"Declaration of Independence"

Peoples Opinions Page

To have an article or opinion considered for posting on this page, please submit the complete article to our National Office via e-mail.  Thank you.

NationalOffice@americanpatriotsfortrueequality.org

Often people forget what others have sacrificed to maintain our freedoms in this great country of ours... But the Handicapped Patriot in this picture didn't forget, even though he was the only one that stood to stand to honor it... and from a wheelchair.  The APFTE Respects this man and anyone else that honors our Flag.

A Brief for Whitey 

How would he pull it off? I wondered. 

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people? 

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!" 


My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables. 

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America." 

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation. 

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country. 

The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ." 

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country? 

The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations. 

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure? 

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves." 

Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery. 

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America. 

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. 

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these: 

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. 

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. 

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. 

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. 

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks. 

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude? 

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks. 

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids. 

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent? 

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself? 

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time? 

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse? 

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing. 

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago. 


By Patrick J. Buchanan

HAVE YOU HUGGED AN ISLAMO-FASCIST TODAY?

October 24, 2007 

College liberals are in a fit of pique because various speakers are coming to their campuses this week as part of David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week -- not to be confused with Islamo-Fascism Appreciation Week, which I believe is in April. 

Apparently liberals support Islamo-fascism. 

The Democratic leadership might want to have a powwow with their base because I believe their public position is to pretend to oppose Islamic fascism. 

Elected Democrats at least make empty rhetorical gestures about opposing Islamic fascism. Of course, amidst their nonspecific condemnations of Islamic terrorism, they make very specific demands that we genuflect before Islam and perform exotic fetishes on the fascists. 

Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents -- but God forbid an infidel touch a Quran at Guantanamo. 

College campuses across the nation are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslims' daily bathing ritual, while surgically removing the Ten Commandments from every public space in America. Maybe the Ten Commandments could be printed on towels and kept next to the foot baths. 

The National Council for Social Studies recommended a lesson plan after 9/11 that included a story titled "My Name Is Osama" about a nasty little white boy, "Todd," who taunts a fine upstanding Iraqi immigrant named "Osama." Go ahead, laugh it up -- we'll see who's laughing when "My Name Is Osama" ends up on ABC's prime-time lineup next year. 

This story was proposed in response to an event in which Muslims with names like "Osama" committed the most massive hate crime in U.S. history against 3,000 innocent civilians with names like "Todd." 

Still and all, Democrats who seek the votes of their fellow Americans continue to claim in a vague, meaningless way to oppose Islamo-fascism. 

And then when speakers like Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer and producer of the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," and Nonie Darwish, whose father founded the Fedayeen, show up on college campuses to criticize Islamic terrorism, the Democratic base threatens to riot. The only thing that makes the cut-and-run crowd mad enough to fight is the idea that someone, somewhere might be criticizing radical Islam. 

Consequently, the speakers for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week require the sort of security phalanx one would expect for someone more like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

Oh wait -- no. Ahmadinejad was cheered by college students a few weeks ago -- at least until he expressed reservations about sodomy. (On the basis of Ahmadinejad's claims, instead of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, how about we start looking for gays in Iran?) 

Even American intellectuals like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved who are speaking during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week are denounced by liberals as if they were David Duke. One pro-Islamo-fascism Web site indicts Medved on the grounds that he "has claimed that Islam has a 'special violence problem.'" It doesn't get much more diplomatic than that. 

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right. 

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling. 

Congressional Democrats are constantly calling for conservative private citizens to be silenced. Even Democratic candidates for president and their wives are getting in on the act. 

A few weeks ago, in the midst of Senate Democrats' demand that Rush Limbaugh's microphone be silenced, Lizzie Edwards distracted herself from the latest National Enquirer by announcing on Air America that Limbaugh's draft deferment was phony. 

I was pretty shocked. Who knew Air America was still on the air? 

I know every time Democrats call for me to be silenced, I feel a delicious surge of martyrdom. For a brief moment, I understand the thrill the left gets by going around claiming to be victimized all the time. 

I could almost imagine a poem: 

First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh; 

And then they came for Ann Coulter, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Ann Coulter; 

And then they came for David Horowitz, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't David Horowitz; 

And then ... they came for me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up. 

Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests. 

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism. 

By ANN COULTER COPYRIGHT 2007 

---

 

How Much Longer Can America Survive an Ignorant Electorate?

Can any representative republic survive a progressively ignorant electorate? Can freedom be sustained in any society hell-bent upon taxing its productive members out of existence, for benefit of its non-productive? Can people unable to successfully govern their own lives be entrusted with the power to govern others?

Not to be unkind, but we need to face facts here. So long as a republic represents the will of the brave, it will remain the home of the free. When it’s run by the productive members of society, it will remain prosperous. When it’s governed by the independent minded, it will not be dependent upon anyone. When run by those with a healthy respect for individual rights, special interests will no longer need special consideration.

But when cowards, thieves and thugs run things, those who believe that some progressive form of socialism is better than individual freedom and personal achievement, freedom is diminished. When those seeking to rob the rich in the name of the poor while stuffing their own pockets and growing their own political power run things, then the republic represents cowardly thieves, not the people.

When capitalism is attacked, socialism is automatically advanced. We can not afford to allow socialists to criminalize capitalism in the free enterprise capital of the world, unless free enterprise and economic freedom are things of the past.

While democracy is by far the most successful form of government on earth in the short run, it is once again proving to be unsustainable in the long run. In short, people who make a mess of their own lives and then seek government solutions to the mess they created, are about to make a mess of their entire nation. America has been on this course for some sixty years now and the self-destruction of the greatest nation on earth is accelerating.

In the best of circumstances, government is still the most evil of necessities. Societies inherently know this in the early stages of development. But generations later, few seem to remember.

Even when very limited by design, restricted by law, of, by and for the people, government is a deadly virus constantly eating away at personal liberty and individual freedom, first slowly, then at an accelerating pace as the progressive virus consumes that which it was originally supposed to protect. The Double Edged Sword of Democracy.
The very same democratic principles used to protect personal liberty and individual freedom can, and as history has proven, will eventually be used to attack personal liberty and individual freedom. 
"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397
If a fair majority decides that individual freedom and liberty are to be protected, then that should be respected. However, if that same fair majority decides that a greater common good trumps individual freedom and liberty, then that must also be respected, yes? The absolute rule of a fair majority is by definition, a democracy, even when that majority chooses tyranny over freedom, collective socialism over individual capitalism.
I wrote about the dismantling of America in a recent column titled "When 51-49 becomes 49-51"
In it, I talk about how freedom and liberty are protected only so long as at least 51% (the fair majority) desire personal freedom and liberty more than government solutions to personal challenges. I also describe what happens once those who only respect a greater communal good outnumber those who still desire personal freedom and individual liberty, when 51-49 becomes 49-51, swinging majority interests away from individual rights and towards the collective rights of the community at large.
2006 Election Result - The Greater Good of the Commune defeats Individual Freedom
Because one can not be allowed to fail, one can no longer be allowed the freedom to succeed either. Individual success must be penalized by progressive taxation, because it is the only way to eliminate, pay for or offset individual failure, once failure is deemed inhumane and unacceptable by the commune at large.

This is the basis upon which the new American majority now casts its vote. 

Today, capitalism, free enterprise, profit, independence, individuality and personal achievement are scorned as dirty words in America. The successful are now referred to only as “the greedy”. They are targeted for revenge, taxed against their will, driven from the community like common criminals, through excessive governmental intrusion, taxation and regulation. Not even the very real threat of world wide terrorism or national bankruptcy can spawn as much fear and anguish in average American voters as evil “corporate America” does today. Not because corporate America is an equal threat, but because ignorant voters have been fully indoctrinated.There are indeed criminal individuals working inside of corporate America today. But far fewer than you can find working in the halls of congress or your local union office...
Criminals should be prosecuted no matter where they are found, at the head of a US company, in the union office or in Washington DC. However, an inanimate object, a corporation, a union, a governing body, is only a structure, in and of itself, neither good nor evil. It’s the individuals involved who are good or evil, their acts from positions of power which are right or wrong. But progressive thinking aims to take one criminal individual, criminalize the company he runs, and indict all of capitalism on this basis. Ignorant voters buy it…

The re-education process and development of an American proletariat voting bloc is complete, at least as a fair majority. Today’s Democrat Party exists on the basis of this voting bloc alone. It also operates on the governing principle, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. This is the greater common good that drives the voters that drive today’s Democrat Party. It’s a very socially conscious sounding idea, isn’t it? It was written by Karl Marx, as the foundational principle for his governing system, Socialism.

Every Democrat vote is cast based upon this principle today. Every penny poured into the Democrat Party is intended to advance this agenda. Democrat leaders know well that their party now represents the principles written by Karl Marx, the father of Marxism, Socialism, as the transitional stepping stone on the road from capitalism to communism. But few in the proletariat voting bloc recognize what they are supporting today or where they are headed. Human regression sounds very progressive to ignorant voters. Need an example?

The Hairline Difference between Universal Healthcare and Socialized Medicine

Just as socialism is but a stepping stone on the road from capitalism to communism, Universal Healthcare is but a stepping stone on the road from private medicine to Socialized Medicine.

The case for Universal Medicine is made on the basis that private medicine is failing to meet the needs of the people. Medical costs are too high, as are insurance costs. The idea is that a “single payer system” (the single payer being the federal government) will solve the problem by simplifying the process and bringing down the cost of medical treatment and insurance by way of “collective bargaining” on behalf of the people.

On the surface, the case almost makes sense, as long as you don’t ask any important questions about any of the details regarding how such a program might work, or bother to notice that the same principles have been tried in many other parts of the world with disastrous results.

Other countries have similar “free” medicine already. Yes, people in these countries can get “free” (paid for by others) substandard medical treatment, if they can live until their appointment six to eight months from now. Never mind that their nations are going bankrupt doing it or that freedom long ago ceased to exist in order to rob the productive members of society who pick up the tab.

Once Universal Healthcare is installed, the federal government will soon cut out the inconvenient middle-man, the health insurance company, collect the insurance premiums itself to stay afloat and begin to administer medicine and medical decisions from the hall of congress directly. This, my dear ignorant fellow Americans, is socialized medicine and there is only a hairline difference separating Universal Healthcare from socialized medicine.

When the people vote themselves gifts from the treasury in every election, politicians must run on government growth and spending.

Our federal government has never reduced its own size, scope or reach and it never will. Though every election cycle is filled with promises to reduce the size, scope, reach and expense of the federal government, and both liberals and conservatives claim to desire personal freedom and liberty, politicians are instead elected on the basis of just the opposite. They are elected on the basis of where they intend to grow government, not shrink it. 

Many conservatives want a bigger, better, stronger military and that will increase the size, scope and cost of government. Most liberals want bigger, better social programs and this too will increase the size, scope and cost of government. Nobody is running on the basis of reducing the size, scope and reach of all of it and if they did, they would never be elected today.

Can you even imagine America electing politicians truly committed to reversing the hundred year old trend of growing government today? Reversing the trend of growing the federal government means reducing government spending, cutting government programs, eliminating government waste, ending special interest funding of all sorts of special interest projects and retreating from those who aim to vote themselves favor from the treasury. Would any Democrat voter support such things today? There is NO evidence that they would…

Getting fat is easy. Losing weight is ten times harder, whether as an individual or as a nation.

As a result, no Democrat politician would ever run on such notions today. Even Republicans feel the need to pander just to stay in the game.

The end result of the people’s choice – is the slow but certain death of America

America may have already passed the point of no return on the road to self-destruction. Only the people had the power to stop it. The fair majority was given the power to choose personal freedom and individual liberty and for almost 200 years, they did. Today, they are choosing a collective communal good instead.

But for almost 100 years now, since the 1940’s in particular, those seeking the interests of the community at large, the commune, in opposition to individual rights of freedom and liberty, have grown to become the new American majority. 51-49 in favor of freedom is now 49-51 in favor of a “universal collective right” to free (paid for by others) stuff.

Few in modern America understand that individual freedom and liberty can not co-exist with socialism or communism. Few recognize that they are systematically destroying the greatest nation on earth with every attempt to vote themselves or others gifts from the treasury. Few would knowingly vote for socialized medicine, but most now support universal healthcare. Few want socialism, but many now believe it serves the people better than capitalism, otherwise known as economic freedom.

In yet another effort to awaken the average American voter, I wrote Anything Goes in America, If you know what to name it! It turns out Americans will buy anything if you name it right. Socialism no, but progress, sure.

The people have chosen. 

The new American majority is indeed willing to trade individual freedom and personal liberty for free (paid for by others) stuff, a false sense of temporary security, the greater good of the common politician always in search of political power over the burgeoning proletariat voter bloc and the end of America as many of us once knew it.

What’s their defense? “A little socialism can be a good thing. We don’t like the term “socialism,” we prefer the term “socially conscious democratic progress.” Learn to like it, you greedy capitalist pig!” It’s here to stay!

Written by JB Williams ©2007

The Special Privileges Are Coming!

Twelve Million More of Them! 

White People! Get In The Back Of The Line...

The Preferences Are Coming – Twelve Million of Them By Lloyd Billingsley

The 12 million or more who entered the United States illegally, and would gain United States citizenship under the current immigration proposal, Senate Bill 1348, will qualify for race preferences and privileges for which the majority of Americans are not eligible. 

This is not fair...

 That is the view of Ward Connerly of the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, a veteran of battles against racial preferences in California, Washington and Michigan, and who believes that "race and ethnic preferences ought to be wrong under any circumstances." The current immigration measure, Connerly believes, would constitute a massive endowment of such preferences.

"This is huge," Connerly told Frontpage. "All this talk of going to the back of the line is B.S.. They would go to the front of the line. The minute they are Americans, they move in front of  white males and in some cases white women." Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned “underrepresented minority.”

"We have to somehow make the American public aware of this. We are, right now, the Paul Revere on this. There is a problem here."

The problem, according to Connerly, lies in "the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences." That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

"This is one of those things that people have not thought through." Connerly said. "A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country."

Connerly does not find much to like about the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which he considers amnesty, similar to the 1986 measure that granted amnesty to more than five million illegals. Many of them these prior beneficiaries of amnesty, Connerly says, have also become benficiaries of preferences and he sees the potential for repetition.

"My big fear is that we make 12 million all legal and in 10 years we are back in same position with another five million. Illegal immigration will continue. Until you do something about making it impossible to cross border they will come."

A root cause, in Connerly's view, is the definition of a minority.

"It is not numerical," he said, "you are a minority if you are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. We will have in California a circumstance that one group is a numerical majority but still classified a minority. You would be hard pressed to say they are disadvantaged. The premise is that minorities are politically powerless."

Connerly is himself as racially diverse as Tiger Woods and finds fault with a classification system that uses race for Blacks, Whites, Asians and Native Americans but makes Hispanic an ethnic designation. That poses problems, he says, for legalizing millions of Hispanics with the stroke of a pen. "The minute illegals become legalized they become part of preferences," he said.

Connerly is pushing for a "Fairness to Americans Amendment" to the Senate Bill on Immigration which reads, in part:

THEREFORE, for purposes of the operation of the civil rights laws of the United States, new immigrants to the United States subject to the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 shall not be considered to be "historically disadvantaged," "underrepresented," or to be in a "protected class" and shall not be entitled to any preferential or remedial employment goals, educational admissions goals or contracting goals by any entity subject to the civil rights laws of the United States.

Connerly's past campaigns for equal treatment have prevailed despite much opposition from professional ethnics and the political establishment. In 1996 he helped eliminate racial preferences in California through Proposition 209, which became the blueprint for similar victories in Washington state in 1998 and Michigan in 2006. Some may have thought that the preferences issue had died with the ambiguous Supreme Court decision on affirmative action of 2003.  But the Michigan campaign last year showed how explosive an issue this remains.  In a campaign where Bill Clinton and Colin Powell both campaigned against him and Barack Obama ran a radio ad against the measure, Connerly's anti-preference initiative still prevailed 58-42, a wider margin than Proposition 209—and this in the middle of a Democratic landslide nationally and in Michigan itself insofar as Gubernatorial and Senate candidates were concerned.

With three major states solidly against preferences, Connerly wants more people to vote on this question. So he has planned a kind of Super Tuesday on preferences for November 4, 2008, attempting to qualify ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma, states he says are already feeling the effects not only of “affirmative action” but also of illegal immigration.

"I think we win them all once we get on the ballot," Connerly said. "We need to bring about a critical mass of states. The majority of Americans do not support race preferences. The more we get that view in body politic, the more legislators will be emboldened."

Only 23 states allow ballot initiatives. For the others, Connerly says, the answer is a court decision: "With every passing day I realize how right our position is."  He derives a warning from developments abroad.  "Look at what is going on India," he says. "They made quotas more strict and the people are rioting."

By Lloyd Billingsley

FrontPageMagazine.com | June 21, 2007

Equal Rights For All, Special Privileges For None! Thomas Jefferson

 

 

JOHN MURTHA: CAVING IN TO ARABS SINCE 1980

   Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?

In case you missed the video on "I Love the '80s," Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans.

On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: "When I make a f***in' deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I'm doing and ... what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district ..."

It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.

Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done "legitimately ... when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so these bastards up here can't say to me ... 'Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,' then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart."

For those of you just joining us, no, this isn't a scene from "The Sopranos." It's an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.

Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, "after we've done some business, then I might change my mind." You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.

The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one "moderate" Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, "community outreach."

But Murtha was willing to trade favors in return for investment in his district — and suggested he might take cash down the line. In other words, Murtha wasn't calling for an immediate surrender of his scruples and principles, but rather a phased withdrawal of them.

In fact, according to a co-conspirator's affidavit, it didn't take long for Murtha to warm to the idea of a cash bribe.

About a month after the taped meeting with Murtha, the co-conspirator, lawyer Howard L. Criden, wrote in his affidavit: "Yesterday, Feb. 1, (Democrat Congressman Frank 'Topper') Thompson called and told me that Murtha was ready to go," adding that Murtha had indicated "during January that he was not ready to do business but would be willing to do so in the future."

Criden said: "Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania would be willing to enter into an agreement similar to that of the other congressmen" — i.e., taking $50,000 cash from the sheiks for legislative favors.

Criden's affidavit went unsigned, according to his lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste, solely because of the resulting publicity when the press blew the investigation, leading Criden to believe the prosecutors had broken the deal.

Criden was later convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, along with seven members of Congress (six of them Democrats). Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator. (Would that Patrick Fitzgerald were prosecuting the case!)

As an attorney, let me give you the technical legal description of what occurred: John Murtha was as guilty as O.J. Simpson.

Now Murtha issues high moral pronouncements on the war and denounces our troops, calling the U.S. military "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Gee, too bad there aren't any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes. Sounds like they could really use the money.

Murtha accuses Marines of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood" during an ongoing investigation. Semper Fi, Mr. Dirty Congressman.

Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.

The Democrats' cheat-sheet on Murtha demands that it be shouted out: "He didn't take a bribe on tape!" That's their defense. There is not even a pretense that he didn't talk to Arabs about a bribe.

He negotiated with a prostitute at the bar, but never consummated the deal. He's a saint! Let him be my congressman!

It's the Clintonian "incompetency" defense: Murtha was willing to be bribed; he just never got his act together enough to pick up the cash. I may not be honest, but I'm way too disorganized to actually take bribes!

Fine, Murtha was never convicted. Neither was Nixon. Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country's interests to Arab sheiks. This is the man Democrats have put up to lead the anti-war charge today, demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends.

If only this whole war thing would blow over, maybe that Arab is still waiting out there with a deal for him.

  By: Ann Coulter Visit Ann's website for more great articles!

---

Queen of Pork Barrel Bribery

Appoints Self Commander-in-Chief

Self-appointed Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi, now seizing control of U.S. Foreign Policy in her “unauthorized” whirl-wind visit with international partners of world-wide jihad in Syria and beyond, is getting dangerously close to out-performing Rosie O’Donnell on the insanity meter…

 Bush should have known better than to agree to loaning Commander Pelosi a private jet. She’s too damn dangerous to give a bicycle to… even with training wheels!

 When Commander Pelosi saw she was about to come up several votes short in her partisan effort to de-fund our military currently fighting on the primary terror front in Iraq, she simply opened up the barrel of pork and started bribing fellow Democrats with special pet project money until she had the votes needed to undermine the war on terror. That’s how she fast earned the title, Queen of Pork Barrel Bribery.

 Once Democrats in both the House and Senate passed their surrender bills by way of pork barrel bribes, it was time for Commander Pelosi to visit our enemies carrying with her the news that there was a new sheriff in D.C., and the U.S. was no longer in the mood to fight terrorists or the regimes that arm and fund them.

 The news that our enemies must simply await the newly scheduled retreat and withdrawal of our under-funded troops, ordered by our newly self-appointed Commander-in-Chief, was welcomed with open arms across the Mideast, where American troops and those Bush folks who clearly have a problem getting along with jihadists, have almost as low of an approval rating in the region as they do among Democrats right here at home.

 "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Pelosi told reporters after her talks with Assad. In other words, please be nice and change your terror loving ways, because if you don’t, we don’t intend to do anything about it…

 Commander Pelosi carried her party olive branch to the regime known to be sending armor and troops across the Iraq border for the sole purpose of killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, both of whom are working together diligently to stop the sectarian and terrorist violence pouring into their war torn nation from both Syria and Iran. A message of “friendship and hope” she claims?

 Pelosi said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria . At another “unauthorized” meeting last Sunday, Olmert asked Pelosi to take a message to Assad that Israel would be interested in peace if Syria stops its support for terrorism. No – duh….!

 This is the new Democrat grand plan for peace in the Middle East ? This is the message that had to be delivered by the new self-appointed Commander-in-Chief personally? If Syria stops being a terror state, Israel will stop treating them like a terror state? This is breaking news to anyone, or some new peace initiative that required a special “unauthorized” visit from Commander Pelosi?

 If this is it, and it is, then Pelosi is fast on her way to making Rosie O’Donnell look sane! Americans shouldn’t be wasting time calling for the firing of Rosie at ABC. They should be preparing a public noose to greet Commander Pelosi the minute the Starship Nutcase touches back down on American soil…

 I suppose her next Mideast peace initiative will be to reward Iran with American nuclear warheads, intercontinental missiles and the technology for both, as thanks for their release of the fifteen British soldiers they never should have kidnapped in Iraq waters to begin with???

 Bush said Pelosi's trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. "A lot of people have gone to see President Assad ... and yet we haven't seen action. He hasn't responded," Bush told reporters soon after Pelosi arrived in Damascus on Tuesday.

 And now after Commander Pelosi’s visit, Syrian government officials confirm Bush’s statement. "Everyone knows there are different points of view between Syria and the United States," he said. Yes, the U.S. is opposed to Syria ’s ongoing terror activities and Syria is not. "We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her (unauthorized and unofficial) delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."

 She bridged these differences how exactly? By telling them what they already knew? That both the U.S. and Israel were eager for peace through Syria ’s discontinued terror activities, which Syria has so far failed repeatedly to discontinue? Again, this is some sort of earth shattering new development? How? Syria had somehow missed this breaking news?

 Hollyweird would no doubt give her a day-time soap Emmy for her trip to meet the enemy, but in the good ole days, such an overt act of circumventing the elected Commander-in-Chief in an obvious effort to undermine official U.S. policy by making “unauthorized” visits with well-known enemies of the free world would have drawn treason charges. But today, many Americans who are upset by the fact that neither international socialists nor global jihadists think much of America , see such an outward public display of treason as some form of intelligent patriotism.

 The Speaker of the House has no power to make such a trip or hold such discussions unless “authorized” by the elected Commander-in-Chief. In this case, the real Commander-in-Chief specifically demanded that the Speaker respect her very limited roll as a simple “legislator”, and refrain from engaging the enemy directly, at odds with ongoing Administration foreign policy initiatives. A demand obviously ignored.

 As I said, not long ago, Pelosi’s ignorance and outright traitorous act of circumventing formal U.S. policy despite the president’s condemnation of her actions would have meant she had handcuffs and a lynch mob awaiting her return to U.S. soil.

 But instead, we continue to tolerate such insane anti-American nonsense for what purpose exactly?

 Well, for liberals, the purpose is political power at home at any cost, including an American loss in the war against international terrorism, additional attacks on U.S. interests, even on U.S. soil, which would certainly follow any such a loss, and unnecessary loss of American soldiers on a battlefield without the full financial and moral support of the people back home, who now seem eager to retreat in defeat. How soon the lessons of 9/11 have been forgotten…

 As for so-called “independents”, those without the moral backbone to take a side in the fight between the conscious free world hoping to end world-wide terrorism before we have to stick our grandchildren in uniform to fight them on our doorsteps - and terrorist, the rogue regimes who support them like Syria and the spineless jellyfish around the globe like all of Europe who appease them, these folks are motivated only by a child-like hope for peace where peace has never before existed, at any cost, including freedom and liberty if need be.

 Now for quasi-conservatives, who usually label themselves Republicans by default, whether they actually qualify or not - who the hell knows why they tolerate this traitorous nonsense. One can only assume that they tolerate it out of fear of their political opponents at home, since no other explanation makes any sense at all. One must conclude that today’s Republican leaders are simply political cowards.

 Can anyone tell me why a group that calls itself GOPUSA, who is currently circulating a “fire Rosie” petition, is more worried about a clear nut-job of an overtly ignorant Hollyweird court jester than a treasonous Speaker of the House?

 I'd rather sign a petition calling for the immediate suspension and investigation for impeachment of Nancy Pelosi, who is currently traveling around enemy territories undermining official U.S. foreign policy against the orders of the elected Commander-in-Chief, whom is constitutionally held responsible for making and directing our nations foreign policies and national defense.

 Who cares about nutcase Rosie? The more she talks, the better we look! Just like the Ditzy Chicks, Rosie’s loud mouthed anti-American ignorance is the 15 minutes of fame she couldn’t accomplish any other way. Nobody takes these foolhardy parasites serious to begin with…They have the mental capacity of the average minimum wage carnival geek… Who cares?

 Where’s the petition to impeach Pelosi and her cast of traitorous Democrats? I’ll sign that one in a heartbeat!

 Written by JB Williams ©2007 USA  

 

---

  "All right, let's hear it for the power,"  "the most powerful woman in America,"  Self-proclaimed by The Head Idiot In The House Of Representatives... 

Moronic statements from the head Idiot

"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class". 
(So low unemployment levels are a bad thing according to her...)

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. "What this really means is" that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets". (So a strong economy is a bad thing too...)

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs".  Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". 
(So the strong Stock market is obscene and also bad thing according to her...)

"There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". (Karl Marx would be proud of the Nancy the Socialist)

"Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich".  (The old Politburo of the USSR would be proud of Nancy The Red Too!)

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". How much of this "trickle down" ever get to the unemployed and minorities in our county?  None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs." (Tragic Stock market highs? This idiot would be happier if there was a depression!)

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." (We hope the Morons that voted the democrats in office understand what is down the road for our country.)

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans". (Tax Americans and give the money to Illegal Aliens... What a goofy idea Nancy!)

Well, some of you asked for it. By either not voting at all or voting for democratic socialism, and now it's happening.  Lets all hope our country can survive having these socialist/commies in charge of the House and Senate until Normal Americans can get rid of them again. Heaven help us if Hillary, the Queen Commie herself becomes President in 2008... 

If that happens, we can kiss our American way of life goodbye while the Democrats resurrect the USSR right here on our own soil.   

R. Smith APFTE

---

Jane Elliot and her blue eyed Devil Children

---

 

 

JONATHAN LIVINGSTON OBAMA
by Ann Coulter
February 14, 2007

  I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)

Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.

In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in "the basic decency of the American people." And let the chips fall where they may!

Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" — deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")

He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!

Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this — a certain audacity — to this announcement."

What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.

Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about 400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.

Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.)

But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!

I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did he say?" There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming.

If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.

There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?

He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable." (There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the billions.

Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring thoughts as:

"When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?)

I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.

The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes.

Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won — and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama. Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein.

Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're just running out of greeting card inscriptions.

By ANN COULTER Visit Ann's website!

---

 

"Borat": The Joke's on You, America

By Debbie Schlussel

Britain's Daily Mail says that "Borat" makes fun of an entire country.

But that country isn't Kazakhstan. It's America. And it's not funny.

If you watch TV, read a paper, or listen to talk radio, you've likely heard about "Borat," the fictional anti-Semitic reporter from Kazakhstan, played by pretentious British comedian Sascha Baron Cohen. The Borat movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," comes out this week. And it's getting a lot of hype.

I was excited to go see this movie. Borat's interviews with unwitting politicians and celebrities on his "Da Ali G Show" were funny. But his movie isn't.

It's a mean-spirited attack on America . . . Red State America. Yes, there are a few funny scenes. Borat comes to America and meets a group of aging Manhattan feminists. But even that was more mildly amusing than uproariously funny.

Definition of Over-Rated: Borat/Sascha Baron Cohen

Borat falls in love with Pamela Anderson, after seeing her on "Baywatch" in his hotel room. He spends most of the rest of the movie trying to get to California to meet and marry her. I thought I'd find it funny when he finally gets the chance to make fun of the buxom peroxide blonde. But the movie even managed to make me feel something I thought I never would: sympathy for Ms. Anderson.

The movie is full of set-ups in which unknowing Americans were duped by sneaky "Borat" producers and made fun of by Cohen. They all believe he's a foreign journalist trying to learn about America.

Spoiler alert: If you want to see how Borat takes cheap shots at America, without a preview, stop reading here.

Borat meets with conservative former Congressman Bob Barr and serves him cheese, saying it's a traditional gift in Kazakhstan. After Barr swallows it, Borat tells him it's made from his wife's breast milk. Is that funny? No, it's just sick. Then, he chooses to describe a gay parade to another conservative, Alan Keyes, and describes how he and a gay from the parade had sex with a plastic fist in a shower. That's supposed to be funny?

If it's so funny, why didn't Cohen & Company pick Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for the breastmilk cheese and graphic gay sex jokes? Well, that's exactly the point. But for the brief Manhattan feminist club scene, the movie should really be called "Sascha's Big Fart on Middle America."

Midwesterners at a rodeo are depicted as anti-Muslim racists, bigots, and dummies. They're supposed to be the bad ones for booing Borat when he purposely perverts the American National Anthem and says "We support your War OF Terror."

A Southern Evangelical Church finds a down-and-out-on-his-luck Borat asleep in the sidewalk in front. They take him in and even give him a bus ride on his way to California. Despite their kindness, he ridicules them, showing them speaking in tongues and trying to make them look bad.

Equally disturbing was Borat's sojourn to a Southern mansion where he is invited to dinner. First, he meets with an etiquette teacher. He shows her a picture of his alleged son. Most of the picture is of the son's large penis. That's funny? Maybe, if you're five or a drunk at the frat house. When he goes to dinner, Borat tells one of the husbands at the dinner table that his wife is ugly. After using the bathroom, he brings a white bag filled with his feces to the dinner table. That's funny? Where's the humor?

Ditto for the arrival of the fat, Black prostitute (overflowing out of her skimpy sequined tube top), whom Cohen invites to the home while the dinner is going on. She's, by the way, the major Black person in the movie (there are brief scene with Keyes and some inner city Black kids). So who's the racist now, Sascha Cohen?

Entire article at Debbies Website...

By Debbie Schlussel

October 31, 2006