Oppose Obama Budget Sham

As you might know, the federal budget means nothing when it comes to spending. Congress actually spends money completely independent of the federal budget, through passing appropriations bill. Typically Congress passes about a dozen major appropriations bills, filled with billions of dollars of earmarks and pork, to make sure that the president cannot veto individual items--not that Obama would veto Democrat pork, no matter how outrageous. Remember that Obama in the Senate voted for Chris Dodd's amendment to guarantee that the AIG bailout money would go to paying AIG executives bonuses. (Dodd and Obama got the first and second largest contributions from AIG in 2008).

The federal budget is just a toothless guideline, when it comes to spending, and not once since the Budget Impoundment Act of 1973 (which took away the president's power to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress) has Congress spent as little as they said they would in the federal budget. So as insanely huge as Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget is, Congress will actually end up spending even more.

The one area where the budget does have some teeth comes in regard to our taxes: any tax hikes included in the budget actually go into effect, but tax hikes do not need an appropriations bill. That means that if Congress passes the Obama budget sham, Congress will actually impose Obama's $700 billion in new taxes on us right then and there, rich and working poor (like me) alike. No school of economics advocates raising taxes in the middle of a recession. Not the fatally-flawed Keynesian school, nor even the Marxist school, is so wrong as to advocate raising taxes in the middle of a recession.

Even the Democrats' own Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Obama's budget will push the budget deficit to $1.85 trillion--that's $1,850,000,000,000--for fiscal 2010 alone, and add $9.3 trillion to the existing $11 trillion in federal government debt. Since the CBO always underestimates how much socialist pork programs will cost, and always overestimates how much tax hikes will raise, the CBO estimates mean that Obama's sham budget will lead to a deficit of at least $2 trillion this year, and probably more than double the federal debt.

So please join me in opposing the Obama sham budget by contacting your US Senators and Representative at
https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=573

Urge VA Legislative Override of Gun Vetos

If you live in Virginia, please join me in urging your VA Senator or Delegate to vote to override Governor Kaine's veto of the following good bills at
http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/reflector.html?REF=MySenator&PRE=09-SenOverRide

As a constituent, I urge you to override Governor Kaine's gun-bill vetoes:

SB 1035, Senator Hanger, restores the ability for concealed handgun permit holders to carry concealed in restaurants that serve alcohol as long as they don't drink. Prior to 1995, and without incident, permit holders were able to carry in such restaurants. Restaurants will still have to option to post "no guns" signs if they wish to do so.

HB 1851, Delegate Lingamfelter, exempts active duty military from One Handgun a Month.

SB 1528, Senator Cuccinelli, clarifies that on-line training is acceptable for getting a concealed carry permit. This bill was vetoed because the Governor mistakenly thought that concealed carry permits required some kind of written test. They don't and never have!

HB 2528, Delegate Cole, gives localities the option of selling guns in a "buy-up" to licensed dealers. The Governor mistakenly vetoed the bill because he thought it forbade localities from destroying such guns. As it passed both Houses it does NOT!

Help Stop Obama Sham Budget!

The shockingly-high level of spending Obama proposes falls nothing short of simply insane! He's talking about a deficit of $2 TRILLION for fiscal 2010 alone. The deficit, you'll recall, is the amount by which federal spending exceeds federal tax receipts. So just this fiscal year, Obama wants to spend $2 trillion more than the government collects in taxes. As part of those taxes, by the way, Obama proposes increasing tax rates to collect an extra $700 billion. So expect your tax bills to rise even as the recession is lowering your income. Remember too that, because people respond to incentives, when tax rates go up, people shift away from taxable income, and so the government never collects as much in taxes as it projects from a tax increase. You can reasonably expect the Obama deficit to exceed $2 trillion--for 2010 alone!

The Obama budget plan for the next decade projects total budget deficits approaching $10 TRILLION, nearly doubling the unpaid federal accumulated since World War II of $11 trillion. Remember too that Congress hasn't once, since it passed the Budget Impoundment Act of 1973 (which took away the president's power to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress), actually spent only as much as the president budgeted. Let me repeat that: not once since 1973 has Congress ever spent only as much as the president budgeted. Let me say it another way: every year since 1973, Congress has spent more than the federal budget it passed. The budget is a sham that Congress passes and then freely ignores. So Obama's projected $10 trillion in new federal deficits over 10 years will easily exceed the $10 trillion. Don't be surprised if Obama and the Democrat Congress spend more on deficits alone in the next decade than all the deficit-spending Congress has done since World War II combined!

With Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, it will be hard to stop the simply insane Obama sham budget. Republicans in the Senate, however, have enough votes, if they all stick together, to filibuster to death (permanently table) Obama's sham budget. With enough pressure from constituents, furthermore, some Democrats might bail out on the sham budget too. I've already used the link below to send my free fax to my US Representative and two US Senators (all Democrats in a swing state) and I hope you will too. Together we can stop, or at least drastically reduce, the Obama sham budget.

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=573

My Fax to Congress: No New Taxes!

Using the "Visible Vote" application on Facebook, I sent the following fax to my members of Congress:

"Dear Senators and Congressman,

Please do not vote for this new 90%. Last year Democrats in both the Senate and the House voted for a provision guaranteeing the bonuses for AIG executives. Senator Dodd put the provision in the bailout bill, and he, Senator Obama and Senator Webb all voted for the bailout with the provision in it (and I voted to put the provision in the bill in the first place). I have little doubt that has Senator Warner and Congressman Connolly been in their current positions at the time, they two would have voted for it along with every other Democrat.

So don't pretend now that you opposed paying those bonuses. AIG made massive contributions to Democrat candidates, largest of all to Dodd and Obama, your feckless leader. I opposed the bailout and contacted Senator Webb at the time by email and fax, but he refused to listen, and went along with the Democrat herd. So now live with what you've done and don't pretend to be "outraged" and impose a 90% tax that will set a precedent for taxing others at a rate not seen since before JFK's big tax cut proposal, passed in the wake of his death in 1963. Instead of raising taxes, try not bailing out anyone anymore!"

For more on Dodd guaranteeing these bonuses, see http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/chris_dodd_bonuses/2009/03/17/192860.html?s=al&promo_code=7C62-1. For more on AIG making massive contributions to Obama and Dodd, see http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_AIG_bonus/2009/03/18/193222.html. For yet more on the hypocrisy of Dodd, Obama and other Democrats, see http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/.

A Fix For DC Metro Traffic Congestion

I just got back from grocery shopping. I noticed on the way out that even at 6 AM the inbound lanes of I-66 were bumper to bumper. It's just insane! Many of the locals want to spend more tens of billions of your tax money extending the Metro "light rail" out to Dulles International Airport or building new lanes or both--both of which would tie up traffic even worse, if you can imagine that, for the next, oh, 5 to 10 years.

I have an easy solution to the DC metro area traffic congestion problem that will not only not require that the federal government spend tens of billions more of your money, but will actually save your money: cut the federal government.

I don't mean what liberals mean when they scream that Bush, who presided over the biggest spending binge (before Obama's) since LBJ's in the 1960s, "cut the budget." I don't mean reduction in the increases scheduled under the lie of baseline budgeting. I mean to actually CUT spending. We spent about $4 trillion last year (and will end up spending about $9 trillion this year of Obama and the congressional Democrats have their way), so next year let's spend $2 trillion. Cut out the Commerce Department (Department of Big Business Subsidies), the Labor Department (Department of Big Labor Subsidies), the Department of Education (Department of Leftist Indoctrination and Liberal Teacher Subsidies), Department of Energy (Department of Preventing Energy Growth), HUD (Congress' personal slumlord slush fund), and biggest of all HHS (Department of Slowing Medical Progress). Cut federal employment by half, and you'll clear the DC metro traffic congestion right up. :-D

Small Victory Against Obama's Anti-Israel Appointments

Recently I've documented how Obama has tried to appoint seven different anti-Israel and pro-terrorist nominees to his administration. You can read more details at http://david-lifelibertyandproperty.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-intel-appointment-angers-israel.html.

Thanks to quick action by pro-Israel Republicans and Democrats alike, the most recent anti-Israel nominee, Charles Freeman, has withdrawn his name from nomination after the conservative media revealed that Freeman serves on the payroll of Saudi Arabia, and after the liberal media picked up the story from the conservative media. While the withdraw of Saudi agent Freeman provides us with a small victory against Obama's pro-terrorist, anti-Israel policy, remember that Obama's already appointed 6 other anti-Israel thugs to his administration and gotten Congress to send millions of dollars to the mass-murdering Muslim terrorists in Hamas. Obama wants to make friends with Iran's Terrorist-in-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has promised to destroy Israel and America, and now has more than a ton of uranium, enough to make his own nuke. Even as I write, Obama is in the process of surrendering Afghanistan to the mass-murdering Muslim terrorists in the Taliban--against whom Hollywood's liberals railed in the 1990s--and handing Afghanistan over to the Taliban so they can return to murdering innocent Muslims there. So we have a long way to go to defeat Obama's anti-Israel and pro-terrorist evil, but at least we've made a start. You--especially my liberal Jewish friends and family who voted for Obama and have contacts inside his administration or with Democrats in Congress--need to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4975999/Intelligence-candidate-Charles-Freeman-pulls-out-after-objections.html

Obama Supported AFTER-birth Abortions

I have to admit that I missed this one during the campaign. Nobody could win the Democrat nomination for president without supporting abortion right up to the moment of birth, and indeed during birth, as the national Democrat party official supports partial-birth abortion, but this is the first time I've seen a Democrat actually support killing a born baby after a botched abortion. There can be no doubt that our right to life begins no later than birth, and that allowing born babies to die is infanticide. I can say that 100% of the Democrats in the US Senate supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 to outlaw killing a baby or letting it die after birth.

Yet Obama twice, in 2001 and again in 2003, refused to vote in favor of a bill in the Illinois General Assembly with identical language. Obama apparently lied during the campaign and claimed that the bills he opposed did not have the same language as the 2002 federal act, but it turns out that, not only did they have the identical language, but that Obama himself voted to put the identical language in the bills he refused to support.

Over the past 20 years or so, poll after poll by large liberal media organizations has shown that consistently 60-70% of Americans oppose third trimester abortion, and 75-80% of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. I've never seen a poll that asked how many Americans oppose an AFTER-birth abortion, but I'd be willing to bet real money (If I had any) that you'd get close to 100%--with the exception of Obama. I know some pretty ardent pro-choice supporters, even in my own family, and not a single one of them supports partial-birth abortions or even non-birth abortions in the third trimester. I have never before met a Democrat who supported an AFTER-birth abortion. Killing innocent babies who have survived birth is so evil that in the modern world it sounds like something that only, say, mass-murdering Muslim monsters would do. Welcome to the Obamanation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

Save the Secret Ballot!

Image that, when you went to vote, you had to do it in the open, with everyone watching you. If you voted against the people in power locally, you could expect dangerous repercussions. You might even find that "accidents" started to happen to your property, or even to yourself and family members. Can you image the hue and cry that liberals, who don't want you to even have to show an ID to vote, would send up if we wanted to take away their secret ballots and force them to vote in public?! They'd scream "voter intimidation!" at the top of their lungs.

Yet that's exactly what liberals want to do on behalf of Big Labor, which these days basically serves as another arm of the Democrat party. Democrats want to remove the secret ballot from labor union elections, so that labor union thugs and bullies can intimidate workers into voting for their corrupt unions. From a peak of 34.7% in 1954, union membership as a share of the workforce has fallen precipitously over the decades, and now represents (as of 2008) only 12.4% of the workforce. Only union gains among "public employees"--i.e., professional bureaucrats--has stopped union membership from declining into single digits. Even with the rise of the professional bureaucrat unions, union membership as a percentage of the workforce has fallen back to the levels that existed before the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 transformed labor unions into government-backed labor cartels (monopolies). As Big Labor has become increasingly a liberal arm of the Democrat party, fighting for abortion, homosexual marriage, higher taxes, more government spending and other issues of no relevance to workers as workers, the workforce has increasingly left Big Labor.

Desperate to force workers back onto the Big Labor plantation, where the Democrats can siphon workers' wages into political campaign funds, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to take away the secret ballot and allow their union thugs to intimidate honest workers into voting for their corrupt unions.

While hypocrisy and hostility toward honest working people from liberals and Democrats come as no surprise, that doesn't mean we should do nothing about it. You can sign the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/Actioncenter/Petitions/Default.aspx?guid=87f7f73f-48bc-44c9-965b-e86805571adf opposing the dishonestly-named "Employee Free Choice Act," which would go better under the name "Union Thug Stimulus Act."

Obama Gives "Stimulus" to 300,000 Illegals

If it weren't bad enough that Obama and the Democrats are bailing out rich executives of American Big Business, it turns out now that Obama is bailing out illegal immigrants with your tax dollars too. During the last election ACORN registered as many illegal aliens as possible, and Democrats fought tooth and nail against efforts to require voters to show an actual ID, so thousands if not tens of thousands of illegals came out to vote for Obama. Obama's stimulus "loophole" is his way of paying them back for illegally voting for him.

So under Obamanomics, rich American get your money, and poor anti-Americans who come here in violation of the law get your money. Obamanomics certainly qualifies as class warfare--warfare against the American middle class!

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_illegals_jobs/2009/03/09/190028.html?s=al&promo_code=7BCE-1

AIG Execs Get Millions in Bonuses From Taxpayer Bailout

Late in 2008, Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve Board, without any legal authority, bailed out ailing insurance giant, AIG. Bush and Congress approved of the extralegal bailout so much they started bailing out other failing financial giants, and wrote into the law a provision authorizing Bernanke to do what he'd already done. A majority of Republicans in both houses of Congress, however, opposed the bailouts, urging the government to let financial giants suffer from their own foolish policies.

In some sense you can't blame Bernanke, as it was the Keynesian inflationary polices of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, that encouraged these financial giants, along with a little help from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which "guaranteed" the loans) to make hundreds of billions of dollars in foolish loans to people who couldn't afford to borrow in the first place. Bernanke, Bush and congressional Democrats bailing out the financial giants that government policies encouraged to lend foolishly demonstrates how one government intervention leads inevitably to another. As Yoda said, once you turn to the Dark Side, forever will it dominate your destiny. Keeping in mind Yoda's advice--and the entire history of federal government regulation, starting with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which Congress passed allegedly to lower railroad rates but which actually raised the rates, just like the Cable Reregulation Act of 1992 raised rather than lowered cable rates--it comes as no surprise that Fed inflation and Freddie Mae and Fannie Mae "loan guarantees" would lead to multi-trillion dollar federal bailouts.

Obama and the new, more-Democrat Congress have done a great job of continuing the failed policies of Bush, Bernanke, and the slightly-less-Democrat Congress of 2008. So it should come as no big surprise either that the executives at AIG are taking some of the $170 billion that the Fed and Congress spent to bail out AIG and paying $121 million in bonuses to corporate executives (themselves) and other employees. I mean, what's $121 million anyway, when Obama and Congress plan to spend about $8 TRILLION of your money this year? I mean, heck, that $121 million isn't even 10% of the $170 billion bailout. Why not skim 7% right off the top of the bailout to pay themselves for their good job in securing the $170 billion in the first place? I mean, if they hadn't gotten Bernanke, Bush and Democrats to bail them out, why, they would have had to have declared bankruptcy, and gone into receivership. The bankruptcy judge would have appointed a trustee to run the company, and the trustee surely would have fired all of the executives as part of cutting out the deadwood at the company and slimming it down for continued operations as an actual for-profit business. Those executives worked hard to save their jobs at the taxpayers' expense. They actually had to call Bernanke on the phone and ask for a bailout! That's tough work, no doubt, and worth every penny of the $121 million of your money that they stole from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to bail themselves out.

It's funny--or at least ironic, albeit sad--that liberals routinely rail against "the rich" and "Big Business" and then use taxpayer money to bail out both the rich and Big Business. Obama has already said that he thinks Congress should spend another $1 trillion or so on additional bailouts of the financial institutions wrecked by disastrous government policies, so don't be surprised if on Wall Street, the year 2009, while a horrible year for the stock market (which has, since Obama took office, fallen some 25%, from above its 2003 level all the way down to its 1997 level), shapes up to be the Year of the Big Bonus for executives of failed financial institutions. Ain't socialism grand?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?th&emc=th

Obama: I'll Make Friends With "Moderate" Taliban

Lately I have documented some of Obama's policies favoring the mass-murdering Muslim monsters in Hamas over the democratic Israelis. Obama has appointed no less than 7 pro-Hamas officials to oversee his foreign policy, and his Secretary of State, Hillary, has openly attacked Israel for not allowing illegal Arab settlements right in Israel's own capital, Jerusalem. During the campaign Obama disabled the credit card safeguards on his website so that Hamas terrorists could contribute illegal money to his campaign, and now he's paying them back by funding them in his latest Obama Omnipork $410 billion law. Am I forgetting anything?

Oh yes, during the campaign he promised to negotiate with Iran's Terrorist-in-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to destroy both Israel and America, and is building nuclear weapons to accomplish our destruction. Even the UN, which American liberals seem to love and which in turn seems to love the world's terrorists and mass murderers, admits that it understated by a full THIRD the amount of uranium that the Muslim theocracy of Iran possesses. Iran's mass-murdering Muslim monsters now have more than a TON of uranium, enough to make their first nuke. (You can read the uranium story in the liberal New York Times at "Iran Has More Enriched Uranium Than Thought ," http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html.)

Now Obama wants to further the cause of the Afghan mass-murdering Muslim monsters known as the Taliban. As a US Senator Obama voted to cut off funds from US troops fighting in Iraq, but in the end Bush listened to McCain and sent the surge of troops that finally won the war. American troops defeated both Sunni and Shiite militias, who were running around killing not just each other, but innocent Muslims as well. One might observe, indeed, that the mass-murdering Muslim monsters kill more Muslims than non-Muslims, and are in fact the number 1 murderers of Muslims in the world. Obama omitted the obvious on national television, that Bush had won the war in Iraq, and that Obama had been wrong about the surge. Unlike Americans and Israelis, who bend over backward to avoid accidentally hurting civilians, the mass-murdering Muslim monsters go out of their way to kill the innocent, even putting bombs in mosques to blow up as many fellow Muslims as possible.

Based on the success of Bush's surge in Iraq--which Obama curiously doesn't bother to attribute to Bush in the New York Times article below--and the fact that innocent Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq became our friends after we defeated the three groups trying to kill them, Obama now thinks that we've failed in Afghanistan, and that we can make friends with the "moderate" terrorists in the Taliban. The notion of making friends with "moderate" terrorists would be laughable were it not for the fact that many liberals are nodding their heads in agreement with Obama. Saying that we can make friends with the Taliban based on making friends with innocent Muslims in Iraq after defeating Iraqi terrorists is like saying that based on making friends with innocent Italians after defeating Mussolini and the Fascist Party, we could have made friends with Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany.

If Obama truly wants to befriend innocent Muslims in Iraq, he needs to do what Truman did in Italy and Germany, and what Bush did in Iraq: defeat the mass-murdering monsters completely. If, however, Obama truly wants to aid the mass-murdering Muslim monsters in Afghanistan, as he's doing in Israel and Iran, then making friends with the Taliban is the way to go. And who knows? If Obama can get the mass-murdering Muslims in the Taliban back in power by 2012, maybe they too can make illegal contributions to his campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9,000 of them

Is there anyone left who doesn't know that Obama is a liar and a hypocrite, every bit the typical, corrupt Cook County Democrat politician?! The sad truth is that most liberals don't care if he's a liar and a hypocrite, if he support 9,000 disgusting pork programs, or even if he bailouts out big banks and corporations, so long as he gives them their welfare-regulatory state.

Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9,000 of them

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090311/pl_mcclatchy/3186392

Obama Intel Appointment Angers Israel Supporters

Recently we've been subjected to a barrage of anti-Israeli foreign policy on the part of President B. Hussein Obama. Nobody should feel surprised that a man schooled in a Muslim madrasah, who raised funds for PLO terrorists in the 1990s, and accepted illegal campaign contributions from Hamas terrorists in 2008, would appoint a slate of anti-Israel officials to his administration, and even funnel your taxpayer money to Hamas. Today we see Hussein appointing the SEVENTH anti-Israel official, as you can read below. During the election campaign I questioned whether, if B. Hussein won the nomination, Israel would survive the next four years. With his funneling of tax dollars to Hamas and his appointment of seven anti-Israel officials, I'm now even more concerned that Obama is doing his covert best to make sure that Israel does not survive his years as president.

http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKCDacpj7dO49LEq2dz.BvXZk3yzxfR1Z

Oppose the Obama OmniPork Spending Bill

Last week opponents of the Obama OmniPork bill flooded Congress with 25 THOUSAND emails. The public outrage at yet another multi-hundred-billion pork bill so soon after the last caused Senate Majority Leader and taxpayer-funded private jet flier Harry Reid to postpone the vote on the Obama OmniPork bill until next Tuesday in hopes that over the weekend people would forgot their opposition. So it's more important than ever that you use the link below to send another free email to your senators in opposition!

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=571

Obama Gives Tax Money to Hamas

It weren't bad enough that Hillary publicly attacked Israel the other day, now, as you can read at the url below, Obama is covertly giving the mass-murdering Muslim monsters in Hamas your own hard-earned money. Obama has now appointed five pro-terrorist, anti-Israel miscreants to his administration--six if you count Arafat-hugging Hillary. But don't take my word for it--read the Jewish publication at the url below.

Before the election I tried to warn Jewish liberals--including members of my own family--that Obama opposed Jews and supported Muslim terrorists, but few listened, and one even stopped talking to me entirely for months (until the election had passed). Some 74% of Jewish voters for voted for Obama, leaving only a quarter, including the very liberal once-Democrat (and now independent but still caucusing with the Democrats) Joseph Lieberman, voting against Obama. I don't expect non-Jewish liberals to care about Israel. Iran could nuke Israel tomorrow, and most non-Jewish American liberals wouldn't care, and a few non-Jewish liberals would celebrate. American liberalism abandoned Jews and Israel in the 1990s--at that very time that Hillary was publicly hugging the wife of former Jew-Butcher-in-Chief Arafat.

But to the Jewish liberals who did vote for Obama I say: he's your president, and you're going to have to live with the consequences of voting for him. If I were you, I'd use those great Democrat connections you have to raise hell and high water to stop Obama from presiding over the destruction of Israel. Even if you're just a rank and file Democrat, or a pretend independent who's never actually voted for a Republican in a presidential election, call your US Senators and your US Representative, and demand that they hold hearings on Obama's appointment of anti-Israel nominees to his administration. I recommend that you demand that Joseph Lieberman oversee the Senate hearings to make sure that non-Jewish liberal Democrats don't turn the hearings into an anti-Israel witch trial. And if you do happen to be friends with Rahm Emanuel, call him up and demand that he do more to stop Obama from helping Hamas destroy Israel.

The funny thing is that I never have to warn socially-conservative Christians about threats like the one Obama poses to Israel. Christian conservatives are among the staunchest supporters of Israel, and few indeed would ever dream of supporting someone who had illegally raised funds for the PLO like Obama did in the 1990s, or taken illegal campaign contributions from Hamas, as Obama did in 2008. With 74% of Jewish voters voting for Barrack Hussein Obama in the last election, however, I'm embarrassed to say that at the moment, conservative Christian Americans support Israel better than liberal Jewish Americans. I hope that some of my liberals Jewish friends will stop worshipping Obama and start opposing his pro-Hamas policies, and fast.

http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2009/03/05/opinions/edit02.prt

Hillary Attacks Israel

The news story about Hillary Clinton at the url below comes from the British liberal media news service, Reuters, lest any liberals try to write it off as a "conservative lie," which many liberals these days often do rather than face the truth.

During the last presidential campaign, I tried to warn liberal Jews, including family members, that Obama raised money for the PLO back when it appeared on the State Department's list of terrorist groups where the Jew-butchering group belonged, making a crime out of raising money for the PLO. Obama claimed he never knew the money he was raising went to the PLO--just as after 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama claimed he never knew that "Reverend" Wright was a racist, anti-American anti-Semite. Obama also accepted illegal campaign contributions from the Jew-butchering terrorists of Hamas, actually disabling his website credit card safety protocols to allow them to contribute. Obama claimed to return the money--but only after Fox News broke the story, and the liberal media could no fully longer cover for Obama and had to admit that he had accepted Hamas (blood) money.

Some liberal Jews, however, made excuses for Obama, or at least claimed that the Jews in his campaign and the Democrats in Congress would make sure that Obama didn't pay back his Hamas contributors by hurting Israel. Back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, President Richard Nixon, despite his many other flaws, rushed billions of dollars in military aid to Israel to prevent the combined Arab forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, with help from Iraq and others, from overrunning Israel and killing every last Jew. In the face of another, even wider attack, combining Arabs and Iran, Obama need only sit back and do nothing--or more likely utter empty phrases of disapproval--and let the Jew butchers have their day. Obama needn't, I argued, even actively oppose Israel.

Now it turns out that the Obama administration, through Secretary of State Hillary, actually is actively opposing Israel. As part of their plan to destroy Israel, Hamas and its backers want the US to push Israel to give up Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Why try to destroy Israel all at once, when Hamas can have its American allies do it for them a little bit at a time? Israel--which has demolished Jewish settlements against stiff opposition of the residents--is now demolishing some illegal Arab settlements, and Hillary has publicly attacked Israel for demolishing illegal settlements in its own capital, backing up the Hamas plan to start dismantling Israel one piece at a time.

Anyone surprised that Hillary would back Hamas against Israel simply isn't paying attention--or doesn't have a very good memory. When wife of the old Jew-Butcher-in-Chief, Yassir Arafat, came to America to raise funds from her liberal pro-terrorist allies, Hillary leapt up on the stage and hugged her. It's like an American senator leaping up on stage to hug Eva Braun had she made a trip to the US to raise funds to finish the death camps.

So when are the 74% of American Jews who voted for Obama going to wake up and see that Obama and Hillary, and indeed most of the Democrat left (with the obvious exception of Joseph Lieberman, himself a Jew) has abandoned pro-American Israel for the anti-American mass-murdering Muslim monsters? Will Iran have to rain down nuclear terror on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv first?

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSJER0298222

Oppose Unconstitutional DC Gun Ban

For the United States of America, Washington, DC isn't merely the political capital nor even merely the hubris capital; DC is the murder capital as well. For 32 years the DC city council imposed a gun ban so that law-abiding citizens of DC couldn't legally defend themselves, ensuring that only criminals had guns.

During 2008, however, the Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that the DC ban on guns violates the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Lawrence Tribe, the leftist legal scholar and Bill Clinton's original first pick for the Supreme Court, a longtime advocate of gun-control, even admitted recently that, after studying the history of the 2nd Amendment, he could conclude only that the Founding Fathers meant it to protect an individual right to bear arms. (Tribe is therefore calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but I have to give him kudos for telling the truth about history, a rarity among leftists these days.)

The DC city council, however, in another show of what makes DC the hubris capital of the country, ignored the Supreme Court and kept a gun ban in place (after making a cosmetic change). Can you imagine the hue and cry we'd hear in the liberal media if a city decided, for instance, to ban first-trimester abortions in violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey?! (For the many who don't know, Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe v. Wade's three-trimester rule, and replaced it with an "undue burden" rule, which basically allows the Court to toss out any abortion laws it doesn't like, and to keep any it does like.) The liberal media have not, of course, said a peep against DC for violating the Constitution, which the liberal media believes says whatever they want it to say, regardless of the facts.

Regardless of the hubris of the DC city council and the liberal media, however, Congress, which oversees DC, is moving to repeal DC's unconstitutional gun ban. Senator John Ensign of Nevada introduced an amendment to a DC voting bill to repeal the DC gun ban. The Senate passed the repeal of the gun ban by a 62-39 majority, meaning that many Democrats support the repeal.

Over in the House, however, Fuhrer Pelosi is trying to impose a gag rule to prevent Republicans from bringing the amendment up for a vote, knowing that she will lose that vote too because as in the Senate, too many House Democrats represent people who, unlike many big-city middle class folk, support the right to keep and bear arms. The only way for Fuhrer Pelosi to stop the repeal is to stop the vote in the first place--or kill the DC voting bill entirely. The DC voting bill, would, however, give DC its own US Representative, further padding the Democrats' House majority, so Fuhrer Pelosi isn't likely to just kill the bill.

Since the Democrats represent a constant threat to what remains of our liberty, I'd rather that they didn't grant DC--already grossly over-powerful in America--its own representative. Adding the gun-ban repeal to the bill might just kill the voting bill in the House, although adding the repeal didn't kill the bill in the Senate. At the very least, adding the gun-ban repeal to the bill would restore the freedom to defend themselves to the law-abiding citizens of DC.

You can help make the repeal happen by sending a free email to your representative using the url below. I did, and I hope you will too. I regularly email my US Senators and Representative, and they always respond. So far Senator Mark Warner and Representative Connolly have voted my way zero percent of the time, but Senator Webb, the so-called "moderate" Democrat, has voted my way a whopping 18% of the time! As we saw with the Kennedy-McCain Covert Amnesty act, when the grassroots overwhelmingly oppose something, even Democrats will abandon it. So please write your representative in support of repealing the DC gun ban now.

David

Oppose Unconstitutional DC Gun Ban
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=12824711&PROCESS=Take+Action

Say "NO!" To 8 THOUSAND Earmarks!

You might recall that Obama campaigned against earmarks. Well Obama's latest pork spending extravaganza contains a record of 8 THOUSAND earmarks. Obama might be a blatant liar, but that doesn't mean that you have to stand for it. Please use the link below to tell your senators to vote against the Eight Thousand Earmark Extravaganza!

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=571

Are you part of the silent majority that supports Israel?

Are you part of the silent majority that supports Israel?

I hope that you will sign the petition at the link below in support of Israel, whether you're Christian or not. I did.

Israel has been fighting mass-murdering Muslim monsters since the days when we ignored them for the bigger threat of world communism. The mass-murdering Muslim monsters BLAME Israel for the mass-murdering that the mass-murdering Muslim monsters do: "If only we could murder EVERY Jew, we'd stop all the mass-murdering. Really we would. But since you won't LET us murder every Jew, just thousands per year, we have to murder YOU too," say the mass-murdering Muslim monsters.

Of course mass-murdering Muslim monsters have been murdering innocents, even other Muslims, for centuries. An unlike Christians, who didn't have such a great track record before the 19th and 20th centuries, mass-murdering Muslim monsters have a book that TEACHES them that Jews are subhuman and should be killed, indeed that Muslims should kill ALL infidels (which apparently includes other Muslims who don't agree with the mass-murdering Muslim monsters). To the Muslims who ignore the part of the Koran that tells them that the rest of us are all subhuman and must be exterminated, I say, "More power to you."

It used to be that American liberals hated Islam in general and Arab Muslim in particular for the way that Islam subordinates the individual to religious leaders and the way that Arabs treat women as property, or less than property, because you don't behead a car (or a camel) for behaving differently than you want it to. From the 1940s through 1960s liberals bore a great deal of responsibility for the US supporting Israel against the Arab Muslims who wanted murder every single Jew. Even as late as the 1990s it was American liberals, mostly in Hollywood, screaming bloody murder over the Muslim Taliban (not Arabs but Afghanis) in Afghanistan and how they oppressed, tortured and even killed women.

But two bad things happened to change all that: The Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968 turned American liberals against America, and the 9/11 bombing in 2001 demonstrated that mass-murdering Muslim monsters represented a grave threat to the America that so many liberals hate. So suddenly, the Islam that liberals had hated for decades became, in liberal parlance, "a religion of peace." Many liberals respond to any attempt to characterize the mass-murdering Muslim monsters as mass-murdering Muslim monsters by accusing of bigotry the victims and intended victims of the mass-murdering Muslim monsters. The liberal media even refused to report that the two Beltway snipers were both Muslims, yet reported in every single story that Madoff, the financial criminal was a Jew. Despite the presence of many Jews within postmodern liberalism--74% of Jews who voted in the 2008 presidential election voted for Obama, down only slightly from the 76% who voted or Kerry in 2004 and the 79%, a record high, who voted for Gore in 2000--postmodern liberalism has turned against the Jews, and now supports the mass-murdering Muslim monsters, precisely because the mass-murdering Muslim monsters share with many liberals a contempt for America.

You can find some of the biggest supporters of Israel, besides big-city, Jews ironically, among Christian social conservatives in small towns and rural areas. I say "ironically" because the liberal news and entertainment media consistently--one might say relentlessly--portray conservative Christians and small-town residents as ignorant, anti-Semitic bigots. I found far more anti-Semites, in the real world, living in Chicago than living in small-town Iowa. Big-city Jews and small-town social conservatives, sadly, almost never mix, and so big city Jews, who tend to rely on the liberal media fro all their "news," rarely even know that Christian social conservatives number among the staunchest allies of Israel. The very fact that the organization of Christians pushes this petition in support of Israel demonstrates some of the support that Christian social conservatives give to Israel. I hope, as I said at the outset, that you'll sign it whether you're Christian or not. I did.

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageNavigator/standing_pledge_Townhall1

Obama: Taxes for You But Not For Me

I believe this is the fifth nominee of Obama's who has cheated on his income taxes. Cheating on your income taxes seems to have become the main credential for getting an Obama appointment. It's ironic that all these rich liberal elites who want to raise your taxes don't feel any obligation to pay the taxes they impose on the rest of us. They ranted and raved about "Bush tax cuts for the rich" which actually cut my rate, the bottom rate, from 15% to 10%, and so were tax cuts for the working poor, but then the rich liberal elites did not even pay the reduced taxes they owe after the Bush tax cuts!

I guess it should come as no surprise that the man who wants to trap all your kids in failed government-monopoly schools but sends his own kids to an elite private school would want you to pay taxes that he his cronies don't pay themselves.

David

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-kirk-taxes,1,6611614.story?xid=rss-page