Stand up and be heard even if its a note on your car window!

This cost me 3 dollars for the paint marker bought at Walmart. The bonus is that this paint marker can last for at least 10 messages. I refuse to not have a message now on my car, as we are in trying times. The government spending is out of control! Its up to 12 trillion now! It has doubled in 7 years! This website shows the debt clock and the latest debts incurred by our government. While this website shows a break down with how much debt is now on each citizen's head thanks to our government spending gone wild.

If Bush was such an idiot...

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had referred to the 58 states that make up these United States , would you have thought him "geographically challenged"?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.

Healthcare bill passed 220-215

The supreme court should overturn this blight on the constitution, but that would mean doing the right thing and overturning social security and that will never happen! Contact your senators we still have a chance to stop this! The bill has to pass through the senate now. Call and/or write your senators, especially if they are blue dogs and tell them you don't want to fund abortions for other people. Yes in this bill it funds "planned parenthood" (such a catchy name for an abortion clinic). Is that how you want your tax dollars spent!? Here is a link to a website that not only allows you to sign a petition, but also will send a letter to each of your states senators! http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

This is serious people! Remember the indifferent person is just as guilty as the person committing the act!

Rally opposing Health Care bill at the Capital today!

I had so much fun today! I just hope it tapped into those single minded politicians! Over 20,000 people marched on the capital today in opposition of health care! The chant was "KILL THE BILL!" There is no where in the Constitution that it says anything about the government providing health care to the people. We handed out copies of the Constitution and Federalist Paper 41 as written by James Madison.

Federalist paper 41 is as follows:

"The Federalist No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS"

This paper basically states that we should not abuse the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution. Here are some pics of the rally! Let's pray this health care does not pass, they have to constitutional right to do this!

Myself below with my "liberty not healtcare" sign! Woot Woot!

Inspiration from Reagan himself!

Deaf joke

I only write serious posts anymore with all the serious issues going on nowadays. I figured it was time for a joke, I found this on an ASL web site.

A Mafia gang takes on a deaf man to run their deliveries, feeling it would be safer having someone unable to overhear conversations. However, one day when he is to deliver a large sum of money, he never shows up with it. The mobsters track him down, but don't find the money on him. As none of them are able to use sign language, they bring in an interpreter.

Mobster: "Where'd you hide the money?" (Interpreter signs the question.)

The bag man signs his reply. The interpreter says, "He says he had to ditch it in the river because the cops were onto him."

Mobster: "I'm not fooling around! You better tell me where that money is!" (Interpreter again signs.)

The bag man signs his reply, and the interpreter relays, "He swears he is telling the truth. He had to get rid of it."

The mobster pulls out a revolver and points it between the deaf man's eyes. "Tell me where that money is, or I'll kill you right now!"
(Interpreter signs his statement.)

The bag man, sweating profusely, signs, "It's inside a shoebox under a loose floorboard in my bedroom closet."

The interpreter says, "He says he doesn't know where it is and he doesn't think you have the guts to pull the trigger."

If the Health Care bill wasn't enough?!

"Is Barack Obama About To Sign A Treaty That Says A World Government Is Going To Be Created?"

"This upcoming December, U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to sign a treaty on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark. The former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says that he has read the treaty and that it explicitly says that a world government is going to be created. Is Barack Obama about to blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution by signing a document that gives up U.S. sovereignty without any debate or input from the people of the United States?

For a long time the global elite have viewed the threat of "global warming" as a way to get all the nations of the world to agree to increased "global governance". This new treaty takes this wacky global environmental agenda to frightening new levels.

On October 14th, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota during which he issued a dire warning regarding this "United Nations Climate Change Treaty". An excerpt of a portion of his remarks as reported by Canada Free Press is posted below. Remember, he is a former member of the Thatcher administration in the U.K. Monckton is absolutely convinced from his reading of this treaty that it says that a world government will be created.....

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

Video of Lord Monckton making these remarks is posted below.....



The truth is that the majority of the American people do NOT want to be under any kind of world government, but it seems as though the United Nations, the global warming wackos and Barack Obama are determined to railroad all of us towards that goal.

Please get Lord Monckton's warning out to as many people as you can. The Copenhagen Treaty is NOT acceptable and any move towards a world government is NOT acceptable. There is still a couple of months until December so hopefully this treaty can still be stopped."

How ignorant can people be??!?