A Letter to U.S. Senator Dick Lugar

The following letter is what I faxed this past weekend to one of my own U.S. senators, this one being Indiana’s senior senator, Republican Dick Lugar.  It was stemmed from a combination of the “shot fired” from Massachusetts two weeks ago and Congress’s continuous refusal to challenge Barack Obama’s presidential credentials.  I have written my senators many times but I thought I would share this one with you, my readers.  Feel free to extrapolate any portion of it to write or fax (don’t e-mail – most either delete or otherwise don’t read them) your senators and Congressmen.

1/28/10

Dear Sen. Lugar:

I received your letter last week in response to my concerns about the potential closing of Gitmo and transferring its prisoners to Thomson, IL.  I truly appreciated your reply and continue to urge you to use your influence on Capitol Hill to ensure that no money be appropriated to bring Islamic terrorists inside U.S. borders. Heeding Obama’s call poses a grave threat to our national security.

I want to quickly move on to the matters at hand, starting with last night’s State of the Union address.  I would prefer to call it the State of the Bunion address since it is painfully yet plainly clear that Washington and Obama still don’t get it.  I was disgusted with the class warfare Obama was spewing, attempting to put the American people in conflict with banks, insurance companies and Wall Street.  He clearly does not speak for most of us but I will come back to that a bit later.

On January 19^th, the shot fired from Boston almost 2½ centuries ago was reheard that night. It was crystal clear voters had enough of the shenanigans in Washington.  Though many of the Democrats in DC still haven’t come to grips with reality, a fourth of voting Democrats in Beantown and elsewhere across the Bay State, along with Republicans and independents, did an about face and sided with the GOP on Capitol Hill by telling Congress and Obama to scrap Obamacare.  They did so by sending a Republican to Washington to be your new colleague in the Senate.  The entitlement mentality that Ted Kennedy’s seat was his legacy and that his seat was to stay in the family and among his friends was brought to a screeching halt.  Voters were fed up with the corruption in both their state and DC and the arrogant attitude that a Democrat should continue with Kennedy politics and a fed takeover of health care – change we can’t or don’t believe in.

The key to Sen. Scott Brown’s victory could well be traced to when he told David Gergen and his ilk that the Massachusetts’ Senate seat was not owned by Ted Kennedy, Martha Coakley or the Democratic Party but We the People.  It riveted the electorate in the Bay State to the point of doing the impossible – replace a so-called legend in politics with a Republican, though one who ran on being determined to be the 41^st vote to block Obamacare in the Senate.

And that message reverberated throughout the country.  Democrat voters in Massachusetts knew full well that the 60 votes to pass Obamacare in the Senate all came from Democrats (plus the two so-called independents who usually vote with them).  But they didn’t blame Republicans for not voting with their party.  They instead (at least a quarter of them, per one exit poll), plus a drove of independents and Republicans, denied their party’s candidate the so-called “right” to sit in Old Ted’s seat.  And that message is being heard loud and clear across America.  No senator or Congressman “owns” a seat.  Kennedy would be stunned if he could see his legacy now.

The message from the Bay State is now being heard in the Bayh State.  And it’s not looking too good right now for Indiana’s junior senator, according to one reliable pollster.  Hoosiers are coming to realize that Evan Bayh doesn’t own this state’s Senate seat any more than Teddy owned his in Massachusetts.  The popularity of your Indiana colleague and that of his dad Birch means squat the same way the popularity of Teddy and JFK now guarantees nothing either.

Let’s get this closer to home, Sen. Lugar.  You sit in the people’s seat here in Indiana.  You still have 2+ years to go before the voters examine your worthiness to be reseated.  Sen. Bayh’s luxury, however, may well extend only a few months more.  But back to you.

You are supposed to be representing the good people of Indiana.  In many ways you do.  You have stood tall in opposing Obamacare and you got our governor onboard with you as well as the vast majority of Hoosiers.  You have, as all your Republican colleagues, told Obama that no money would be appropriated to move these Islamic terrorists to America’s shores without a concrete plan to ensure the safety of the American people.  You have opposed the bailouts.  This is good representation.  I think, however, the people of this state would be disappointed if they knew the reasons why you recently supported U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to sit on the 7^th

But that aside, I want to address something that some public officials, including yourself, are choosing to ignore and sweep under the rug, that being Obama’s questionable constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States.  I have addressed this issue to you on at least a couple occasions.  While you have responded to virtually every fax I have sent your DC office (to the exact opposite of our junior senator), including our disagreement on Judge Hamilton, this issue is one you have not addressed with me.  It does make me wonder what Congress knows and is hiding from the American people.

Permit to bring into play here the aforementioned phrase, “the people’s seat”.  The citizens of this state pay you a very lofty salary in exchange for going to Washington and addressing the issues Hoosiers collectively and individually are concerned about.  Obviously you must know that, being in your 6^th term in office in DC.  This includes the lingering doubts people have about Mr. Obama.  It’s not an issue you can simply put aside, Senator.  It has to come out in the open.  Remember, you represent me as well as all Hoosiers.

As recently as yesterday, I had the chance to discuss this issue with a stranger.  I was getting a long overdue haircut with a new stylist (with the scant money we get from unemployment) and we talked for a short time about the economy and politics in general.  She said she gets e-mails from her sister regarding Obama’s questionable presidential eligibility.  Though she told me this issue isn’t overly important to her, she admitted herself that Obama may have been born overseas and that he at least needs to come forth and be truthful about where he was born.  And it told me that this issue is fairly well known in the public eye, even if the so-called mainstream media ignore it.

So since many people across the state of Indiana and elsewhere are still wondering whether Obama is a natural born citizen and since you are elected to be our voice in DC, it is up to you to get to the bottom of it, right?  There are plenty of lawsuits against him on this matter, including two very current suits – one from Atty. Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey and the other from Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation. They are doing what Congress should be doing.  Congress is supposed to be getting the answers for us.  However, it is not.  That has to change.

I write for a news website known as The Post & E-Mail (www.thepostnemail.com) and on this site is a petition to the state of Hawaii to release the details of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.  So far, they have not been forthcoming.  Many of question whether the state has it or even if Obama has one, period.  We doubt Hawaii will at all comply.  But we are trying.

It is also on that site that we note (and were either the first to make news on it or one of the first) that in December, Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sent Obama a letter, asking him to put forth his credentials showing he’s constitutionally qualified to be in the position he is in. As expected, there has been chronic silence from the White House. The silence is deafening and speaks volumes.

But what Congressman Deal has done is be the first Washington lawmaker (not in a piece of legislation calling for future presidents to act) to insist that the highest official in our land prove his natural birth status.  And it is to his credit that he has done so.  And because he has, it may well move more recalcitrant Republicans (and perhaps a Democrat or two, though I’m not holding my breath on that) to join Rep. Deal and demand the evidence be produced.

Though not currently in office, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (who is running in the GOP primary for the reelection of your colleague, Sen. John McCain) has joined the chorus and now is asking for the proof in the pudding.  On Tuesday’s Hardball show with Chris Matthews, the patriot from Arizona made the same argument most of us have.  The segment has been posted on You Tube.  We need a birth certificate to get a driver’s license or a passport.  Kids need one to participate in Little League baseball.  Why the exception for Obama?  Does he have something to hide?

And speaking of Sen. McCain, if you recall during the presidential primaries, just as Obama was, your compadre from the desert state was asked to produce his birth certificate since he was similiarly accused of being ineligible.  It was believed that because McCain was born at the Panama Canal that his U.S. citizenship disqualified him from running for the White House.  But unlike Obama, when McCain was confronted about this, he quickly complied and his campaign posted a copy of his birth certificate for the world to see.  Even after the production of the birth certificate, questions persisted as to whether he was constitutionally still eligible, given the circumstances of his birth.  But at least he wanted to end the controversy.  Obama still doesn’t.

This information will be posted in an article I will be writing for the Post & E-Mail and this letter will be posted at my blog at www.thatsafact.wordpress.com.  Come hell or high water, we will force this issue to be brought front and center.  We will set up a petition at a petition website that will gather signatures and send them on to Washington.  We’re not going to stand idly by while the elected representatives of the people fail to address what may be the defining issue of our day – whether the man sitting in the White House is a natural born citizen and qualified to be there.

My mother once told me that it’s never too late to do the right thing.  I totally agree with that premise.  And it is on that premise I insist that you, as an extension of our voice in Washington, do the right thing and call for Barack Obama to produce credentials demonstrating that he was born in the U.S. and not in Kenya or Indonesia as we are led to believe (and is posted on countless websites.  Let us know that Obama did not surrender his citizenship when he went to school in Indonesia.  Given the frightening agenda he is producing, including given terrorists Miranda rights and access to our courts and putting them in U.S. prisons, we need to know that Obama is a natural born citizen, representing American interests. Given his bow to a Saudi king and speaking to Muslims in Egypt, not to mention his frequent berating of America when he goes overseas, I have serious doubts that he is a natural born citizen. Circuit Court of Appeals. Since you were the sole Senate Republican voting to confirm, Hoosiers will have to take note of that in 2012.  They may view this vote as political and because both you and him are from Indiana. Ultimately they will decide whether that vote represents We the People.

If Obama will not produce citizenship credentials, then Congress needs to hold hearings and then if Obama will still not produce, then he must simply be removed from office since by all counts he has proven that he is not a natural born citizen but an illegal.  It is time to stop being politically correct on this issue and instead be factually correct.  We are not “birthers”, as we are termed by the left (and some on the right).  We are “truthers”.  We have truth on our side.  The facts are not in doubt.  Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.  We have zilch on him except for documents showing possible Social Security and Selective Service fraud (but they are not directly from him). We have no school records, no medical records, nada.  The public wants something. But it appears our elected officials whose lavish salaries we pay play the role of the ostrich.  Well, Sen. Lugar, it’s time they, including you, pull their heads out of the sand and demand the evidence.

Back to the State of the Bunion, as I call it.  If you are proud of this man, this illegal alien who is feverishly trying the country, then God help you and us all.  I am tired of Congress giving him a pass, not the least of which is for this man’s dubious citizenship.  Obama should be challenged from top to bottom, not make nice with him.  The time to call for hearings on his eligibility is now.

The 2010 State of the Bunion Address: A Golden Opportunity Squandered

Two words “You lie” became the first major shot fired in the health care legislation wars on Capitol Hill. Congressman Joe Wilson (R – SC) did the unthinkable during a televised September 2009 White House speech to Congress, calling putative President Barack Obama out regarding whether illegal aliens would be covered under a government takeover of care.  It was the first time in memory whereby an elected official rebuked the top office holder in America (and via Internet – the whole world) to hear.

Rep. Wilson initially took heat for his comments from all sides and even apologized to the White House but in the end was exonerated as Americans found out that illegals would indeed not be exempted from what was in the House version of this bill, according to numerous researchers.  However, within hours of his blurt, donations to his anticipated opponent’s 2010 election campaign began pouring in.  Nevertheless, because the truth did come out, even with an apology that was deemed as unnecessary, contributions came in just as quickly to Congressman Wilson’s anticipated reelection campaign.

Fast forward 4 months to the annual State of the Union address on Wednesday and two words “Not true” (see clip here) were heard quietly emanating from the mouth of Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito upon hearing Mr. Obama condemn last week’s landmark decision reversing a total ban on corporate campaign contributions.  Public sentiment, particularly from the political left, has somewhat weighed in heavily against Justice Alito – the leftists in the U.S. Senate did everything but crucify him during his confirmation hearings when Republicans had control of the Senate.

But even the arguably Obama friendly Associated Press more or less conceded to Mr. Alito; that foreigners have long been forbidden from donating to American elections. And a writer at the blog of the very Obama friendly New York Times also went on the record to correct another error they believe came forth from Mr. Obama’s lips.

Regardless of whether all the above is factual, it probably would be wise for the White House to refrain from further discussion of Justice Alito, particularly the part on foreign contributions.  After all, it appears the Obama campaign picked up some tidy sums of foreign money and took no steps, according to a link to its website, to ban such donations.

Silence is golden, so they say.  That is, if you’re the White House.

”You lie” and “Not true”, four words that have riveted the White House and its remaining allies.  One might call these words “bunions” that now require careful treading since there isn’t much taste across America’s political spectrum for illegals to get free health care, let alone amnesty, especially since there is steadily growing skepticism to much of anything coming from the mouth of America’s putative president, the latest being this nearly unprecedented public rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Or what about the four words that have come from the White House and have come to be a growing political staple of Mr. Obama – “Let me be clear”?

Another favorite – “make no mistake”.

Well, it appears the vast majority of America believes Mr. Obama has been quite clear, and they do not like what he is saying.  And they believe he has made countless mistakes, perhaps even deliberately, on so many fronts.

“Words, just words”, another quote Mr. Obama has also been known to use.  However, he didn’t originate that phrase and the accompanying quotes.

As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “Words mean things”.  Whether they do for Barack Obama is open to conjecture.

But what was truly absent in the State of the Bunion address were four words that would have indeed meant something – four words that have been reverberating on countless Internet websites, though all but abandoned by the so-called mainstream media and much of the conservative media as well.

These four words can change an election and even remove a sitting president midstream.  It would have done so in the past.  These four words could have been spoken by any Congressman or senator on Wednesday and would have infinitely eclipsed, “You lie” and “Not true”.

These four words can change a nation or perhaps awaken a nation, even the entire Western world.  After all, as the saying goes, the eyes of the world are upon us.

If the Jan. 19^th politically stunning election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate was “the shot heard around the world”, symbolizing the start of the Revolutionary War, the uttering of these four words in the presence of Mr. Obama would have been “the cannon heard around the world”.

”Where’s the birth certificate” would have been that cannon.  Had anyone in that room Wednesday night been as bold as Rep. Wilson (or Justice Alito), be it a Congressman, senator, justice, military officer, reporter or other individual present, and spoke those four words, it would have likely forced the issue that Congress has all but been silent on since the debut of the 111^th Congress.  It would have forced the media to cover the matter for those of us who are dubious as to Obama meeting the presidential requirement of being a natural born citizenship, according to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  It would have all but vindicated those of whom the media (and many on the right) have labeled as “birthers”.  It would have been the message the public has been waiting for, both those of who know about the controversy and those currently in the dark.

And it would likely have stunned America’s putative president into total silence as no response other than a firm and immediately crystal clear, “Yes, I am and here’s the proof”, would have been convincing.

Rep. Wilson and Justice Alito wouldn’t be able to so much as hold a match, let alone a candle, to those politically earth shattering words.

Anyone speaking those four words would no doubt face the political firing squad.  But that person would be doing America the greatest service in modern American history.

Yes, the rejoinder from the left and others would say how horribly rude and inappropriate it is to interrupt America ’s (putative) president while he’s speaking; after all, this is supposedly his time.  But the response should be as follows – what would our Founding Fathers say? Would they be silent when the most powerful man in America (and the world) is, while speaking to Congress and the nation, destroying America’s moral and political infrastructure and suspected of not being natural born, thus in violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Something tells the Founders would raise holy hell.  Why should we do anything less?

”Where’s the birth certificate” has been the theme and bumper sticker of World Net Daily, the website and group that has pounded this message over and over, including thru a steadily growing billboard campaign, and has more news items relative to Obama’s extremely questionable natural born citizenship than any other site.

And this issue is picking up steam, if only modestly and indirectly so, in Congress and at the state level.  Here are a few examples of current and past public officials calling or once calling for Obama to release his birth certificate:

1. In Arizona – at the state level
2. In Arizona – at the Congressional level, though at this point rescinded
3. In Arizona – from a former Congressman
4. In Georgia – from a current Congressman, and the first directly to do so
5. In Texas – from a former House Majority Leader

And there is a bill in Congress that would require future presidents to display qualifying credentials, though it doesn’t require the current occupant to produce any documentation.

The public must know whether Barack Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.  An original birth certificate would all but solve that problem.  But the fact is America not only has no birth certificate on Mr. Obama; we have no school records, no medical records, legal transcripts, essays, theses, nothing.  So the issue is not just whether Mr. Obama has a birth certificate in order to determine U.S. citizenship.  The Constitution does not mandate such for a president, though, as most of America knows, it is the traditional way of determining the facts surrounding an individual’s birth.  It solely requires three prerequisites: (1) the individual be at least 35 years of age (2) a resident of the country for 14 years and (3) a natural born citizen.  The issue at hand is (3). It is not a matter of being a “birther”.  It is a matter of being an uncompromising adherent to the U.S. Constitution.

Considering the occupant of the Oval Office once called our Constitution “flawed”, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that the public insist that Mr. Obama release the details surrounding his birth through an original certified copy of his birth certificate, not the one floating around the Internet that has been thoroughly debunked by countless authorities.  For Congress and the courts to do nothing reflects a “flawed” view that the Constitution’s mandates are irrelevant today, showing great disdain of the history surrounding America .

President Bill Clinton told America in his 1998 State of the Union address, “The state of our union is strong”.  While that point is somewhat debatable, such is diametrically opposite today because there is no union of the American people behind Barack Obama’s putative presidency. Americans of all political persuasions largely stood behind President Clinton during his 8 years in office, even during his numerous scandals.  His judgments and arguably liberal policies made for tough times for many Americans.  But America was united in the fact President Clinton was a tried and true natural born U.S. citizen and that we could unite with him, regardless of differences, until the next presidential election.

However, by virtue of millions of Americans, if not at least half the nation, questioning whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya or some place else besides the United States and not getting straight answers, let alone any, from his administration, one will come to the conclusion that the state of our union is fractured.  After all, how can we be unified when there is a distinct possibility that the nation’s assumed president is not natural born?

Americans are unified and stay unified under American presidents.  It’s difficult for Americans to get behind the current occupant of that position if there is so much as a distinct possibility that he is a foreigner masquerading as an American.  Skin color and race are not the issues.  But bowing to a Saudi Muslim leader, speaking to a Muslim audience in Egypt and not putting one’s hand before his heart during the playing of the national anthem sends strong signals that Americans have grave doubts as to Mr. Obama’s loyalties and dubious U.S. citizenship.  His refusal to address his citizenship in the many lawsuits filed against him only serves to exacerbate the crisis.  Therefore, it is up to our putative president to respond to this matter expeditiously, that is, if he seeks unity from the American people.

It shouldn’t be up to the American people to prove whether Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be in the position he sits in.  It is up to him to provide credible evidence that he is. Until he does, the state of our union will never be strong because there essentially is no union of the American people.  And if Congress doesn’t address it, then Congress is contributing to the state of disunion in our country.

This collective bunion hurts all of America .  We need to excise it now.

”Where’s the birth certificate” – it’s not too late to demand America’s putative president to “show and tell” and if he doesn’t’, then the American people must insist Congress do its job by requiring presentation of evidence of natural born citizenship for the public to view.  If that is not possible, then Congress must promptly move to unseat Mr. Obama.

”Where’s the birth certificate” – not just “words”.  It’s documentation.  America needs it now.  If the Constitution means anything to our elected officials, they will work to get it.  Otherwise, the state of America ’s bunion will continue growing.  It already hurts badly. And it will continue to be more painful.

Take it from someone just coming off a serious foot injury

StoptheACLU.org now up for Sale

Although this blog is primarily an information site with commentary and analysis often difficult to locate elsewhere, I am making one exception to it and that is, effective immediately, my prize domain, www.stoptheaclu.org, is now up for sale.  It will be posted at a domain auction site if not sold in a reasonable frame of time.  It is my preference, however, for various reasons, to only sell this domain directly to a seriously interested purchaser.

Those who are attempting to visit the Stop the ACLU web site will note that it is currently inactive and that is by intent.  While the site’s most recent format was useful when it was created in 2005 by a conservative technologically sound college student, it soon after was no longer user friendly and we had numerous issues with it.  Outside of my numerous pieces posted there, the site’s design was largely clumsy and difficult to work with, technologically speaking, and one I was not proud of.  Thus, for this and other reasons, the content you may recall being there is now no longer so.

The domain was up for sale a little over a year ago and we had an agreement with a conservative activist Christian pastor (who, though fairly well known in some circles, shall remain anonymous) to purchase it, subject to church board approval.  Unfortunately, though this pastor had a majority approval, he did not have a unanimous one which was the one condition he stipulated.  So after several weeks of negotiations to gain full consent, the agreement fell apart and we took it off the market.  Now we are putting it back on the market again.

In truth, the need to raise some urgent cash partly necessitates the decision to sell this prized domain.  Though it is admittedly worth perhaps a bit less than when we were in negotiations (due to this recession), it still has a fairly good market value.   We are willing to accept less than we were before (dollar amounts will be revealed only to serious negotiators) but we are not willing to give it away.  It is worth something to us for the roughly 5 years we had this site active on the Internet. For a lengthy period, per this site’s webmaster and per Google tracking, Stop the ACLU was second only to the ACLU itself in Google searches for ACLU related activism information.  We held our own with Yahoo and to a lesser extent with MSN and other search engines but it was on Google where this site thrived.  When people wanted to know about Stop the ACLU activism, it wasn’t difficult to locate us. They would frequently visit our blog at www.stoptheaclu.com.  But they also came to the .ORG site as well.

Due to the difficulty we’ve had in reaching our webmaster, we don’t have up to date stats as to how many sites across the Internet had linked to us but we can safely say it was in the thousands.  Within two years or so after the site was first up, which was in August of 2004, we were told by a Canadian tracking group that we had 3000+ links to the Stop the ACLU site.  After that, we lost track (except for our unreachable webmaster) but we think at least 5000 sites is a reliably conservative estimate and probably is much greater.

Effective immediately, we will entertain all serious offers to purchase the Stop the ACLU domain.  Though we obviously will have no control over what is done with the site after it is sold, it is on an honor system that we hope the new owner will continue the mission that we had throughout our days with the site, that being the need to thwart the ACLU’s agenda at every turn and in every lawful and legal way possible, and will thus perpetuate it.  The ACLU’s assault on marriage, human life, crosses, the 10 Commandments and our immigration system, among numerous other issues, needs to be contained and my prayer is the purchaser of this domain will continue carrying the torch.  My primary mission now, which is itself in some ways ACLU related, is to create a national exodus of public school children to private, Christian and home schools.  For this reason, I have purchased the domain of www.publicschoolexodus.com and anticipate having an interactive activist website in place in the coming weeks.  I hope you will bookmark this site, even if it is not yet active.

If the price offered for the domain is acceptable, we will consider including the several thousand e-mail address database for the new buyer’s use.  This is a negotiating tool which you may wish to use in purchasing the Stop the ACLU domain, should you wish to do so.

Though I have attempted to answer any and all questions you may have, if there’s something I haven’t covered, email me at theobamacrisis@ymail.com and I will endeavor to reply back as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Payment for the domain shall be via cashier’s check or money order or PayPal.  Please, again, serious queries only.

Thank you for reading and if you are not interested in purchasing this domain but know someone who may be, please forward this on to them.

God bless you!

Nedd

Is this the best she can do?

I was debating first, whether to even bring this up and second, if I should include it with the other most recent piece which, if you read, is very serious.  But since this is on the lighter side and also since the picture raises an obvious question (at least to me), I figured why not.  Perhaps you, my dear reader, have picked up my thought as well.

I’d like you to take a look at this Jan. 11th Reuters photo of the two same sex couples who are suing the state (but in reality the voters who approved Proposition 8).  Pay close attention to Sandy Stier, the woman at the far right (disregard the remainder of the web page).

Now let’s view a couple more shots of Sandy and her partner, Kris Perry.

We’re told that Kristin Perry is 45 years of age (Ms. Stier’s partner) and Ms. Stier herself is 47.  Now if I look at Ms. Perry (in all pictures) – her outfit, her shortly cropped hair and her rather masculine appearance – I’d have to say this woman is about 60.  If she had grey hair, you could probably up the age a few more years.

Strictly on looks alone, can anyone tell me Ms. Perry is even remotely attractive?  Would you not agree that she does appear to be about 15 years older than her actual gestational age?

Now let’s turn to Ms. Stier, particularly the first photo.  For 47, this is a very nicely figured, well dressed and fairly attractive woman.  In this writer’s view, she could possibly pass for 40, particularly so if she added just a little bit of lipstick and perhaps coiffed her hair just a tiny bit more.  Would you not concur?

I am aware that in lesbian relationships, sometimes you have the butch type, ala Ms. Perry, as one of the partners.  You see them in the Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres relationships and others.  But while I would not consider them very good looking, even they on external appearance alone would easily beat Ms. Perry in a contest.

I am also keenly aware that people do not necessarily marry based on looks, though men are usually more “guilty” of the googly eye than the woman.  I know people love others for more than just an outward appearance.  And sometimes it’s very difficult for an “ugly duckling” to find someone, regardless of that person’s gender.  That is a heartbreaking experience.

As a Christian, I know that true beauty comes from the internal and often when that inner beauty shines, the external will as well.  And when that doesn’t appear to work, things like makeovers, hairdos, change of makeup use and wardrobe revisions can sometimes have a positive effect on altering one’s external negative appearance.

But can someone honestly tell me what would drive Sandy Stier to leave a 12 year relationship with a man, then “discover” she’s a lesbian and go with a woman who, by most any definition, has little to go on for visual appearance and even has a grandmother-like image? While women tend less to go on looks in a dating relationship as opposed to men, they usually like to at least find a tiny something in their partner that is attractive.  I just can’t see anything in Ms. Perry.  Perhaps Ms. Stier could enlighten me.

Hey, even the two men who appear in the top photo with these ladies are externally good looking dudes, even if they got their wires crossed.

I’m sorry but I just can’t see anything in Ms. Perry that would drive any man or woman to want to be with her.  Does anyone disagree with me here?  If so, what beauty, external or internal, does this woman, who appears to be closer to 60, have?  Please help me if I’m missing something but with all due respect, I think Ms. Stier has had her wires shorted.  I find her quite attractive as someone who is only two years her senior.  What man in her 30s, 40s and 50s would not also find Sandy quite desirable? She can do better.  She should.

More importantly, Sandy and her partner need to disband their relationship, get counseling regarding their unnatural lifestyle so they can live a genuinely normal life, and cease their efforts to overturn the voter sentiment from Proposition 8.

I can’t imagine what these two women do in the bedroom together and perhaps I shouldn’t, both in terms of adhering to my Christian principles and thinking of Ms. Perry’s external appearance.

But in the end, these ladies, like all men and women, need the Lord in their lives and to disband a relationship that has no last fulfillment or pleasure.

I’m prepared to take some heat from what I just shared but it comes with the territory.  So let’s hear what you have to say on this.

---

P.S.  I feel sorry for Ted Olson, who is pictured in the second photo with the two lesbians and sold out conservatives and Christians by his support for this faux form of marriage and who, by his defense of these two same sex couples, is thumbing his nose at the voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008.  I tend to think his late saintly wife Barbara, who died during 9/11, would be turning over in her grave.

Is America Becoming Desensitized to Immorality

The following are two recent examples whereby society is becoming desensitized to what traditionally has been immoral and even evil.  The first pertainins to something I have seen this week and personally experienced.  The second pertains to a disturbing matter largely and shockingly viewed as heartwarming.

---

On my way yesterday to the town hall meeting mentioned in the previous post (about a 15 minute drive), I was stopped at a traffic light and sat briefly behind a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that read “I Love P0rn“.

Actually , “Love” was not in the sentence but a red heart was substituted for the word.

Now it seems less common these days to see any bumper stickers on cars, let alone what I saw.  It’s almost like a fad.  And given the region I live in, I was a bit surprised that someone would embrace such a brazen statement.  It is not what I would term as an extremely religious community but there are a lot of churches in Northwest Indiana with generally embraced traditional values and Hoosier hospitality displayed much of wherever one goes.   Thus I was caught off-guard by this sticker and its brief but blunt claim of endearment.

I fully realize the existence of p0rnography in society, stemming from the likes of Playboy, Penthouse & Hustler and that the advent of the Internet has greatly accelerated its promotion.  I understand the grip it has on many folks, young and old, male and female, professional and blue collar.  P0rn knows no discrimination.  Anyone can be caught in its clutches if they are not careful.  I know what I’m speaking about.  I was one of them.

But to say thru an advertisement on one’s one vehicle that they proudly embrace p0rn; that truly frightens me.  I believe most folks are not proud of their actions and want to do their deeds privately without others knowing.  Yes, there are plenty of forums one can check out this stuff – reading the above sordid magazines (whose subscriptions are waning), visiting adult book stores and peep shows and of course, the Internet where it’s not tough to see a lot of it for free.

But though people engage in p0rn activity as a result of the presence of its images in a vast variety of forms, how many folks want to publicly declare their affinity and affection for it?  I daresay not many.

Or might I be wrong?  The presence of one bumper sticker like this makes me rethink my personal belief.  After all, it is highly likely that this bumper sticker, simple as its appearance shown, came from either a p0rn shop or some other facility that sells sleazy and risque items.

As I said earlier, I was once in the clenches of porn.  It started in my teen years.  A friend I knew at the time had Playboy magazines under the bed in his room.  Though that didn’t so much start my curiosity, my late father was perhaps the individual who did.  He was a part time professional photographer, that is when he was not teaching (he was a science teacher in a Chicago public school) or on his booze binge (he was an alcoholic and it eventually results in his suicide at 53 back in the summer of 1981).  Though he did not film anything pertaining to p0rn or nudity, he did possess a few photography magazines containing pictures of nude individuals as well as a couple reels of old projector film (the kind you used to see in the 60s and 70s in school classrooms) with men and women in sexual poses and acts, though with the private parts generally obscured.  Unfortunately, I did see those reels, though I am honest when I say I cannot recall any specifics from them.

But the whole process got me started.

Now I never in my whole life ever spend one penny to buy any such magazine or film clips.  Although I got my kicks (read: arousal) from seeing this stuff, I could never in good conscience buy any of it.  I instinctively knew it was wrong.  But while I was not by any means possessed or consumed by porn images at the time (the 70s and 80s), my curious nature would have me keep my mind open if some image of such appeared on the street or in a trash can.

By the grace of God, I never solidified an addiction back then.  But the worst was soon to come.

From early on in my childhood, one of the things I loved doing was playing Scrabble with my family.  I would take on my parents, who were teachers and supposedly experts in the game, and soundly thrash them.  In the late 80s I joined a Scrabble club in Chicago and in the early 90s I started playing in tournaments in the Chicago area and across the Midwest.  Traveling to play in these tourneys necessitated staying overnight in hotels and motels.

Unfortunately, I came across one hotel in the late 90s that had soft p0rn available for viewing.  As before, I would never pay for such but in this hotel in suburban Detroit, the free cable TV viewing included blunt public sex and nudity from HBO and Sex in the City.  It had an almost stranglehold-like grip on me as I began viewing it on one Saturday evening after coming back from a series of Saturday morning and afternoon games.  Being consumed with it became a distraction for Sunday’s games as I meditated on this trash perhaps more so than my play.  Fortunately, however, there were no other occasions quite like this one.  But it did have an effect on me like never previously.

Fast forward to the summer of 2001 when I got online for the first time in my life.  I did not think of the Internet as a porn source right away but about a year later, I had the ambition to try and learn how to put together a website for a political passion I had. With the help of a webmaster, I was able to get my site together and set up my own website e-mail accounts.

However, those tasks  soon turned to be a spigot that was hard to shut off.

I quickly learned what SPAM was all about and how SPAMMERS would harvest my e-mail address off the net as they did.  It was one thing getting such garbage in my mailboxes.  However, some of the SPAM involved the appearance of sexually explicit images upon simply opening to click what appeared to be annoying, though seemingly innocent messages.  The nude images (and yes, fully nude on some occasions) resurrected a dormant view of porn that had largely been a non-factor in recent years.  I never dreamed nudity could simply appear in an e-mail by simply clicking to read what I thought, per the subject line, was something entirely opposite.

But it did.  And thus for a period of time from late 2002 to 2004, I suffered an addiction to porn, though by the grace of God, it was not continual day in and day out.  However, when the urge hit, I would periodically stay up for hours and occasionally all night to view images that I had never previously seen.  When images of nudity and traditional sexual acts eventually became boring, I sought to view more extreme images.  Orgies became a common thing for me to see, though thankfully and by the grace of God, hard core porn acts outside of natural sexual intercourse never had a choke hold on me and neither did images of teen and preteen nudity, something I managed to stay away from.  But what I did view took its toll on me and my brain.  And let me tell you, it hard wires you.  Other than the precious grace of God, it can be extremely difficult to be deprogrammed from stark images of p0rnography.  I am witness to that effect.

There is more I could say about my experience with p0rn except I will say that I believe I have it safely under control and that it does not control me and hasn’t for roughly the last 5 1/2 years.  It is an addiction no one should have.  I cringed when I saw that particular bumper sticker yesterday.  That person likely needs serious help and that this person may not see their need of it.  Thus if you know someone who is an addict (and yes, women can be caught in its cross hairs as well), GET HELP NOW.  There are websites and groups that deal with this addiction and there is one connected to Focus on the Family that I strongly recommend.  I don’t have the link offhand but it can be located at the FOTF website and it should be fairly visible for those searching for it.

P0rn desensitizes one from right from wrong and for some held in its bondage, it can result (and does) in sexual crimes committed on others, young and old.  The desensitization of it needs to be addressed without delay.

For those who aren’t desensitized to the point of criminal activity, p0rn causes men to view women as objects instead of creations of God to love.  Yes, this has been frequently stated but I can tell you first hand it “works”. Although yours truly has been thus far largely free from the long term effects of viewing continual porn, I do admit that sometimes I have difficulty in looking at a lady straight in the face and not an object.  I periodically find myself gazing, though I wouldn’t go so far as calling it gawking, at a woman’s chest build and posterior, regardless of her age and looks.  It is tough to admit but it is true.  I definitely believe it stems from all the images of women that I have seen in all the various stages of dress and undress.

If you see yourself in what I have said, please get help and also let me know that you need it.  I can be there for you.

And though the following may not seem related to the above, it definitely has its connections.  Desensitization of sin is devastating to communities, leads to crime and it leads to what I am about to share.  It may anger some people and perhaps even outrage, some to the point of blasting me and my comments, both from the right and the left.  But I don’t care.  This is important.

---

In California right now, there is a potential landmark case that may eventually force states to adopt same sex marriage in their states, despite the fact that no state in which the voters have had a say so (31 of them currently) have approved of such social engineering.  The current case involves one lesbian and one male homosexual couple challenging Proposition 8 which was approved by 52% of Californians in November 2008.  More details here.

However, this aspect of the California suit and the forum responses to this particular case in Utah should disturb any rational thinking individual who believes a child belongs with one man and one woman.

One would think that in religiously conservative Utah with the largest contingent of Mormons of any other state that the opposition to this woman’s decision to be a surrogate to two homosexual men would be met with at least mixed reactions.  But from the readers’ comments and even the conservative lawmakers this self-identified lesbian lawmaker serves with, there is minimal concern for the child’s long term welfare, disregarding the long standing tradition, Christian and otherwise, that children needs both a father and mother and that each have their own unique roles in raising children.

The story identifies Christine Johnson, a Salt Lake City lawmaker, as being a surrogate mother for two Utah homosexual men who were “married” in California before the voters there rescinded court ordered same sex marriage by approving Proposition 8.  She is said to be 5 months pregnant via artificial insemination of one of the men’s sperm.  The readers of this story and the various individuals in it are led to believe this woman is doing a humane service for these two men by carrying a child they are claiming as theirs.

Sadly, however, Ms. Johnson is being used for a purpose nature’s God did not design.  It would be somewhat understandable if she was doing this for a married couple who could not have children on their own.  There are arguments that can be made for and against artificial impregnation in general for a traditional opposite sex couple, married or not, though married by far would be by far the less controversial for patently obvious reasons.

But such is not the case here.  We’re talking two men who, for whatever reason, refuse to have children nature’s and God’s way, that being thru direct impregnation of the opposite sex in the bond of marriage. And unfortunately, we’re also talking about a woman, whose physical and sexual desires, like those of the men, are wired against nature.  And the public is being led to believe that a compassionate woman is fulfilling the desires of these men who are assumed to be born homosexual and cannot change course.

Let’s quickly state that yes, even homosexual men and women have the capacity to love a child.  I do not know the hearts and intents of Ms. Johnson and these two misguided males.  Only God does.  But like anything else in life, there are requirements to achieve certain objectives.  In this vein, we’re talking about having children.  And they are simple.  Each man can find an unmarried woman 18 or older who is not an immediate relative of each other’s families and who will agree to be their spouses.  One of those women can be Ms. Johnson, whom I will admit, according to the picture in the article, has a certain degree of external beauty about her.

Not rocket science, huh?

And contrary to perhaps popular thinking, there is no universal “right” to have a child outside the traditional way of doing so.  Utah’s adoption law is fitting and the state should be commended for standing firm for it, especially when leftist groups like the ACLU seek to annul it thru the court system.

If this writer had access to either of these two men, he would ask them this question: what’s keeping you both from finding a single woman of age to be your life partners and bearing your own blood children?  This question should be asked of men and women who embrace the homosexual lifestyle.

I daresay I might get an answer that “we were born this way“, which is easily rebuttable.  Beyond that, any other answer would be difficult to even so much as utter.  There is no good reason other than selfishness and an unwillingness to rechart their course in life.  True, circumstances and events in the lives of homosexual men and women may have caused them to leave the traditional bond of love and heterosexual matrimony.  Such folks need love, compassion, understanding and counseling.  But they need not be affirmed in a lifestyle that has been, since the dawn of time, viewed as immoral and one which facts show the shortening of lives and creation of great confusion, pain and sorrow.

There is no redeeming value in a homosexual relationship – none – zip, zilch, zero, nada.  It cannot be honestly articulated and demonstrated.  It is born of selfishness, no matter how hard one may try explaining it away.  It is sin, no matter how hard someone denies it.  But it is like most any other, easily forgiveable, though some folks have a tougher time leaving it than others.

Ms. Johnson and these two men should know that and be told they don’t have to be in the chains of bondage this lifestyle causes.  Persons are to be affirmed, not potentially lethal lifestyles leading to HIV, AIDS and more.  There are people who have left this life of misery to become productive in so many other ways. Groups like Exodus International and former homosexuals like Stephen Bennett are available to assist.  They should be sought.

I realize I offered some unsolicited advice but I don’t apologize for it.

However, let’s go back to this story and specifically to the reactions expressed in the forum.  What is so shocking is virtually one-sided support given to Ms. Johnson and these two men.  The posters appear to be clueless on the homosexual lifestyle and think there is no issue here when there is indeed something very wrong.  It is simply not two men or two women throwing an occasional kiss at each other and living together.  It is far more than that.  And in order to convince those on both sides of the political aisle that there are serious issues here and that what I have stated thus far is the gospel truth (and hopefully set people free in the process), I am putting my personal reputation and integrity on the line and do something I believe no one thus far has done.  Some may call into question my Christianity for what I suggest.  I am willing to have that exposed in order for the truth to come out.
But before I continue, I am issuing this disclaimer so that you will know that you have been forewarned and will assume all risks of your actions, should you go ahead with what follows.

Here goes.  If you are not up to doing this, don’t do so.  There is a risk in doing so.  But what I want you to now do is take these steps:

• If there are any kids, including teens, by your computer, do whatever you must to escort them away from the monitor or come back another time.  If you are a child or a teen, please stop here as I do not want you to proceed.  A hopefully mature adult will later explain why after he or she reads thru the rest of this article.
• The optimum person reading this and proceeding will be one with solid moral convictions of right and wrong.  However, skeptics of my views should also consider proceeding, though they should have some basis of right and wrong they adhere to.
• I strongly recommend, due to the nature of the upcoming content, that you have another mature and trusted adult on hand prior to proceeding.  There is a measure of accountability at stake here so regardless of your politics and leanings, secure an appropriate individual to be with you.  It is unwise and risky to do it all alone.

Have you done the above?  If you have, proceed cautiously by reading all the following steps before actually doing any of them.  It is very important in order to have minimum negative impact.

Here we go.

1. Since most computers have a Google toolbar in some fashion, I ask you to open a window to go to it and click to go to Google images.  If you do not have one installed, simply go to Google.com and click the images link at the top left of the page.
2. In the bar – and here is where the rubber meets the road – type “gay sex” and then “lesbian sex“.  If you have the strict or moderate safe setting in place, it will appear – most Google installations come that way and can only be changed manually.  If so, click to turn the same search button to “off” – but only TEMPORARILY.  Finally, click to view the images. Be forewarned – these images speak for themselves.
3. Keep the “gay sex” and “lesbian sex” pages on for no more than 30 seconds each and then close the pages.  If you have them on longer, have your partner in the room close the web pages for you.  They are ADDICTING!  What is being displayed is outright p0rnography.
4. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever should you go beyond the first Google page or worse, click any of the images to go to those websites.  If you do so, you face a potential p0rn addiction that may be extremely difficult to undo.  Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. It’s strictly by the grace of God I no longer have this addiction.

   Additionally, should you visit any of those sites, unless you have a pop-up blocker in place, it will be difficult to leave some of those pages as these sites will repeat their pages or display similar ones from other sites to keep you in their grasp.  Your Internet Protocol Number (IPN) may also be taken by the sites’ webmasters and owners and your computer may well be infected with spyware and malware.  Almost all p0rn sites have them in place.  Google pages do not have that but as stated, you don’t want to go beyond the first page for obvious reasons.  If you need just one reason not to do so, just note the approximate 13 million similar pages under “gay sex” or 6 million pages under “lesbian sex“.   This is how much this stuff exists out across the Internet world.

5. Close all web pages, including any innocuous ones you have open, then run the “delete temporary files” in your computer and delete all those pages.  And to be on the safe side, run your anti-virus, anti-spyware computer program.  Though Google pages are not deemed (to the best of this writer’s knowledge) to have these issues, it’s best to be on the safe side and clean everything out.
6. And hopefully you have followed the first instruction by not clicking any image under Google images.  I stress that so that any possible addiction you could incur by viewing those Google images will be minimal, if at all, and quickly eliminated from your mindsets.

I am prepared for any and all criticism that will come my way and I assure you there will be plenty of it, both from the Christian right and the liberal left, albeit for likely different reasons.  The thought that I might have caused a p0rn addiction is one that I take very seriously and truly pray didn’t occur.

But I know no other way to get the Christian right, the nominal right and hard and soft  left to see that their support of the adoption of this would be child is fraught with dangers.  The thought of seeing what same sex couples do in private (or God forbid, public) should cause us to shudder and ask ourselves why we would even think of allowing two men or two women to adopt or in some other way be allowed to raise children.

Folks, what you saw on Google images is the real deal for these misguided practitioners.  They are identified as homosexuals and lesbians because they desire and have sexual relations with members of their own gender.  That is the definition of those words.  Nature and nature’s God never intended men and women to live this way.  And while some of these individuals would be alarmed if they saw or knew of children being exposed, directly or indirectly, to their actions, others have no compunction about their behavior.  Thus children should never be allowed to adopt or have children in such settings.

Ironically, we were told this week via a liberal college psychologist in the Proposition 8 trial that homosexuals were no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals and that they were just as fitting to be parents.  Indeed he was reported as having stated that “No research shows that kids need to be protected from gays or lesbians”.

Apparently Michael Lamb, the aforementioned psychologist, conveniently omitted a very significant bit of information from our neighbor to the north. He failed to cite how a prominent homosexual group sought legislation to reduce that nation’s age of consensual anal sex from 18 to 16 while the government sought to raise the age of traditional vaginal sex from 14 to 16. He also ignored the devastating statistics cited in the above link of what occurs from Canadians engaging in unnatural homosexual behavior.

And lest Dr. Lamb couldn’t locate such statistics from across the fruited plain, I shall be happy to oblige him and won’t have to use someone he would consider to be a radical right wing psychologist.   However, we can use the statistics cited on his page from some fairly well known mainstream sources many of which that, at the time of citing, weren’t sold out politically.

And maybe Dr. Lamb could benefit from viewing a 1996 Centers for Disease Control report that was released in 2005.

Heck, maybe Rep. Johnson, her daughter, the two men awaiting the birth of this child, the posters of comments in the Deseret News article and Deseret’s editors (who removed all comments of opposition, including that of this writer) could benefit from reading the links in the last couple paragraphs.

And for all those reading this piece who embrace the homosexual lifestyle, please listen up and face the facts.

You have been sold a bill of goods for the lifestyle you are living.  There is no redeeming value in its practices – zip, zilch, zero, nada.  If anything, your behaviors may lead you to AIDS and other rare sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), emotional pain and sorrow, and a host of other physical and mental ailments.  It is the responsibility of Christians and others who care about your well being to discourage you from continuing in these paths and assist you in every way possible towards leaving this harmful way of life.  We care about your total welfare.

Should you, however, wish to continue in your lifestyle in the face of the immense pain that comes with it, we will respect and honor your decisions.   We acknowledge your liberties under the 1st & 4th Amendments and if requested, will stand with you to defend them, even if the behaviors and actions you espouse are not in good order nor in line with traditional Christian values. You are accorded the same freedoms as all other Americans in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights.

However, under no circumstances can we support any form of adoption or custody of children under your care.  We must protect our children and do all we can to ensure their optimal upbringing, that being in the custody and care of one man and one woman, preferably in the bonds of holy matrimony. As such, we will diligently oppose and stand against any policy or decision that would put America’s children in the care and custody of a homosexual relationship.

It is terribly distressing that the posters to this forum and its editors are so blinded to think that putting the custody of children in the hands of men and women engaging in unnatural sexual behaviors is kind, sweet and loving, given that a female lawmaker (and lesbian) is being a surrogate for the child. Despite the woman’s concession to give up the child upon birth and her unnatural lifestyle, I believe Rep. Johnson does have some bond (or will) for the baby as she approaches delivery.   She may be prepared to give him or her up but I think her natural bond towards children will make it tougher to surrender him or her at birth.

Although my comments are long-winded, particularly in this second item, I believe we need to wake up, cherish and defend our traditional morals by relegating p0rn to the ash heap of history and standing firm against the aggressive implementation of the homosexual lifestyle and adoptions corresponding to these behaviors.  Failure to do so will likely further accelerate the corruption of American society.

I deeply apologize for the recommendations to visit the p0rn pages under Google images as laid out earlier.  It is my hope that no one will view these pages as titillating and exciting.  However, if this is what it takes to end the proliferation of p0rn in society and the abuse of children resulting from the placement of children with homosexuals, I feel it is my obligation to do so.

For those who would tell me to not judge this lawmaker and these men and to live and let live, I would respond by reminding them the penalties Jesus pronounced in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18 for those who would abuse children.

And for those who would condemn me for believing homosexual adoption is child abuse, I have no apologies for it and have lots of facts and history to back it up.

May God remove our desensitization and awaken us to the destructive nature of p0rn and the homo agenda before it’s too late.

My Congressman’s Town Hall Meeting

Readers, I apologize for not having any material up since Dec. 20th.  I trust everyone had a blessed Christmas season and regret I did not post my well wishes at the time.  But I have been down with a foot injury which, due to the somewhat unique nature of it, makes it rather difficult for me to sit at the computer for any significant length of time.  I have no idea how I contracted it and unfortunately, I have no means to pay a doctor for treatment. However, I have taken pain medication to keep it from getting worse, along with ice treatments, foot elevation and wraparound splints.  Your prayers would be truly appreciated for me at this time.

But though I have been silent for the last 3 1/2 weeks and limiting in reading my e-mails, I have endeavored to try to keep up as to what’s occurring on the political scene, especially with reference to Obamacare.  As you may know, though I did not post any material on it, the Senate passed its version strictly along party lines on Christmas Eve (what a great gift for America, huh?) and now it’s in conference committee, awaiting the usurper’s eventual signature.  Make no mistake, once signed into law, various groups and a number of states are prepared to challenge the legality of it.  And true liberty loving heroes in Washington, like Sen. Jim DeMint of S. Carolina, are taking unprecedented measures and using rarely used parliamentary and other moves to keep this atrocious job and country killer from ever becoming law.

However, I wish to leave that issue for the moment and share with you some observations and points from my visit yesterday to one of the many town hall meetings conducted this week by my Democrat Congressman, Pete Visclosky, representative for the 1st District of Indiana which covers much of Northwest Indiana.

As you will note on his web page, the Congressman has conducted quite a few meetings since Jan. 9th, 24 in total.  However, it should be quickly added that his meetings in January are all that he conducts in an entire year.  An aide of his told me this past summer when Congress was home for the month of August to “face the music” about Obamacare that Rep. Visclosky only holds them in January.  That was strictly not the case as he did hold an unannounced meeting in August that erupted in political pandemonium. But generally speaking, this was true.  He didn’t want to hear what the voters had to say during the August recess, unlike other Congressmen, particularly Democrats, who were largely read the riot act from their constituents.

And the Congressman heard it even more so this week as you will note here and here; also see this great picture here – this woman also stood outside the town hall meeting I attended in Valparaiso, which I will detail momentarily.

If you would like to see a few of the You Tube videos of the Congressman’s meetings, I have the three that are currently posted at You Tube linked at the end of this post.  These appear to be mild mannered contrasted to the above, though there are elements of intense passion to be observed.

Now as for the forum I attended yesterday, like virtually all of them, it was packed with standing room only and with individually spilled outside the conference room.  It goes without saying, and for which several constituents mumbled, that these meetings could have been held in larger facilities, such as a high school or college auditorium or gym.  For the forum I was at, a large room could have been rented at Valparaiso University, located just minutes from Valparaiso (also called Valpo by some) City Hall.  At the very least, such lack of planning could be considered poor oversight.  At worst, such could be viewed as possible indifference to the public for which this Congressman serves.  There can be little argument as to any claim that Rep. Visclosky might make that he had no idea the attendance at these meetings would be sizable.   He had to have known the opposition to Obamacare and his vote in support of it was significant.  No other issue is consuming the bulk of the time at these meeting as government takeover of the private health care system.

As to the meeting I went to, unfortunately I was one of those who could not get a seat inside the conference room or stand up along the walls.  I was about 10-12 feet outside the nearest door.  And due to my foot condition, I could not stay on my feet for any serious length of time, thus I would take a break every few minutes to sit on the carpeted floor outside a door that was not used for entering and exiting.  Eventually a Congressional aide saw me and was kind enought to lead me to a bench between two of the other doors as some outside folks gradually left, either for lack of visibility or other reasons.  I daresay this aide likely did not originally know I was not a fan of her employer.

The meeting began a couple minutes after the top of the noon hour with the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance (for which Barack Obama despises).  Then the Congressman began discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cap and trade, and of course, the health care abomination, along with a few other issues.  He did so until about 12:30 PM when he began to answer questions submitted to him in writing.  He continued doing so until about 1:25 PM when the conference was adjourned.

A couple points about Rep. Visclosky taking roughly 25 minutes to talk of his own accord.  In my opinion, this was highly inappropriate.  This was the people’s meeting, not his.  It may have been fitting to speak briefly for about 5 minutes at most and then let the audience have the rest of the discussion. But in this writer’s view, it was not proper to take up a third of the gathering and offer his rambling thoughts.

The reason I say this comes from experience.  Prior to moving to Indiana, I had attended town hall meetings in Illinois by the former late U.S. Senator Paul Simon, retired Congressman Bill Lipinski of the 3rd Congressional District in the state and later his son, Dan Lipinski, who is the current representative in that district.  I clearly remembered Simon and Bill Lipinski (affectionately called Bungalow Bill for being in a Chicago district with a preponderance of old style bungalow homes) going straight to the constituents for discussion and Dan Lipinski offering brief opening comments before letting the public control the themes.  This was clearly not the case here in the Valpo meeting.

Also, during the Valpo meeting, as with the others in the You Tube videos linked above, the environment was very controlled by having questions submitted in writing to the Congressman as opposed to letting constituents speak into a microphone and the Congressman responding impromptu.  Someone who has command of their convictions and isn’t ashamed of their votes or positions isn’t going to ask that questions be written beforehand.  This kind of malarkey gives me the itch to run for this Congressman’s seat.  I’m not afraid of what I stand for and passionately articulate it and if I don’t know the answer to something submitted to me spontaneously, I’ll get that answer.

The questions submitted here were similar to those at the aforementioned You Tube video links.  A couple exceptions were that Rep. Visclosky proudly touted his vote against cap and trade, for which he got a fairly good round of applause, and his vote against the 2008 bank bailout while President Bush was still in office.  However, the cap and trade vote was obscured by the fact that he voted for Obamacare, which will, like cap and trade, extensively kill jobs across America.  And the bank bailout in the 110th Congress is greatly obscured by Visclosky’s votes for the so-called stimulus bills and TARP legislation.  Those votes he conveniently ignored.

Being outside the conference room made it a bit difficult to hear what was going on inside; even more so when the Congressman’s comments were met with loud boos and jeers and interruptions, which occurred sporadically and with modest amounts of anger, though not as fiery as in other meetings.  But it didn’t help that there was no microphone for Mr. Visclosky to speak into. The lack of a mike and accommodations for the large crowds.

While out in the hallway, I did strike up a conversation with a somewhat disabled patriot who, like me, agreed totally about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.  He shared with me a piece of paper where he wrote down four issues of concern that he wanted to ask the Congressman. Besides the government takeover of health care, one of his remaining concerns was whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be sitting in the position he currently sits.  Given that there was the meeting inside and the need to keep external noise to a bare minimum, I could not but very briefly concur and discuss with him my total agreement with him and wish that other concerned citizens would pick it up as well.

This patriot had another congressional aide come up to him and help him transfer his comments to a small form note to submit to the Congressman.  The aide then took the note and I believe brought it up to Mr. Visclosky along with the other questions for submission.  Due to the noise issues and lack of a mike, it was not clear whether this patriot’s specific question on Obamacare was heard, even though other questions on Obamacare were submitted and responded to.  However, it appeared quite clear that if it was, the portion of Obama’s questionable U.S. citizenship was ignored.

The question I would have loved to have seen submitted is one that would almost certainly bring closure to the Congressman’s quarter of a century service.  And that is the fact that, according to the Federal Election Commission’s website, Rep. Visclosky’s campaign contributions from within the state amounted to just 4%, meaning outside interests control his war chest and thus secure  his reelections.  Regardless of how people feel about their Congressman, liberal, conservative or something else, anyone whose pocketbooks are lined up with out of state money should be sent to the unemployment line at the close of their election term.  That means Rep. Visclosky as well as Sen. Evan Bayh, who, like the Congressman, is up for reelection this fall and only gets 14% of his funds instate.

In summary, if your Congressman or senator acts like Rep. Visclosky did in these You Tube videos and as I described, regardless of political party (though such will more likely occur under the Democrats) it’s time to send them packing and end their taxpayer paid salaries.

And as promised near the beginning, here are the three You Tube videos from Rep. Visclosky’s town hall meetings – one in the city of Schererville (broken down into two segments) and the other in the city of Highland.

Christmas Cruelty

Friends and other readers, do not take my 3 week or so hiatus as though I had nothing to post.  I have plenty of things I’m writing about and will soon have a few of them up at a new cutting edge site that has corralled me in – www.thepostemail.com.  Bookmark this site.

However, I have been extremely busy on a number of fronts but at the same time I have been watching what is going on with this debacle “healthcare” bill in the U.S. Senate.  You may recall that the House passed its version of Obamacare on a Saturday nite when few people paid attention and they did so against the vast majority of Americans who are instead screaming for jobs.

Now as if that isn’t bad enough, your U.S. Senate is poised to vote on their version of Obamacare on Christmas Eve when Americans, that is those who have been blessed in spite of the recession (deliberate in this writer’s view), will be making their preparations to celebrate the birth of our Blessed Savior.

And this they will be able to do, having secured approval of the formerly stellar pro-life Democrat senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson.   Here’s proof from a physician and true hero of the unborn in the Senate.

Given how Sen. Nelson has held off his support until Saturday, it is likely that there was extreme pressure from not only his fellow Democratic senators but from Obama’s White House thugs to force him to cave.

That, however, is no excuse.  True pro-lifers stand up for their convictions, come hell or high water.  But given that there is no other pro-lifer on the Democrat side (notwithstanding Sen. Casey’s occasional token stands for the unborn), there had to admittedly be a boatload of pressure on Mr. Nelson to sacrifice his principles.   They allegedly met around the clock from Friday to Saturday morning to “nudge” (read: force) him to oblige.   Rumors flew across the Internet that the White House was preparing to use the potential closure of a major military base in Nebraska as a wedge to force him to abandon his pro-life principles.

In case someone wants to read the amendment that Sen. Nelson more or less gave his stamp of approval for, here it is (starts at page 38 – thanks to Kathy Gilbert at Canada’s Lifesite News for the link and good reporting).

There’s no way one can read that the bill is abortion free.  Go to page 39, starting with line 22, to page 40, line 5.

Sen. Nelson should have held firm on this issue.  But that aside, why would anyone support a crushing bill on constitutional liberties?

Fox News also reports all the goodies (read: bribes) Sen. Nelson was promised in exchange for his support.

Sen. Lindsey Graham noted that Sen. Nelson stood alone in his justification of support for the legislation while Sens. Sam Brownback and Rich Burr took additional shots at Nebraska’s senior senator.   Nebraska’s junior Sen. Mike Johanns, like Sen. Nelson, a former governor from the Cornhusker state, was particularly agitated by Nelson’s backing, including the part on abortion funding since he co-sponsored the amendment blocking abortion funding that was rejected earlier this month.

Nebraska’s current governor, Dave Heineman, as well as a couple other state CEOs, chimed in their criticisms as well.

Here’s what Sen. Nelson should have said to the American people and especially to the voters of his state, that is if he had any principle left in him:

“Fellow Nebraskans, I have been confronted with supporting a health care bill by my Democratic Party that not only would force me to violate my long standing pro-life convictions but saddle my state with massive unsustainable costs and regulations.   If this legislation ever becomes law, many unborn children will face certain termination in the womb and the constitutional liberties of Nebraskans, which I am sworn to defend under the United States Constitution, will be decimated.  I cannot in good conscience back this bill in any way, shape or form.  And since my party is compelling me to go against my long standing convictions and principles, I am resigning my position as U.S. Senator effective immediately.”

Or perhaps better yet, Sen. Nelson could have modified the last sentence to say, “And since my party is compelling me to go against my long standing convictions and principles and is no longer is the party of the little guy, which is one reason I became a Democrat, I hereby announce my decision to leave the Democrat Party effective immediately and join the party whose principles include limited government and lower taxes, the Republican Party, of which I am now their newest member, also effective immediately.”

Given that 2 out of every 3 Nebraskans in a poll released Thursday oppose Obamacare, do you think Sen. Nelson would have received a hero’s welcome in Omaha and elsewhere throughout the state?  I daresay he would have been given a sustained ovation and countless hugs and kisses for doing what is right by his constituents instead of being a party broker to an issue of death.

Additionally, Sen. Nelson, regardless of whether he would switch parties or simply go home, would have been loved by pro-lifers across the nation as well as every American patriot who cherishes the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, now subverted by the senator and the 59 other Democrats (which includes two independents that vote Democrat) going along with him.  It would have meant that this disaster would have failed to have gotten the 60th vote, the certain filibuster would have been sustained and Obamacare thus stalled.

And had Nelson switched parties, it would have sent shockwaves throughout the nation since all eyes have been focused on the once good senator from Nebraska.

This legislation is thoroughly sinister and by facing a vote the day before Christmas it is beyond cruel.  Past Congresses would all be home by this week, ready to return in January.  But 60 Democrats and independents have surrendered to Usurper Obama and will give him his signature bill as a “gift” to the American people instead of opening the financial recesses of DC to enable Americans to get back in the job field.

This is not a lump of coal in every Christmas sack of every American.  It is, pardon the vulgarity, a sack of horseshit. No American in his or her right mind would conscientiously want such a bill thrust upon them, particularly since this bill provides zip of the coverage these Congress critters currently get as senators and Congressmen.

And since Congress will be excluded from this legislation, something Sen. Coburn and others in Congress sought as amendments, America is about to be stuck with something that is oppressive, horrific and yes, Marxist and Communist.

Barring something falling apart this week or some other action, this will pass the Senate on a 60-40 vote on Thursday.  There may be Democrats who will vote against the final bill but that must not be ignored by the American people.  The fact is 60 senators voted to bring this horrid bill for a vote.  Anyone voting against it in final form, if it occurs, means they are doing so as a smokescreen of defense and cover.  They must ALL be defeated at the ballot box, particularly the ones coming up for reelection next November (Sens. Evan Bayh – this writer’s own senator, Blanche Lincoln and particularly Majority Leader Harry Reid come to mind).  All means ALL, regardless of what state they’re from.  33 senators are up for reelection.  All incumbent Democrats must be defeated without exception.

But besides the Christmas cruelty, there will be reconciliation of the House & Senate bills in which abortion could be the death knell since a strong pro-life version is in the House bill while a weak one is now in place in the Senate.  Chances of talks breaking down and the bill dying could occur if pro-life Democrat Congressmen like Bart Stupak, Jerry Costello, Dan Lipinski and another dozen or so stick up for the unborn and don’t do a half nelson as Nebraska’s senior senator has (not very likely but possible).  The bill must be gutted, with or without abortion coverage, period.

But if the bill passes in committee and a revote, there will be political hell to pay (and maybe more) and  even greater civil unrest than there already is in the country may occur. Here are some options we need to look at.

1. The law is blatantly unconstitutional and should be challenged by every lawyer in this country who still has some green in his or her pockets.  The courts must be buried with lawsuits. When President Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion, the pro-abortion folks like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW promptly went to court to overturn the will of Congress, which in that case was warranted, given the hideous procedures done in a partial birth.  In the current case, however, we must go far beyond the few numbers the pro-abortion lobby had in their suit.  Every capable attorney, group and organization needs to put their names on such litigation and tie up the courts for years.
2. In this writer’s view, the bill should also be challenged on the basis that the putative president in the Oval Office is constitutionally disqualified from sitting in his position, signing bills, giving executive orders and making appointments. Though there currently is less mention of all the suits against Resident Obama because of this healthcare abomination, folks like Mario Apuzzo are still pressing their cases before the courts.  Republicans who have thus far shunned discussion on the eligibility issue may wish to rethink their position, should Obamacare become law.  They should get their best lawyers involved.  Because if Obama is ever found ineligible and our highest courts agree, then he would have to step down and every action he has taken will have to be rescinded.  Grave damage has already been done to America, constitutionally, financially and otherwise, and some actions, like the spending of pork barrel money, will be irreversible.  But other actions that are not monetarily related should be reversed upon a conviction of Obama. It is never too late to do the constitutionally correct thing.

   And though I will not extensively revisit this issue, which is near and dear to me, in this particular post, there is massive evidence that I believe can  convincingly convict the usurper, that is if the courts would do their jobs and not use jussives of  lack of standing, lack of harm and jurisdiction to keep the cases from proceeding to trial.

3. States need to more than ever now, and perhaps they will have no choice if this passes and is signed into law, assert state sovereignty and begin the legislative and other processes of becoming a country within a country, not bound to every demand and command of usurper Obama and the federal government.  This applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.  Several Democratic governors, like Joe Manchin of W. Virginia, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee and Bill Ritter of Colorado, have expressed grave concerns for their states  if they have to implement Obamacare.

   Incoming Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has also expressed his opposition to Obamacare as well as current governors like Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Jim Douglas of Vermont, this writer’s own governor Mitch Daniels (who expressed his opposition quite well here), the aforementioned Gov. Heineman of Nebraska and many others. They, like all of us, should read what Chuck Baldwin, pastor of a Florida church and former candidate for president under the Constitution Party, succinctly wrote in that regard.  And they should proceed to read and act upon what the 10th Amendment Center has compiled. The states must protect us from the overreaching of the federal government and do so without delay. This is the moment for all of them to act.  If not now, what if Crap & Tax, er Cap & Trade, passes, something Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona called the biggest tax in world history?  Will we wait for the states to act then?  What about the illegal immigration crisis?  What about our 2nd Amendment rights?  This can go on and on. This should be one of the first things state legislatures must address in the 2010 legislative sessions.

   States like Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho and probably a few others are already concerned about their rights being usurped.  They should be.  They should remember that the Founding Fathers, thru the 13 original colonies, set up the federal government and not the other way around.  The Feds serve at the pleasure of the states – or at least should.  It’s past time for the states to assert their position and put the feds in line and not vice versa.  Otherwise we may have nothing left to stand for as America is being systematically decimated in all regards by an administration with no conscience and very possibly no constitutional authority.

While hundreds and thousands of websites and articles are worth forwarding and reading, this one should be as well – to your governors and state senators and representatives as well as anyone and everyone who cares about the future of America and our families.  Let’s roll back this almost certain sinister Christmas cruelty and take the above measures.  If we don’t, what our Founders went thru with King George and his armies will greatly pale in comparison to what Dictator Obama, David Axlerod and Rahm and Ezekiel Emmanuel want to do to all Americans.  We will be bankrupted in every way.

Bank on it.

Yes, still contact your Democrat senators until full passage of the bill.  Yes, pray for the defeat of this Obamanation.  Yes, still get the word out on it.  But after the smoke clears, we still need to begin the process of state’s becoming their own governments sans the threats and actions of the feds, regardless of whether this passes.

And then we need to unearth all Democrats in both houses with perhaps the notable exceptions of Alabama’s Congressmen Parker Griffith & Bobby Bright, N. Carolina’s Mike McIntyre, Oklahoma’s David Boren and Mississippi’s Gene Taylor and then persuade them to abandon the Communist Democrat Party.

Multitudes of lumps of coal (and more) to all House and Senate Democrats voting for this Obamanation, particularly the new Judas who betrayed the babies as well as the Constitution, Sen. Ben Nelson.

And a full nelson to boot for Nebraska’s senior senator.

If, however, Obamacare passes and there are no legal challenges to the bill or the authority of the usurper to sign such legislation and our states do not assert their sovereignties under the 10th Amendment, then we will, as the late President Ronald Reagan said, we will no longer be one nation under God but one nation gone under.

And then the words of the great statesman Patrick Henry will be mine:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

I would rather be dead than be under Obamacare.  How about you?

And if you want to take that to mean that I would rather end my own life rather than go under that Obamanation, feel free to do so.

Because that’s precisely what I mean.  My constitutional liberty is not for sale to the federal government or Congress.

The shot has been fired.  Liberty MUST prevail; if not, then death.

And lastly, a modified word to all Christmas celebrants regarding Obama applied to the historic and beautiful hymn God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen.

Now to the Lord sing praises all you within this place
And with true love and brotherhood each other now embrace
This holy time of Christmas Obama doth deface (Heaven help us and him)
Oh tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy
Oh oh tidings of comfort and joy

Merry Christmas and God’s blessings and best to you all – and my prayers.

Gov. Mitch Daniels: Fears about Obamacare are “Well-Founded”

I received a letter yesterday from my governor, Mitch Daniels, in response to a fax I recently sent him about what Obamacare would do to the state of Indiana and how it would harm me and my family.  I posted a link to a copy of his letter that he sent to my Congressman in a previous post.  If you haven’t seen it, go here.

As you will note in the letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, who represents much of Northwest Indiana, Gov. Daniels noted the following:

1. The House version of Obamacare was “the worst version yet with truly awful consequences” for the state of Indiana
2. The popular state run (but not controlled) insurance plan currently in place would go kaput under Obamacare
3. The bill would originate “enormous new taxes” while forcing currently insured Hoosiers out of their present plans
4. The legislation is a “job killer” and will create “unbearable costs” for us and our children and grandchildren

In the governor’s letter to me, similar expressions were given.  I suppose I could post a copy of this letter but since a good chunk of it is redundant to the letter sent to Rep. Visclosky, I’ll forgo it.  But here are a few notable excerpts in the letter dated Nov. 19th to yours truly.

1. “Over the past few months, I have watched as citizens have come forward to passionately express their anxieties about the legislation. Their worries, as well as yours, are well-founded.”
2. “I fear the current rush to overhaul the system will ultimately do more damage than good and create far more problems than it solves“.
3. “Indiana would bear the brunt of many of the reckless policies being proposed.”
4. “States will likely have to pick up the tab for this extension of Medicaid. We have estimated that the price for Indiana could reach billions.  These additional costs will overwhelm our resources and obliterate the reserves we have fought so hard to protect.”

I have not always been in full agreement with Gov. Daniels on some matters. But given that he was President George W. Bush’s budget director for 2 1/2 years, anyone with half a brain has to come to the conclusion that he knows a few things about money and budgets.  And one good thing he has done for the people of this state is signed legislation capping property taxes here in Hoosierville so we won’t lose our homes.   If only my former state of Illinois was so fortunate!

Gov. Daniels is quite popular in this state, having won reelection last year with 58% of the vote.  Given that GOP presidential candidate John McCain lost here, the first time in decades a Republican was defeated in Indiana in the electoral college, this was a ringing endorsement for Gov. Daniels.  He truly has delivered for the state.   I have absolutely no problem with the $95,000 salary he commands as the state’s governor.  It is much less than in other states, including neighboring Illinois.  He is well worth it.

So as far as I’m concerned, given the governor’s Washington background and experience, I will take at face value what he has said about Obamacare.  Using words like “reckless“, “obliterate” and “well founded worries” are very telling. In my opinion, I cannot see how one person can support this legislation, that is, one person who has so much as read a tiny portion of either the House or Senate versions of Obamacare (as little as 10 pages) and has not abandoned common sense.  If the bill is too complex to understand, and of course it is with it over 2000 pages long (hey, our U.S. Constitution is only 18 pages), then common sense dictates its abandonment.

Plus, as I noted in my previous post on Obamacare, why would anyone want a health care bill that Congress has opted itself out of?  Even the most liberal of liberals I would think would want what Washington has.  I cannot imagine anyone,  liberal or otherwise, saying, “I like the health care bills being passed and debated in Congress.  I like the fact that I won’t be able to get any of the Cadillac plans members of the House & Senate have and that Congress has exempted itself from plans being created for us .”

This doesn’t pass the smell test by any stretch of the imagination.

If you know just this much from this post, you know enough to tell the U.S. Senate that you don’t want it and that no explanation will suffice for your Democrat senator’s support of it (no Republicans are expected to be on board on this satanic monstrosity).

If your Democratic senator backs Obamacare (or Harrycare, as some folks are calling the Senate’s version), it means he or she wants to control every aspect of your life.  There is nothing redeeming of the bill – zip, zilch, zero, nada.

Any Democratic senator voting for this catastrophe must be terminated in November at the ballot box, providing they are up for reelection then.  If not, there must be unprecedented and sustained public pressure to demand their immediate resignation.  We cannot wait til 2012 or 2014 to unseat those particular Democrats.  They must be removed upon their vote for it, no matter what state they are from.

Impossible, you say?  I’m sure of it.  But impossible times demand impossible actions and it’s up to We the People to deliver.  We fail to do so at our own, our children’s, our grandchildren’s and the nation’s peril.

If Obamacare passes and is signed into law, we must revolt.  We likely will have little recourse but to do so.

If you have read this post and you understand it, then you know what you must do.  And that is broadly disseminate it, especially to those who like Obamacare or who are unsure about it.

I close with the full quote of the immortal words of Patrick Henry from March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!“”

Amen!

Obama “Interruption” on Thanksgiving

I believe countless numbers of Americans across the fruited plain are tired, worn out, fed up – whatever you want to call it – with reading about Resident Obama (either in the paper or online), hearing his voice on the radio or worse, seeing it on TV.  I am certainly no exception.

But the bogus POTUS stuck his nose where it didn’t belong – on the TV set, via Chicago’s WGN-TV, channel 9, while I was preparing Thanksgiving dinner (yes, I did all the cooking – except for the mac and cheese) .  And for a couple hours, I could not get it off my mind.  It was the last thing I expected on a day where I was trying to avoid the difficult times we face as a nation.

The show was this one – see the 11/26 date at 11 AM.

Obama appeared about a minute or two before noon on a commercial where he was promoting his Serve.gov website with some mindless imbecile robots doing his bidding for about 3 minutes (an unusually long commercial, if you ask me).  I could tell you what I thought of that interruption to my day but it would not be pretty to read.

Nonetheless, I decided to check out that site (reluctantly).  Knowing that Obama is the King of abortions, including partial birth and infanticide, I decided to see what opportunities exist to serve (as if I really needed a gov’t official to order me to show compassion to a person or community) in pro-life services.  I plugged in “crisis pregnancy centers” and “Illinois” and came up with a surprising 57 results thru a website called allforgood.org.  The first page said in the right hand corner that there were 37 results but in counting them all I came up with 57.   However, none in Illinois.  Interesting.

But if you type in “Planned Parenthood” and “Illinois“, you get a whopping 352 search results.  And on the first two pages, 18 of the 20 results come up with locations in Illinois.  17 of the 18 are abortion related, though not necessarily PP.

But even more shocking is this – if you type “reproductive health” and “Illinois” , brace yourself – you will get over 63,000 (no typo) search results.

Now let me quickly interject – this number is suspect, given that not all the results come up are abortion related.  And there are most definitely not that many surgical abortion clinics exist in the country – there are just over 750, according to Life Dynamics.

But when you see the disparity in the numbers from one to another, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to deduce that Washington’s agenda is to promote the murder of unborn children.  Sorry if that offends but the truth is the truth and that is what we are all about here at That’s-A-Fact.

Now between the time you click to go to the allforgood.org website from the serve.gov site, you get this disclaimer (you have to act quick to see it as I did to copy and paste it):

“The United States Government / Corporation for National and Community Service does not endorse or support the views expressed or the community service opportunities presented on this site nor does it endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on this site.”

If that is to be believed, then let me ask this question – if President Bush was still president, do you really think he would have permitted the abortion industry to be part of his national service plan?

But given that Barack is more pro-abortion than pretty much any public official in America, is that statement really believable?  Sorry, I think not.

Back to the WGN story

When I was a little boy of 5 years of age (that would be in 1965), my mom and dad would take me about 7:30 each weekday morning from our home on the southwest side of Chicago to a neighbor across the street who would watch me for the next 7 years before going to school and during the lunch hour.

At Aunt Betty’s house (she was “affectionately” called Aunt), we’d have WGN on from 7:30 to about 8:45 when it was time for me to leave for school (I was only about 2 1/2 blocks away so it was a quick 5 minute walk.).  I’d watch the balance of the Ray Rayner show from 7:30 to 8 AM with the Garfield Goose show on at 8 AM.

When I returned to Betty’s home for lunch (yes, I went home for lunch from appr. 12-1 PM each day, unlike most public schools these days where lunch is served at school), we’d have WGN on for the Bozo’s Circus show.  Although I was not necessarily a huge Bozo fan, the show was so popular back then that if you wanted to go to WGN’s studios to see it live, you had to wait years to get tickets (no exaggeration).  The show was funny and had quite a bit of variety, including audience games and frequent segments with live acrobats, among other items.

Unfortunately, the WGN website appears to be devoid of  any clips or segments of the shows that appeared, something that is most unfortunate, considering young and old would enjoy it.  Wikipedia points out that as far as the Garfield Goose show goes, most of its clips, taken via old-fashioned videotape, were recycled and are no longer in existence.

So on Thursday,  I was watching the show back and forth from the kitchen.   The replaying of a few of the old Ray Rayner shows was so refreshing to view as well as what little we could gather from the Garfield Goose show.   Believe me, those shows way outperformed the kids shows on PBS – Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood and the Electric Company.  Although the PBS kids shows were not as politicized as they are now, they could not hold a candle to anything the mornings offered at WGN.  I rarely watched anything on PBS back then.  They were anything but entertaining.

I wish kids today had the Rayner show, Bozo and Garfield Goose to watch.

Anyway, there is a commercial break before going to the Bozo archives and there appears Barack Obama promoting his serve.gov site, taking far more than the standard 30 seconds to one minute most commercials air.  As I indicated earlier, it appeared the commercial ran for about 3 minutes.

Perhaps if Obama’s face wasn’t there, it wouldn’t have been so bad.  But after hearing his voice and seeing his face, I just wanted to upchuck.

Funny, other than rare TV interruptions for something vitally important for the nation to know about and his weekly radio address, I’m hard pressed to remember President Bush putting out his face as often as Obama has.  I certainly don’t recall him doing TV commercials to promote the government or any government website or telling Americans what they must do to serve their country.  I’m really offended that Obama does this, even more so in light of his uncertain (at best) natural born citizenship status.

But stations like WGN have no compunction about tooting Obama’s horn.  In fact, after Chicago was eliminated in the first round of the selection for the 2016 Olympics, Steve Sanders, one of WGN’s news anchors,  couldn’t help but profusely express his dismay right on the air.  Unfortunately, I can’t seem to locate the video (roughly 3 minutes).  If any of my readers can provide a link to this video, please send it to me via the comments section.  Thanks.

It’s one thing for a Chicago station to defend Obama since he’s from the city.  It’s quite another for the station to air his commercial during a time of nostalgic history that had nothing to do with him.  It was deeply offending and as a result, I fired off a letter to the station today.  The WGN website used to have a comments section but it’s no longer there.

As one can see by viewing the WGN timeline, the station went thru a series of transformations over the years.  In my opinion, once the station began phasing out children’s and family friendly program (including items like Family Classics), that’s when WGN’s biases started showing.  Kid friendly shows were replaced kid sexually arousing shows like Dawson’s Creek, no doubt as a result of the station joining Warner Brothers’ Time Warner network.  The sexually explicit Sex & the City took to the airwaves in the late 90s and to this day, there isn’t much redeeming or wholesome to watch on WGN.  I used to watch its news but its bias was too much for me.

As typical of many networks these days, WGN began some years ago (my guess is between 8 & 10) to participate in Chicago’s annual so-called “Gay Pride” parades.  Soon participation transferred to sponsorship (while still retaining participation).  It became disgusting to see.

Several years ago I wrote the station on at least two occasions regarding this obnoxious “partnership” with the homosexual community.  I criticized them for doing so, providing information to them how homosexual sexual activity frequently results in STDs and AIDS and an early grave.  The responses I received from their webmaster (he was the only one who would respond to e-mails) were ones of criticism and claims of bigotry and  intolerance of my comments, ignoring the volumes of evidence provided the station of such unhealthy behavior.  Pleading to cater to decency, such comments were routinely ignored and the station to this very day continues supporting this perversion and the day to honor it.

And now it caters to a “president” who has ZERO experience and ZERO redeeming value and legitimacy.  It is disgusting.  And it’s why, with the exception of Chicago Blackhawk hockey games aired from time to time, I virtually never watch WGN.  It’s not the station I grew up and not the station of my parents and grandparents.  The station, like the Communist Broadcasting System (CBS), the All Barack Channel (ABC), PMSNBC and the Clinton & Obama News Network (CONN), is full of sexually explicit programming, debauchery and untold volumes of filth.  Frazier Thomas, the host of Garfield Goose;  Ned Locke, the original ringmaster of Bozo’s Circus, and Ray Rayner, host of his own show, would likely turn over in their graves if they could see what the station they once proudly served at for years has become.

Since I couldn’t locate a fax or e-mail address on the WGN website, I fired off a letter to station management with my criticisms.  I expect little, if anything, to come out of it.  But I do take solace that the mainstream media is tanking.

Perhaps WGN was forced to air this commercial as a result of some demand from Obama’s FCC.  I don’t know.  If so, I would have loved to have seen a note to the government that any demands to show anything relative to Obama would not be met and that there would be a legal fight to that end.  I doubt such is the case, however.  But it would have been fitting.

So Obama really “made my day” on Thanksgiving.  I really want to make his day, along with millions of other American patriots, by escorting this usurper out of the White House where he doesn’t belong.

I really hope that time will come soon.  I pray it does.  But in the end, only God knows.  God help us if it doesn’t come soon.

How Today’s Democrat Party has become a Cult

The U.S. Senate met last night on the Senate floor for a Saturday evening vote, somewhat similarly to the gathering on the House floor two weeks when the House version of Obamacare narrowly passed.  Unlike the House vote, the vote yesterday in the Senate was a procedural measure, one to simply open debate on the Obamacare (or Harrycare, if you will) version in that chamber.  A minimum of 60 votes were required to proceed with the bill.  Exactly 60 votes were obtained with all 58 Democrats and two far left “independents” (Lieberman & Sanders) that virtually always work with the Democrats comprised the 60 yesses.

Given the fact that virtually no polls show that the majority of American people are clamoring for government run health care and given that the both chambers voted on their versions in the evening and on a Saturday to boot is clear cut evidence that the public by and large does not want this.  We want jobs first so we can provide for ourselves and our families.  National health care does not enable us to bring home the bacon.   However, Democrats do not care and your 60 vote majority yesterday is clear confirmation of that. They want to shove this down our throats.  Well, they sure are trying but I daresay few Americans are going to swallow it hook, line and sinker without the stiffest resistance possible.

There are plenty of sites to go to read about what lies ahead on government run health care and commentary on this whole issue in general.  You can go to those if you want and I’m sure they will help educate you in some way.

However, I think it is important to establish that with this vote yesterday, I am of the firm persuasion that the Democrat Party is not so much a political party any more (though it most certainly is) as it is a cult.  It is a one-sided party, notwithstanding that there are a small handful who are not toeing the whole line.  Follow where I’m going.

There are numerous definitions listed at Dictionary.com for the meaning of the word “cult” but #6 is fitting, defined as “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader“.

Perhaps a second definition that complements the one above is this one (see under “What is a Cult”):

“The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!”

Gee, does this fit the Democrats to a T or what?  The only difference I see between the modern day Democratic Party and a cult is that the Democratic Party has become very hostile to religion.  But besides that, these definitions have the bases covered.

Let’s examine this portion of the first definition “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist“.  As for false, I’m hard pressed to think of any statements made by high ranking Democrat officials that are true.  They think global warming is man made.  They believe they need to regulate the air we breathe.  They claim Medicare will be saved by trimming half a billion bucks in costs in this health care debacle.  They believe abortions are good for mankind and that it’s OK for two men to marry each other. They believe it’s humane to let illegals cross our borders and become citizens without going thru the proper channels.  They believe God and prayer don’t belong in the public schools and that evolution is how we humans come into existence.  It goes on and on.

As for “unorthodox“, well, that one opens up a huge can of worms but let’s give just one example.  Earlier this year, the U.S. House (and later the Senate) passed a hate crimes measure that essentially restricts free speech on moral issues.  As bad as that was and is (and yes, it’s unconstitutional), the fact that this law essentially gives a thumbs up to crimes like pedophilia cannot be interpreted as normal other than the criminally insane.

So yes, Democrats are included among the criminally insane.  And yes, we’ll add a few Republicans (18) to the mentally ill.  They need help.  But 90% or so of the Republican Party is supposedly sane (according to the House vote on this measure) where as almost 95% of the House Democratic Party is nuts.

OK, so we have 17 Democrats who don’t think preachers should be punished for speaking out on homosexual issues or Islam.  Now subtract three of those 17, Indiana Congressmen Joe Donnelly & Brad Ellsworth and Ohio Rep. Chris Carney, for voting for the abominable Obamacare in the House (here’s the vote on that) and we’re down to 14 certifiably sane House Democrats thus far.

Now that we’re at 14, let’s look at the House vote on cap and trade which would impose an unsustainable tax on the American people, of which one Congress said on You Tube that it would be the highest tax, not in the nation’s history but the world’s history.

Out of those 14 remaining Democrats, you have three, Heath Shuler of North Carolina,  Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Collin Peterson, who voted with the majority.  That knocks us down to 11 certifiably sane Congressmen who voted against all 3 bills.  They are as follows:

1. David Boren of Oklahoma
2. Bobby Bright of Alabama
3. Travis Childers of Mississippi
4. Artur Davis of Alabama
5. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
6. Parker Griffith of Alabama
7. Mike McIntyre of N. Carolina
8. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
9. Mike Ross of Arkansas
10. John Tanner of Tennessee
11. Gene Taylor of Mississippi

Out of the 11, Rep. Davis of Alabama is normally not viewed as conservative.  He voted for the hate crimes bill in the previous Congress and even testified in favor of it.  His opposition to all 3 of these atrocious measures this Congressional term is likely due to his planned run for governor of Alabama next year.

That leaves 10 Democrats for which I must ask the question – why are you still in America’s cultic political party?  They’re all pro-life, anti-hate crimes, anti-Obamacare, anti-tax and I believe they are all pro 2nd Amendment.

If any of these guys are your Congressmen, ask them why they think the DC party (Democrat Cultic) is still worth a membership.  They should be urged to leave the same way an avalanche of Texas Democrats just did – not that the Republican Party is the party of the Constitution – far from it, but it at least has some semblance of it.  There is zip, zilch, zero, nada in the DC party.

So here we have 248 Democrats out of 258 who supported one or more of the three defining votes.  Now contrast that to the 18 Republicans out of 177 who voted for the hate crimes measure.  6 of the 8 votes for cap and trade came from the 18 who voted for the hate crimes bill.  One of those 8 is now the secretary of the army and the other is Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey.

Another of those 18 but just one altogether, Ahn Cao, voted for Obamacare. Add Rep. Smith and you have 19.

So we have 19 Republicans who supported one of the above 3 ungodly measures and who should be tossed from the party.  An exception might be made for Rep. Smith’s, however.  Although his vote for cap and trade is totally inexcusable, given that he is arguably one of the House champions for the unborn, it might be a mistake to boot him from the party.  He should be read the riot act, no doubt.  But expulsion for him might not be beneficial.

But back to the above.  Let’s summarize.  With only 10 out of 258 Democrats voting with common sense, only 4% of the DC party is certifiably sane.   With 159 out of 177 Republicans voting against all 3 of these measures, 90% of the party is certifiably sane.

90% – 4% and someone is going to tell me there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties?  Uh, I don’t think so.  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Or let’s put it this way – 96% of the Democrats in the House are at least partially insane while only 10% of the Republicans are.

You can’t argue with those numbers.  Who in their right mind wants to be a Democrat today?  I guess the phrase “right mind” has to be emphasized.

Yes, I am well aware that some of the Republicans who voted against the original hate crimes bill voted for the subsequent merged version, which combined the bill with a defense spending measure. Although I firmly believe these few Republicans should have voted NO, I won’t hold it against them for doing so, given the bind they were in.

As for extremist, well, this one needs little explanation.  Any Democrat voting for Obamacare and especially those who wrote the 2000+ page bills certainly qualifies.  The Democrats like to say that pro-lifers, pro-marriage folks, evolution opponents and those who support border security and local control of our public school system are extremists.

If so, I’d like to know what normal is.  I don’t think the general public would concur with the Democrats’ definition.   How many books out there, aside from encyclopedias, are 2000+ pages long?

Watch this video and ask yourself who would write such a bill, let alone the garbage in it.  Anyone of a sound mind would easily reject this measure.

But the DC Party is not of a sound mind.

On to the second definition, let’s refresh our minds.  Here it is again.

“The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying.“

The key phrase here is “mind control”.  The “charismatic leader“, as defined in the first definition, is Barack Obama, America’s putative president.  The Democratic Party has refused on all counts to address Obama’s citizenship status, proving that all who embrace this political party and stay in it after knowing the truth about it have bought into the cultic nature of the party.

The “change” message that Democrats have bought into over and over not only captured unthinking minds of the general electorate but the politicians themselves.  They didn’t look into Obama’s background, his connections, his experience and of course, his questionable at best natural born citizenship.  They were mesmerized by his smooth talking with little substance behind it. He could do no wrong.

Of course, being black had something to do with it as well.  The Obama worshippers wanted a black man in office.  And they did whatever they could to get him in.  John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 couldn’t hold a candle to him.  As bad as they were, they would have been better than Obama.

Then you have the numerous You Tube videos of school children and teachers singing their praise to Obama (before and after the election) in classrooms in various parts of the country.  I won’t link to them here because they are disgusting, let alone blasphemous, to the Lord I love and worship.

You also have the picture posted in a January World Net Daily article (which I also won’t link here because of its blatant blasphemy) which featured a New York City artist depicting Obama as crucified on a cross.

And you have Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing.

Perhaps in the eyes of Democratic politicians this was not the sign of a cultlike leader.  But then again, most of them wouldn’t recognize one, especially the ones in Washington.  They were already captured by him.

If that all isn’t convincing that Barack Obama is a cultlike figure, then I need an answer to this question:  why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who promised utility rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under his cap and trade plan?

Democratic politicians may dance around their comments and voting record about how they won’t tax the middle class or for that matter, tax anyone at all.  But when someone outright says that their utility rates will go up under his (or her) energy plan, frankly, I’m at a loss to understand how anyone would want to vote for that person, no matter how much they thought about him or her on everything else.   As bad as John McCain was, and he was a terrible choice for the Republican Party, he should have won the election by a landslide on this alone, despite his own warm and fuzzy feelings about global warming.  He promised to take action on it and “reach across the aisle” but nowhere did he ever say Americans would pay more for their electricity use as a result of his plan.

Only a cultlike figure could get an electorate based on such a promise.  Barack Obama “employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques“, which is how he got the votes to get him elected, along with a “little help” from some foreign entities.  He gets people to be part of his team the same way Mary Baker Eddy did for the Christian Science cult, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young for Mormonism, Charles Taze Russell for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Rev. Sun Yung Moon, Herbert W. Armstrong, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others.

As for deceptive recruiting, well, I can’t say Obama is the founder of that but he certainly has made great strides in getting where he is.  He certainly can thank his party for mind control terms like “climate change” instead of “global warming”, “a woman’s right to choose” instead of  “abortion, “gays” instead of “homosexuals”, “undocumented immigrants” instead of “illegal aliens”, “gender reassignment” instead of “sex change operations”.  In the House health care debate, the “public option” became the “consumer option“.  The Democratic Party has done it all.  They’ve led the way.  No one can say the Republican Party had a hand in these switcheroo techniques.   They may use terms like “gays” themselves, and they do, but they didn’t lead the way to the change.  The Democrats did.  And they brought people on board who would not have ever been persuaded to, had they not played bait and switch with our vocabulary.

So if you have a politician with no experience and shady character associates plus untenable positions like for partial birth abortion and infanticide that anywhere from 70-80% of the people reject, how can you recruit people into your camp?  You lie and alter your language and you use vagaries like “change” to get your message across.  That’s how Obmaa did it.

And that’s how Democrats are doing it.

Although Obama’s “Organizing for America” has had a role in bringing young people to his side, you can’t say the same about Democratic politicians, unless you automatically subscribe to what they say and believe and how they vote.  If you have common sense and can rationally think things thru, you can’t vote for a Democrat.  You may have difficulty voting for a Republican – and that’s perfectly understandable in some ways, given their recent years of backslidden behavior and ignoring the Constitution.  You can vote third party.  But sane people these days do not conscientiously vote Demcorat, assuming they understand a candidate’s political positions and votes.

It may be too late now but fortunately, scores of Obama’s supporters are finally deserting him and this story is devastating in terms of sheer numbers.  You also don’t have to look very far, both in articles and on various website forums, to read how people who voted for him are sharing their “buyer’s remorse”.  It’s growing by leaps and bounds as people differentiate what Obama said on the campaign trail and what he is doing today.

But even if he’s losing the people, he’s got Congress under his cultlike control.

Although he doesn’t have Republicans on most issues, Obmaa does on his lack of constitutional eligibility.  However, he has got the Democratic Party in lockstep on his agenda (perhaps minus the roughly dozen or so Democrats noted earlier) and is no doubt using Rahm Emmanuel and David Axlerod to do the brainwashing, along with “help” from House & Senate Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and “Dirty” Harry Reid, respectively.

And nowhere is that more evident than in the government run health care iron fist debate.  Obama, Emmanuel, Axlerod, Pelosi, Reid and company used every little trick in the book to get the voting majority in the House.  They made promises (read “bribes”) to get recalcitrant Democrats on board, “promises” including reelection dollars and district projects.

And with the 60 votes yesterday in the Senate with no Democrats saying NO to opening debate, there is no doubt that there is a spell over this party and the only way it will be broken is with an unearthing of Democrats in Congress and perhaps a 30 million person march on Washington.

When pro-life Democrats like Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (he’s really the only one in the Senate) join everyone else to begin debate on Obamacare, and knowing that the Senate bill allows for abortions, yes, there was arguably some arm twisting to get Nelson aboard.  But I have to also believe that it was his cultlike allegiance to the Democratic Party, and maybe to a lesser extent his party’s ineligible leader, that he signed on with the rest of them.

Same with Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who was allegedly offered money (again, read “bribed”) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who is up for reelection next year and who is being reported in a poll as being trounced if she winds up for voting for this bill (probably the final version).

So regardless of whether there were incentives (bribes), strong arm tactics or blind allegiance to persuade these Democrats, plus perhaps Sen. Lieberman to join a unanimous 60 non-Republican vote to open debate, it takes mind control to force these individuals and any others to adopt their agenda.  And Obama has the mind control to do it, even if his resume is empty (which it is). And that’s why they signed on, for the good of party and Obama.

So Sen. Nelson can claim he’ll vote against Obamacare in the final bill but it doesn’t matter.  He sold out his pro-life principles for Obama instead of doing what is right by his constituents.  And since he’s been known to be the most conservative  Senate Democrat (no one else is really close, especially on social issues), if he can be bought (under Obama mind control), so can the rest of them.  They all voted for almost all of Obama’s nominees for cabinet and other appointees requiring Senate confirmation.  You can count on maybe two hands the number of Democrats voting against their leader’s appointees.

The coercion is there.  The public is pulling away from Obama.  But not the politicians in Congress.  They are beholden to the cultist Obama as though he can do little or no wrong.  They won’t challenge his eligibility to be president and the tiny handful of Republicans who would don’t have a prayer.  Obama is their cult leader.  And sadly, I see little to get them away from the brainwashing.

Meanwhile, the above 10 Democrats who largely oppose Obama’s agenda should switch parties and send a message.  There were many who did after the “94 election after Democrats got trounced.  There are none at the national level now, meaning they are either afraid or brainwashed.

Personally, it’s hard for me to see Obamacare/Harrycare go down  in the Senate.  If  it is defeated, it will be when it goes to conference committee where I expect the pro-life Democrats in the House who voted for the bill, along with the other 39 Democrats (many who are pro-life but not all) who voted against the original version, to stick to their principles about abortion and keep the Stupak Amendment in the final bill.  I could be wrong but I think they will stand by their life stance.  However, I do believe a political blood bath will ensue from the pro-deathers who will insist on scrapping the Stupak Amendment and force public funding of abortion.  But if that occurs, I think the pro-life Democrats will revolt and say NO to Pelosi and the pro-aborts.  Yet in the end, even if the bill passes with the amendment intact, it would be tough for the usurper “president” to sign it, considering his 110% oppostion to anything pro-life.

Nevertheless, if Obamacare becomes law, I can assuredly say that there will be hell to pay and it may not just be at the ballot box.

And it may occur even if Obamacare/Harrycare does not become law.  The American people are fed up with the Democratic Party.

As to what that hell would be, well, let’s just say the Boston Tea Party may well pale in comparison, not to mention the more recent tea parties.

It may be the only way to end the Obama cult and occult, not to mention the real voodoo economics of Obama and the Democrats.