn't pretty.  The U.S. health care system is about to undergo a radical transformation, and a lot of people are going to be really upset about what happens.

Even without the new health care law, the U.S. medical industry was already looking at a shortage of doctors in the coming years.  According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the United States will likely face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years.

But that shortage does not even factor in the large number of doctors that are going to leave the industry because of the new health care law.

According to a survey published in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, nearly one-third of all practicing physicians in the United States may leave the medical profession because of the health care legislation that was just passed.

Perhaps the politicians in Washington should have listened to what the doctors had to say before they passed the health care bill.

But they didn't.

Now large number of doctors may start retiring in droves.

According to an IBD/TIPP poll of American doctors, the situation is even worse.  That survey indicated that 45 percent of U.S. doctors would consider shutting down their practices or retiring if the health care bill became law.

Just think about that.

That number is mind blowing.

Currently, there are about 960,000 doctors practicing medicine in the United States.  If a third of them DID decide to retire or quit when Obama's health care law is fully implemented, that would mean that 320,000 doctors would suddenly leave the U.S. health care system.

Now hopefully things will not be that bad in reality, but even if 100,000 doctors leave the system, it is going to cause a shortage of unprecedented magnitude.

But it is not just a shortage of doctors that we will all be facing.

The new health care law that was supposed to give all Americans much better health care is actually forcing the cancellation of at least 60 doctor-owned hospitals that were scheduled for opening according to the executive director of Physician Hospitals of America.

Why is that the case?

Well, it turns out that the new health care law singles out doctor-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive federal payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Without those payments, the new doctor-owned hospitals are not feasible.

The new health care bill has been the law of the land for just a few weeks and it has already forced the cancellation of at least 60 hospitals.

Isn't that just great?

What a wonderful new health care system we all have!

If we are not careful, we are going to destroy what was once the greatest health care system in the world.

What in the world is happening to America?

The cartoon posted below may have seemed incredibly far-fetched back in 1948, but it is incredibly timely today.  It is a very well-produced little cartoon that warns children about the great dangers of socialism and communism.  Of course there was no chance that the United States would turn to socialism in 1948, but today that has all changed.  Barack Obama, his supporters, and the Democratic Party are marching the United States right down the road to socialism.  In fact, 63 percent of all Republicans believe that Barack Obama is a socialist.  And, well, the truth is that Barack Obama is a socialist.

But he is far from alone.  The United States has become a nation full of socialists.  In fact, Newsweek ran a cover article a while back entitled "We Are All Socialists Now".  While that is a bit of an exaggeration, the truth is that we all need to wake up and reclaim what once made this country great. 

Perhaps if every single Obama supporter would watch this cartoon from 1948, that would be one huge step in the right direction.... 

The following is a piece entitled "I'm 63 and I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall that has been floating around the Internet. It was recently forwarded to us in an email, and we thought that it expressed the emotions that so many Americans are feeling right now that we should post it here.

If you are touched by Mr. Hall's letter, please send it out to as many of your friends and family as you can....

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U . S . Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired . But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Most of you know by now that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the health care reform bill and has sent it to Barack Obama to be signed into law.  The government takeover of the health care system will soon be complete and the earliest it will have any chance of being repealed is after the 2012 elections, because Obama will veto any bill that seeks to repeal Obamacare.

It is a sad day for the American people and it is a sad day for America. 

But at least there were a few brave members of Congress that fought to the bitter end.  One of them was U.S. Rep. John Boehner.  Boehner made an impassioned plea on the floor of the House in an effort to sway votes, but it was not enough.  However, this speech by Boehner on the floor of the House on the eve of the vote will go down in history as one of the most memorable moments of this entire health care debate.  You have got to check this out....