It is our Duty to Preserve Liberty - Manchester Tax Day Tea Party

April 15, 2010 – MANCHESTER TAX DAY TEA PARTY
Save this date for a local event right in downtown Manchester in Victory Park from 5:30 PM to dusk.

Quote of the Day -


Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Sir Winston Churchill

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

It is our Duty to Preserve Liberty - Tea Party Express April 13th

Samuel Adams,
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."

TEA PARTY EXPRESS COMING TO CONCORD NH ON APRIL 13THShare
Yesterday at 22:58
The Tea Party Express III: Just Vote Them Out! Tour
The Tea Party Express Tour will visit Concord on April 13th!
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS INCLUDE

SPECIAL GUESTS
VICTORIA JACKSON, FORMERLY OF SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE
JAMES LABRIOLA, FORMER CO-STAR OF HOME IMPROVEMENT

AND THE
ENTIRE TPX STARS INCLUDING
ANDY CRAMER, MARK WILLIAMS, LLOYD MARCUS AND MORE...!



AND
US SENATE CANDIDATES

REPUBLICAN US SENATE CANDIDATE KELLY AYOTTE * REPUBLICAN US SENATE CANDIDATE JIM BENDER
REPUBLICAN US SENATE CANDIDATE OVIDE LAMONTAGNE

WHERE: One Eagle Square, Main Street (across from the State House), Concord, NH
WHEN: Tuesday, April 13th at 4 PM
WHY: To Tell Congress and The White House: "Enough!"
RSVP to: David Tille at 603-369-0272, Tilleco@aol.com or Pam Smith at 603-661-0341, curranpam@hotmail.com
Join us for the biggest Tea Party Express national tour, www.TeaPartyExpress.Org to date. Starting March 27, 2010 with a Mega Rally in Searchlight, NV (hometown to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) we will take this message across the nation all the way to the White House in Washington, D.C. on April 15th:

“You, the politicians in Washington, have failed We The People with your bailouts, out-of-control deficit spending, government takeovers of sectors of the economy, Cap & Trade, government-run health care, and higher taxes! If you thought we were just going to quietly go away, or that this tea party movement would be just a passing fad, you were mistaken".

"The Tea Party Express is on it's way to New Hampshire! Join us in taking our country back!"


www.TeaPartyExpress.Org

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

It is our Duty to Preserve Liberty - Manchester Tax Day Tea Party

April 15, 2010 – MANCHESTER TAX DAY TEA PARTY
Save this date for a local event right in downtown Manchester in Victory Park from 5:30 PM to dusk.

Quote of the Day -

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Sir Winston Churchill

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

If it is not Good Enough for Them it is not Good Enough for Me

The following piece appeared in the Washington Times.

Liar, liar pants on fire.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.




EDITORIAL: No Obamacare for ObamaDemocrats exempt themselves from socialist medicine
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Obama declared that the new health care law "is going to be affecting every American family." Except his own, of course.

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.



Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that "people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition." At yesterday's signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be "part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They'll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves." But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.

Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch - including the president, vice president and Cabinet members - was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.

Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.

The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama's explanation why if his "historic" health care law is so great for America, it's not good enough for him and his family.

The Question of the Day will Brown Win or Will Coakley Win

First attention all Coakley voters. Voting for Coakley is January 20th, 2010.

I believe for our Republic to survive Brown must win, despite being 9% points ahead the pessimistic person in me believes Coakley will win.

Why - Well a woman hands out absentee ballots and says "“My candidate is Martha…so I can mark it” nice huh? That is just for starters.

I hope I am wrong but the system I believe has been so corrupted Coakley will win.

Quote of the Day - "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin.


Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Congratulations to Croydon's own Steve Cunningham

Congratulations to Croydon's own Steve Cunningham

We look forward to Steve supporting legislation that cuts taxes and increases personal freedom.

"Cunningham, a Republican from Croydon, received 616 votes to 314 votes garnered by Jillette, a Democrat from Goshen." Results posted on the Union Leader.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Tomorrow is the Special Election

Please be sure to get out and vote on January 12th.

Cathy

Re-write the constitution why?

The following is long read but a must read. Self explanatory.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.


BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!


Dear Friend,

Barack Obama and his allies are trying to change the U.S. Constitution WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- in fact, they're trying to rewrite the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- and they're close to succeesing!

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)

"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...

Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?



IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!

One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.

In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!

Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!

The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.

We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.

We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!

And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?

Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!

The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!

Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."

This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!

Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.

Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.

Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!

Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!

You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!

You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!

Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!

Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!

The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!

WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

There's very little time to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least $100,000 to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign this coming month. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to make your best possible donation, and let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals!

Sincerely,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.

That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to help us STOP them. Thank you!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!

To donate by check, make payable to:
United States Justice Foundation
932 D Street Suite 1
Ramona, CA 92065

Even if the Government Took all Their Money it Would Not be Enough

The Obama administration and the current set of legislators seem hell bent on destroying the wealth of this Country but why? Why deficit spend and add debt to this Country unless your intent is to destroy this Country. Even if everyone who earns over 500,000 dollars a year were to pay all their income as taxes it would be only 1.3 trillion dollars the current budget is 4 trillion dollars. Tax revenues are the lowest since 1932.

Obama has spent his life time idolizing communist, socialist and black theologian mentors. He wants to destroy the wealth of the Country to build it into something it has never been before. I think Fred Thompson stated it well, "You know the big difference between Obama and the Joker? The Joker had crazy killers, career criminals and other radical losers as henchmen. Obama has them as mentors!"

Don't be distracted by all the news protect your family, replace current legislators as soon as possible with those who represent the principles on which the Country was founded. You must know who you are and know the constitution and your rights change that you never expected is coming and your family should be prepared.

The following piece appears in the Wall Street Journal.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.



Teeing Up the Middle Class
Joe the Plumber’s tax vindication is nigh.

Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.



Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.

The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?

In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.

Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.

Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.

So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.

The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.

For the children?

The American Thinker has a great piece titled For the Children. Below is an excerpt from the piece.

"You know your poor, dedicated, underpaid teachers? They constituted the 6th highest-ranking industry in political contributions, and gave 88% of their money to Democrats. Of course you know Big Oil has to give more than your underpaid teachers, right? Wrong. The oil and gas industry ranked 19th; teachers contributed more than twice as much as Big Oil. Lawyers gave over seven times as much.?

The piece is a must read to be shared with friends, family, your children, liberals and democrats. I will caution that many Republicans as well have been taken away are rights. Make sure the next election that you are supporting individuals that support freedom and less government.

I posted the piece below but please click on the link to read the links in the story. The following American Thinker piece is titled For the Children.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.


For the Children
By Randall Hoven

Hey kids. I know you're not all that interested in politics, and you don't like to read too much. But, God bless you, you vote. That's understandable. It's hip to vote. P. Diddy urges you to do it. Most of the doors in your college dorm are adorned with Obama posters and news clippings. In 2008, the 18-29 age group voted 2-to-1 for Obama. And your college campus went wild the night he won.

But before you vote again, please consider reading the rest of this article. I'll try to make clear points and keep the paragraphs short. It's OK to listen to your iPod while you read.

Politics is actually kind of important. There are about 200 countries in the world; 200 different governments. In some countries, like North Korea, people have died by the millions due to starvation in just the last few years. In others, like the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda and others, people have died by the millions due to civil war or mass murder - again, in only the last few years, while you've been alive. Yet in other countries, like the US, obesity is considered one of our worst problems. Whether the worst problem you face is being overweight or hacked to death with machetes depends much on your country's politics.



No one has it figured out yet. Humans have been around for thousands of years, yet we still have hunger, poverty, disease, war, racism, hatred and all kinds of things that have made life miserable over thousands of years. So when some politician tells you he can get rid of all of these problems in the next 4 to 8 years, or they would go away if we could just get rid of his political opponents, he is being what is called "less than truthful."

But we're not totally stupid, either. We actually have made great progress in eliminating hunger, poverty, disease, etc. Do you know that from 1900 to 2000, for example, life expectancy went from 47 to 77 in the US? Yet in other countries, like Zimbabwe, the life expectancy today is just 46. You have to believe we did some things better in the US over our history, and we are doing some things better than Zimbabwe today.

Freedom is good. We actually have a good idea of what makes these kinds of differences among countries: freedom. Countries where people can own property and are free to buy and sell what they want, are the countries that are much better off. (Some people call this "capitalism", but it is really just freedom.) Countries where the government has more control over what you can have, buy and sell, do worse. For more reading on this, go here.

Communism is bad. Communism is not just another "ism." In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100 million people. While I'm sure you heard of Nazism's Jewish Holocaust of 6 million, you probably haven't heard about this 17-times-bigger Communist holocaust. But it's documented in the Black Book of Communism, and the numbers are not really disputed, just ignored. Also, communist countries like North Korea and Cuba kill citizens who simply try to leave the country - today. Communism, along with Nazism and fascism, represent one end of the political spectrum -- the one where government makes most of the decisions, or the opposite of freedom. For more reading on this, go here.

What to fix? Many of us want to make the world a better place. Where would you start: in one of the richest countries on earth where people live fairly long, like the US, or in one of the poorest countries where people die fairly young, like Zimbabwe? It seems kind of dumb to me that the first place we would try to change the most would be the US. It seems to me we should try to change the places that are the most miserable, like North Korea, Zimbabwe and a bunch of other countries on earth. Also, in a place already doing pretty well, like the US, should we try changing everything at once, or try just a few things at a time and see if they work out before we try the next things?

The US is really pretty good. You can convince yourself of this by looking up data like wealth and income statistics, life expectancies, number of patents, etc., not to mention putting man on the moon. Or you could travel. Here are some tips for things to look for when you travel: can you drink the water without getting sick? Do they have toilets, and if so, where does the stuff go when you flush it? The biggest boosts to life expectancy are clean drinking water and a good sewage system. It ain't rocket science, but there are many places on earth where it would be a good idea to bring your own bottled water and TP.

Republicans aren't driven by racism.

Slavery started in the US colonies between 1619 and 1650. Abraham Lincoln, took office in 1861, or after more than 200 years of slavery in the US. The Republican Party originated as an anti-slavery party. And sure enough, Lincoln, the very first Republican President, did end slavery in the US. It took the Civil War and about 620,000 American lives, including Lincoln's own, but slavery ended.
When blacks were being lynched in the decades following the Civil War, it was Republicans in the US Congress who tried to pass anti-lynching laws. The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was sponsored by US Congressman L.C. Dyer, Republican of Missouri, in 1922. It was passed by the House of Representatives, majority Republican at the time. It was supported by President Warren G. Harding, Republican, as well as the NAACP. But it was defeated in the Senate by a filibuster from Democrats.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 won a higher percentage of Republican votes (about 4-to-1 in favor) than it did of Democrat votes (about 2-to-1 in favor). Al Gore's father, for example, was a Senator who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Republicans have been fairly consistent about race over the decades: they want the law to be blind to race. When government forms have a box for you to check what race you are, that is not color-blind. When your college has different ACT/SAT/LSAT test score cutoffs for applicants of different races, that is not color-blind. And you know that.

Fat cats vs. the little guy. This is one of the best cases of "branding" and one of the biggest myths ever perpetrated by political public relations. But you can follow the money yourself, on web sites like OpenSecrets or Newsmeat.

For example, if we look at the top contributing industries in the 2007-8 Congressional cycle, all of the top ten gave most of their money to Democrats (in fact, the top 14 did). Here are some of those top industries and what percent of their political contributions went to Democrats.

Lawyers and law firms (78%)
Securities/Investment (65%)
Real Estate (57%)
Misc. Business (70%)
Business Services (73%)
Misc. Finance (54%).

You know your poor, dedicated, underpaid teachers? They constituted the 6th highest-ranking industry in political contributions, and gave 88% of their money to Democrats. Of course you know Big Oil has to give more than your underpaid teachers, right? Wrong. The oil and gas industry ranked 19th; teachers contributed more than twice as much as Big Oil. Lawyers gave over seven times as much.

It might be a rip-off. Maybe you've heard of Bernie Madoff or R. Allen Stanford. They were both investment fund managers, but arrested this past year for ripping off their customers for billions of dollars. Madoff was recently convicted. They both gave big to politicians, over a million dollars combined, with almost all of it going to Democrats.

Although the Bob Dylan song Like a Rolling Stone is old now it's still considered pretty cool. Ponder these lyrics from that song.

"Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal."

When someone says he can make wonderful things happen if you would just give him more of your money (including a tax hike), consider that he might be Bob Dylan's diplomat who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat. He's not really where it's at.

The rip-off, small or large, is an old, old game. The best test of whether someone is ripping you off is not how nice his smile is; it's whether he's asking you to give him something.

Conservative can be cool. You probably wouldn't know it, but the following people are either outright Republican or have expressed support for Republican candidates or conservative or libertarian ideas.

Stephen Baldwin (yes, Alec's brother)
Drew Carey
Jeff Foxworthy
Kelsey Grammer
Sammy Hagar
Angie Harmon
Patricia Heaton
Dennis Hopper
Kathy Ireland
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Larry the Cable Guy
Kid Rock
Gary Sinise
Lynn Swan
Jon Voight
Bruce Willis
James Woods
And a whole lot more

Even 50 Cent complimented, I think, President Bush.

Use your head. Virtually everything you've watched on TV or the movies in your lifetime, from the Care Bears to Oprah Winfrey and the latest Terminator movie, told you to follow your heart, not your head.

Tell me, the last time you got ripped off, was it because you followed your head too much? What about your friends who got pregnant or got someone else pregnant when they didn't want to -- was it their head that got them in trouble? Do you think Hitler's main fault was too much reason and rationality? When you really, really want to hit someone, does that urge come from your head, your heart or your gut?

I don't know about you, but my heart always told me to sleep late, skip school, tell my boss what I really think of this job, have another drink, and call the ex-girlfriend. My head, to my chagrin, said stay in school, keep my pants on, don't quit this job until I have another one, and apologize to my wife whether I did something wrong or not. In my experience, listening to my head paid off better.

You have a brain, and it's OK to use it. No one else can think for you. And now you have easier access to information than humans have ever had before. A few decent links to information-laden web sites are here. And my advice is to go for the raw data and not rely too much on someone else's analysis -- not Al Gore's, and not even mine.

That's enough for now, kids. And before you start thinking about how to "give back," try paying your own car insurance and cell phone bill.

Randall Hoven, the father of two 19-year-olds and a 25-year-old, can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com.

Unions Want More From Obama

The Teachers' Unions gave millions of dollars to Obama during the Election now they want something back.

The following story appears on Townhall.com.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Union challenges Obama work with teachers
By LIBBY QUAID

A teachers' union challenged the Obama administration Monday to live up to its promise of working with teachers and not against them.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said her union will post a "collaboration meter" on its Web site to judge whether reforms are happening with teacher involvement.



"When it comes to making the changes that will make our schools better, do it with us _ not to us," Weingarten said in a speech prepared for delivery to an AFT meeting in Washington.

She was playing off the words of Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan. Duncan told the National Education Association last week that change would be made with teachers and for teachers, not to them.

The AFT planned to remind Duncan of his words by wearing "with us, not to us" buttons when he appeared Monday at their meeting. More than 2,500 people were attending the meeting.

It was a friendly challenge from a union leader who makes a point of reaching out to the administration. Weingarten was meeting at the White House before her speech and was joining Duncan onstage for a town-hall style forum during his appearance Monday.

President Barack Obama has education goals that put him at odds with many teachers, even though their unions make up an important segment of the Democratic Party base. The AFT has 1.4 million members, and NEA has 3.2 million members.

Obama supports performance pay, the idea of linking teacher bonuses to student achievement, using measures that include test scores. He is asking Congress for a huge spending increase, from $97 million to $717 million next year, to spur schools to adopt performance pay.

Many teachers don't want test scores to be used because tests can be deeply flawed, and because kids aren't tested in every subject.

Obama also wants to expand charter schools, which are more autonomous schools that teachers have resisted because they usually aren't unionized and because critics think they drain money and talent from traditional schools.

The AFT is pushing for a bigger role in charter schools and has signed contracts with teachers at a few of them, most recently with Green Dot New York Charter School in the Bronx, a high school run by Green Dot, a nonprofit group that operates charter schools.

About 40 unionized charter school teachers from 10 states attended the AFT meeting.

During her speech, Weingarten showed members her new "collaboration meter," saying a series of questions would decide where it moves from "`Kumbaya' hot to I-never-want-to-speak-to-you-again cold."

"When education reform is done to teachers and their unions, it is doomed to fail," she said. "But when education reform is done with teachers, it is destined to succeed ."

Obama's Education Secretary is Doing at Least One Thing Right.

Obama's Education Secretary Arne Duncan is doing at least one thing right. In the story below Arne Duncan tells the teachers' unions correctly "But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible."

The following article appeared on CNSnew.com.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Education Secretary Challenges NEA on Teacher Pay
Thursday, July 02, 2009
By Libby Quaid, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - Education Secretary Arne Duncan challenged members of the National Education Association Thursday to stop resisting the idea of linking teacher pay to student achievement.

It was Duncan's first speech at the union's annual meeting, a gathering at which President Barack Obama was booed when he mentioned the idea of performance pay last year.



"I came here today to challenge you to think differently about the role of unions in public education," Duncan told the 2.7 million-member union in San Diego.

"It's not enough to focus only on issues like job security, tenure, compensation, and evaluation," he said in a speech distributed by the Education Department. "You must become full partners and leaders in education reform. You must be willing to change."

Unions are an important part of the Democrats' political base of support. Duncan, even as he challenged NEA members, promised to include teachers in his decision-making.

"We're asking Congress for more money to develop compensation programs with you and for you, not to you," Duncan said.

Duncan described how, as CEO of Chicago public schools, he negotiated a performance pay program with the Chicago Teachers Union, which is part of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, the other national teachers' union.

The program is still very small; it will be in only about 40 of Chicago's more than 600 public schools next fall.

The Chicago program started with federal dollars from the Teacher Incentive Fund, which the administration is trying to drastically expand. The administration wants Congress to boost spending on the program from $97 million this year to $717 million next year.

But Obama may face resistance. Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, challenged Duncan at a hearing last month on whether there is any evidence of performance pay having improved student achievement.

Critics worry that pay might be based mostly on test scores, even though tests can be flawed, and all subjects are not tested. Some states prohibit student test scores from being used to evaluate teachers.

Duncan said Thursday that test scores should never be the driving force.

"But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible," he said.

Duncan has made a series of speeches to promote Obama's priorities, though Thursday's was the first where he faced a potentially hostile crowd.

He told charter school supporters last week they should do a better job of closing bad schools and opening good ones. Last month, he urged the nation's governors to agree on common, internationally measured academic standards for students.


(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

I Will Be Posting Less Frequently

This BLOG has less readers during the summer because many of them are school employees. I will be posting less frequently with my energies focused on fighting current legislation that will greatly increase our taxes like Cap and Trade, the card check bill and the health care bill. I will also be working to actively unseat Senator Bob O'dell because of his approval of the New Hampshire State Budget.

Cathy

Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Cap and Trade and Card Check Bills are being voted on today.

Cap and Trade and Card Check Bills are being voted on today.

Cap and Trade is essentially just a tax bill that will not control climate it will control energy. The more control the government has over energy the more control they will have over people. Please call your legislator and tell them to vote no on Cap and Trade. If they support this Bill work to get them out of office in 2010 or whenever their seat is up for election. Here is a good piece on why Cap and Trade is bad for America it is put out by the Heritage Foundation. Your Senators and Legislators have invested greatly in companies that will benefit from the passage of the Cap and Trade bills. Passage of these bills will make those people very rich why you will have to pay more taxes.

The below piece is directly from the Heritage Foundation.

Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

* Gasoline prices by 58 percent
* Natural gas prices by 55 percent
* Home heating oil by 56 percent
* Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent



Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hit hard are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices will cause reduced income, less production and an economy that falls way short of its potential. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. In other words, every day Americans are going to be footing the bill. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so if anyone is bought off with free allowances, the costs for everyone else are that much higher.

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: Millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature. Who’s buying that?

Quick Hits:

* Yesterday, the State Department announced it will resume full diplomatic relations with Venezuela. On Wednesday, the U.S. sent an Ambassador to Syria for the first time since 2005.
* Yesterday, nearly 100,000 North Koreans attended a mass rally against the U.S. as the communist nation vowed to build its nuclear capacity and warned of a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation.”
* Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled that they would not join other nations at the G8 Summit in condemning Iran, calling the protests and violence an “exercise in democracy.”
* President Obama met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday on immigration reform, cautioning that nothing should be expected this year.
* ABC News’ Wednesday night special ‘Questions for the President’ struggled for viewers, attracting the lowest number of viewers in its timeslot.

Legislature passes irresponsible budget amidst protest

Legislature passes irresponsible budget amidst protest

This afternoon lawmakers in Concord passed an $11.6 billion budget plus a spate of unpopular tax increases needed to pay for it. During the vote, a group of roughly 200 people gathered around the capitol to participate in an organized protest. Cathy, myself and our two children were among them, armed with posters and unflattering words for those who feel they know how best to spend our money.

Protestors covered the gamut, although a few causes such as opposition to the 9% camping tax stood out in larger than average numbers. The rally afforded me the opportunity to speak to lawmakers, reporters, and ordinary citizens. (Having two adorable children in tow helps break the ice.) One lawmaker whose name I didn't get expressed a genuine interest in understanding why I believe that mandates from Concord force school districts to spend far more money than we otherwise would. I should have invited him to a school board meeting to hear people in the audience bleating "Its a state law, we have to do this."



At the same time, a suited man (perhaps a lawmaker or lobbyist) tried to persuade me that cuts in state education spending would mean increased property taxes. As I explained that we could alternatively cut spending, he sprinted away, apparently more comfortable with lecturing me than engaging in a dialogue.

More annoying opposition came from a group of people dressed in chicken suits who walked the perimeter shouting "Republicans are too chicken to name the cuts". The irony of a group concealing their identity afraid to engage those of us who did name cuts calling other people "chicken" was not lost on the public. This was no grass-roots group; it was astroturf. After all, how many people keep chicken suits in their attic at the ready for the next state protest?

Tonight, the champagne will flow freely in the teachers lounges and government employee union halls. While they celebrate their increased wealth at the expense of working class New Hampshire citizens, we must hold lawmakers who have betrayed the public trust to account. Next year can and must be a referendum against lawmakers who have turned their backs on the people of New Hampshire.

Jim Peschke

Representation That America Needs

The following piece was sent to Glenn Beck and read on the air. This woman's sentiments so strongly expressed how I feel about the current state of our Country that I wanted to share it with my readers. Please share it with friends and family and send a copy to your representatives.

I thought this was written by a man but it was written by a 53 year old woman who was a democrat up until the last election. Corrected at 6:52 p.m.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Will President Obama Nationalize Public Education?

What would happen to our little red schoolhouse if President Obama nationalizes public education? My guess is we would be forced into Newport or another school district? Anyone else want to venture a guess? What teeny tiny local control we had would be gone in a flash and the cost of public education in America will skyrocket.



Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

The following article appears on American Thinker.com.

Nationalizing Public Education Comes After Health Care
By Lee Cary

After Congress passes a national health care plan, nationalizing public education will be next.

John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends (1988), said something to the effect that Ronald Reagan wasn't leading the (conservative) parade; he was riding the horse that was leading the parade.

Barack Obama is leading the progressive parade, and his wagon is hitched to a team of horses that includes a compliant Democrat Congress, well-funded liberal think tanks, a shill media, and the collective mindset of a progressive movement active since the early 20th Century.

The Great Depression chaos gave FDR the opportunity to dramatically alter the nation's socio-political landscape. Likewise, the implosion of the credit market in 2008 gave the Obama administration the chaos needed to cram down its progressive initiatives with breathtaking speed.

The Republicans have neither the votes nor the collective will to turn back the tide of Obama-style change that represents a mix of socialist and fascist economic policies not new to the planet, but new in their current intensity in America. The Democrats are playing hardball; the Republicans are lobbing mush pounders.

Though not yet in great numbers, some who voted for Obama are now being heard to say that they didn't vote for what's happening. Those confessions illustrate their failure to do due diligence on the candidate of their choice. His intentions were clearly laid out in his campaign documents and in many of his non-primetime speeches.


Click on the this link to read the full story.

Does only one Croydon School Board Member Represent the People of Croydon?

At the school board meeting this past week two Croydon School Board members authorized more spending in the school budget than was authorized during the town hall meeting. You can guess which two.

In April the three school board members sat down to make the necessary cuts to meet the budget as voted on by the residents at the town hall meeting. Jim suggested a budget that did not cut teachers. Linda and George approved a budget that cut teachers. The teachers and employees of Croydon were not happy with it so at the last two school board meetings they pestered the school board until two caved. Can you guess which two?

Last year by a nearly two to one margin 70 households in Croydon responded to the long term planning committee that they want school choice. Michelle Caccavaro, Marilyn Brannigan, other Newport and SAU employees not happy with this are trying to say the people of Croydon really don't want this and do not know what is best for themselves. Jim was told three times by Newport people and SAU people as well as least once by Carol Marsh and Matt Wittasek that it is his job as a school board member to tell the people of Croydon what they want. Jim said no he represents the people of Croydon. These people clearly appear to not believe in a representative government. So the "we know what is best for you crowd", persuaded George and Linda to have an "information" meeting about how bad leaving Newport will be for Croydon residents. This meeting will probably be nothing but scare tactics, threats, intimidation and propaganda by the "we know what is best for you crowd" because they care more about Croydon tax dollars in their pockets then the desires of all those that expressed they want choice for their families and the residents of Croydon.

Don't think the only care about money. At the school meeting Monday the state representative from the department of ed told us that we could send our children to other schools. A Newport employee questioned even if the child does not go to Newport Schools, Croydon would still have to pay us that child's tuition. See folks Newport only wants our tax dollars they don't care that the majority of residents want choice. They will push until they get what they want unless Croydon residents speak up.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

An Open Letter to President Obama

I share this man's sentiments.

Cathy

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett



Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT FOR AMERICA

I am very tired and will really mess up what I want to write so I am going to share the following.

Cathy


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists,
Marxists and Obama supporters.


We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of
this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know
we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but
sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of
America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it
on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences
and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each
taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides
can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our
respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides
have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are
welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war,
we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep
Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for
finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless,
homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey
moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC
and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the
right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks
and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault,
we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we
will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You
can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing
doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm
sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World
to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up
poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our
history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like
minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit
delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of
us will need whose help in 15 years.


Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S.
Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you