Friday, October 30, 2009

The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part I

I never thought I'd actually be calling people idiots for their political beliefs, but the folks at FreePress.Net are absolutely out of their minds. What I read literally made me want to throw up. I don't understand these people in the least. What they're calling for almost seems like a government takeover of the media for the sake of getting it out of the hands of the "greedy" corporations. I want to briefly present some of the idiotic remarks I found on the site - and trust me, they are idiotic - and then explain why their idea of a solution only perpetuates the problem they claim they want to prevent.
Media owners influence how women and people of color are portrayed in the media.
I know this may seem like a small statement the organization is making - and it is true - but it already shows you the scope these people are looking through. Notice that they choose to victimize two groups that are continuously victimized by the government: women and minorities. I am appalled at how women are exposed as objects on television, but this statement leaves out another problem in our media: the portrayal of men and white people. I'm sure there are many sincere, wonderful males out there who compare themselves to the males on television and don't see themselves as "manly" enough for the rest of society, even though it doesn't really matter how masculine or feminine you are. The organization is clearly trying to use "diversity" to push its agenda so that it can use women and minorities as pawns for their own gain.
But these massive conglomerates – like General Electric, Time Warner and News Corp. – only care about the bottom line, not serving the public interest. And allowing these few firms too much control over the flow of news and information is dangerous for our democracy.
Again, notice the language. The agenda seems reasonable on the surface, but if you look at the language closer, you will definitely notice some collectivist and Progressive rhetoric that has been used for years by politicians who are shredding our Constitution without an ounce of shame. The phrase "public interest" is often used to justify collectivist ideas, principles, and policies that define the interests of every individual despite the fact that individuals have a relative viewpoint on what is truly in their best interest.
High-speed Internet access is fast becoming a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.
This was the idiotic rhetoric I was speaking of. Can anyone explain to me how high-speed internet is just as important as water? I guess if we don't drink enough internet, we'll suffer from dehydration. Uh-oh! Although I am using a high-speed internet connection at this moment, I can honestly tell you that I survived without high-speed internet for years, and I didn't even come close to dying. Really? Yeah, really! I'm serious. Nothing happened to me. In fact, I've even lived without the electricity that these collectivists claim is a "basic public necessity" for long periods of time through some of the most horrible blizzards we've experienced in years (so much for global warming). To claim the internet as a necessity is one thing, but to call it a basic public necessity is even worse. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one "needs" the internet.
We need to keep the Internet free, open and neutral. Network Neutrality is vital to ensuring that everyone can connect and share content freely, that we can access the information, visit the Web sites and say what we want online, free from discrimination or interference.
And that is why, supposedly, putting it in the hands of the government is an even better solution. In fact, the government already partially controls the internet through special interests, the Patriot Act, and the FCC for crying out loud! This solution would just give them more control.  If you honestly think that the government is going to be more fair and balanced, you have no idea who controls our government: bureaucrats, special interests, global corporations, and the Federal Reserve. The solution advocated by FreePress.Net would give the government the ability to silence and interrogate opposition, peek in on personal conversations and networking sites, and give the president the executive power to shut down the internet at will. We already have this so-called "network neutrality," but the solutions advocated by this organization, and by members of the Obama administration, would go far beyond that. In fact, Obama's FCC "Diversity" Czar has said that the widely unpopular Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough. Although repealed a few years back, elements of the Fairness Doctrine still exist today, and if we let the government have more control over the media, who knows what will happen? Oh, maybe I'm worrying too much. The government already has massive influence over the media. A complete takeover would just be a few steps away.
The way to stop the slide and improve broadband access, service and choice is to pass a comprehensive national broadband plan that is focused on putting our digital future back on track. A national broadband plan would protect Internet freedom and foster competition by bringing new providers into the marketplace, driving economic growth and innovation, and bringing universal, affordable broadband access to all Americans.
In a nutshell, that pretty much means socialized internet. Supposedly, the internet should be "free" for everyone by making all citizens pay into the system, regardless of how often they use the internet or whether or not they use it all. What these idiots don't realize is that setting up a "comprehensive national broadband plan" would require trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers, borrowing, and increased printing of money, leading to hyperinflation, bigger debts, and the very destruction of the U.S. dollar. That's not exactly "free," now is it?

Well that's all I really have time for today. This is just scratching the surface. I know you're in shock, but please leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Obama's Enemy List

I read this excellent article by blogger Eddie Howell, the author of Something You Might Like, and I thought I'd share it with everyone:
Obama's Enemy List
by Eddie Howell
President Barack Obama, in a very un-presidential manner, is going about promoting his political agenda in large measure by criticizing, trying to marginalize, and ultimately bring down those whom he perceives to be his political enemies (rather than “opponents”). Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has cautioned the President that his actions are beginning to look like those of Richard Nixon, who, seemingly in a paranoia mode, made a list of “enemies” he wanted his administration to go after, and some of whom he did actually attack, using the resources of government. This pursuit of “enemies” led to the eventual downfall of his presidency.

“‘An “enemies list” only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself,’ Alexander said on the Senate floor. ‘These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.’” [1]

Sorry, Senator. You are correct, but you may be too late. The enemies-list operation is in full swing already. Any people or groups of people who have criticized (to any significant effect) some part of the Obama agenda may very well find themselves to be his target, if they aren’t already.

A partial listing of Obama’s “enemies”:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce – This is yet another example of Obama trying to marginalize and take down a traditionally very influential group. Obama is against any effective lobbying group that tries to benefit the private sector or the American economy. A prosperous people don’t look to government for everything. An impoverished people may.

Fox News – Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and others have been sent out to try to discredit Fox News and even get “mainstream” news outlets to deny that Fox is a legitimate news organization. This will have some effect, perhaps, but Fox News’ ratings are up substantially since this “war on Fox News” broke out.

Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio – The administration will probably try some back-door version of the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative talk radio (and Fox New as well). Mark Lloyd, the “diversity czar” of the FCC has no respect for freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Rush’s ratings are up.

Health insurance companies
– Democrats in Congress are currently working to deny health insurers the exemption from anti-trust laws that they currently enjoy. The objective is to strip the states of their power to regulate insurance and at the same time put the insurance companies either out of business or directly under the thumb of the federal government, and further obfuscate the costs of their health care plan.

Big oil – All energy-related industries, as well as consumers, are likely to suffer as a result of cap and trade, if it is enacted. This will punish our entire country by bringing on another depression. States that are already suffering the most will likely be hardest hit, but all will be hurt. Are you ready?

Auto manufacturers – Current CAFE standards and the GM and Chrysler takeovers should be punishment enough, if any were needed (which it isn’t), but Obama is going to tighten CAFE standards further and dictate what kind of cars can be made. Many vehicles currently available will be gone.

Fast food – Federal and some local laws will more strenuously regulate fast food providers as to location, nutritional information disclosure, and allowable menus. This is an area where endless harassment of citizens can and will take place.

Conservatives on the internet – Obama is already pushing for authority to take over private networks on the pretext of “cyber-security” concerns. Proposed “net neutrality” rules will further restrict internet freedom. People have remarked on how the internet has not brought about “Big Brother” controls as some have feared, but we haven’t seen the outcome yet. The technology is there for massive abuse and government control. The FCC “diversity czar” is going after internet conservatives also.

According to Investors’ Business Daily, even though “net neutrality” is advertised as creating more opportunities for internet access, “[t]he issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Hugo Chavez did to silence Venezuela's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article titled ‘Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue’ and published by

“‘Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits,’ Lloyd wrote. ‘Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it.’ Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.” [2]

The Republican Party – The Obama White House is trying to marginalize the Republican Party as a non-factor. The main obstacle to this is the fact that the American people, by a majority, support none of Obama’s main initiatives. Republicans could capitalize on this a lot more than they have been doing. But if they’re afraid of appearing too combative, they will instead appear to have rolled over and capitulated. New candidates will be needed if the GOP is to be revived in 2010, even though most voters want that to happen.

Etc., Etc. – Look for more enemies-list activity in upcoming days. They’re just getting started, and they’ve got to move fast.

Then there are those the Administration and Congress are going after a little less directly, without trying to publicly discredit them specifically. They’re not enemies so much as targets to be dealt with in clearing the way for and financing the Obama program:

Doctors who oppose Obamacare – Doctors are going to find their government reimbursements decreased (to lower “costs”), which will lead to more doctors dropping out of government-reimbursed programs, or out of medical practice entirely. But that’s OK with Obama if he gets his government-dominated program going. However, the attempt to cut reimbursements may well prove politically impossible.

The private sector in general – How many more businesses and industries must be taken over by the government? Apparently many more, will be, not necessarily by ownership, but by numerous new taxes and regulations and zealous enforcement from the growing government sector. Corporate profits are the liberals’ piggy bank, they think. They’ll worry about the economy and jobs (along with Afghanistan) later, time permitting.

The “rich” who aren’t part of his support team – Hollywood liberal elites, professional athletes, union leaders, rich trial lawyers and other liberal donors can hope to fare well in Obama’s fascist crackdowns. Some large companies are said to be cutting deals to try to gain a favorable position. But the rich taxpayers in general are considered ripe for the picking. Obama does not care about unemployment or the bad economy. It’s all about getting his great fascist program in place before the bottom falls out of his popularity.

American Taxpayers in general (investors, professionals and other workers) – These will do well to be able to keep their jobs or the better part of their investments in the Obama-depressed economy that we’ll see if Obama’s big agenda items are enacted. Forget about green jobs. A few thousand of those will do little to help the 15-million-plus who are unemployed, not counting those who have given up looking for work, or have taken part-time jobs.

The Obama Administration is probably the most activist freedom-destroying and takeover-minded (i.e., “progressive”) administration in our history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR might come close, but at least they could point to World War I and the Great Depression and World War II as excuses for their activism. Obama still tries to blame George W. Bush long after it’s too late to do so. This is not the change most people thought we were going to get. Soon only the most hardcore leftists and Obama fans (and some others bought off or severely arm-twisted) will be able to willingly support the Obama program.
Isn't that incredible, people? Eddie is such a good writer. Please visit his blog, and be sure to comment! God bless you, and have a fabulous day!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

A Constitutional Lawyer's Analysis of H.R. 3200

I was looking through some blogs today, and I came across something very interesting. The author of Just Another Conservative Girl posted a critique of H.R. 3200, the health care bill, by Michael Connelly of Carlton, Texas, a retired Constitutional lawyer. I decided to post it on my blog, and I encourage others to do so as well.
The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the [Fourth] Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the [Third] and [Fourth] Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have [health care] insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the [Fifth] Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The [Ninth] Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The [Tenth] Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article [VI] of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

And another to the Bill of Rights:

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired [Attorney],
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Now wasn't that interesting, folks? I sure though it was. Leave your comments below. God bless you, and have a fabulous day.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

"The Pay Dictator"

I was watching the news this morning, and the conversation I witnessed was very interesting. The reporter was interviewing Stephen Moore, one of the authors of a book called The End of Prosperity, which I haven't happened to read yet. They were discussing "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg's decision to cut the salaries of executives at several bailed-out firms. Stephen Moore made sure to correct the reporter on calling Feinberg the pay czar.

"He's not the pay czar. He's the pay dictator."

I couldn't have put it better myself. Now don't get me wrong - I can assure you that these executives were paying themselves more than they deserved, all the while cheating out their employees and shareholders with jack for dough. The salaries the executives paid themselves were over-the-top and outright ridiculous. However, there is a deep message in all of this. Let's take a look at what happened.

These firms, which were on the edge of declaring bankruptcy, were bailed out with taxpayer money. Hooray for government intervention, right? What happens when executive salaries, wages, and the means of production are paid for by your tax dollars is that an alliance forms. Government gets to call more shots in the market, and the giant corporations get to call more shots in the laws. Since the corporations are now dependent upon public funds, the government, who controls those funds, also gets to control the aspects of production that are dependent on those funds. As far as I'm concerned, once an institution is bailed out, it provides an incentive for the government to gain an impressive amount of control over the market, especially since many of these bailed-out institutions are largely responsible for what happens in our economy.

What can the government now control in terms of that bailed-out institution? Almost anything - salaries, wages, prices, methods of production, distributive measures, shareholder payouts, what is produced, how it's produced, when it's produced, where it's produced - pretty much everything. Even if you don't agree with what the methods of production are, you're forced to pay for it anyway through the tax dollars that you rightfully earned. A large part of the market is now controlled not by the people, but by the ruling elite. When an institution is largely free of regulation, the institution has a responsibility to employees, shareholders, and consumers. If these people are not properly satisfied, it hurts business. The institution is then held accountable and must choose to make the proper decisions in order to satisfy the people they are responsible to. If they do not make the proper decisions, they can lose their employees, shareholders, and consumers through the system of natural selection that is the free market. Sales, profits, and overall stability decreases. Since institutions want to avoid this, they are motivated to make the right decisions. That is the magic of the free market.

Let's pretend you're a business owner.

Employees earn their pay by the wages you provide. The lower the profits, the lower the wages. You can't earn a decent profit if you pay yourself too much and don't leave enough for the means of production and the people who are expecting to be paid. If people find out that your wages aren't too great, less people will want to work there. You need workers to do the jobs that you don't have time to do because of your other responsibilities. I won't waste too much time explaining why workers are needed. It's obvious.

Shareholders are invested in your profits, since they themselves own a portion of your business. This means that they are dependent upon your profits. The lower the profits, the lower the payouts. If the payouts are too low, less people will invest in your business, and you might just dissatisfy your shareholders.

Consumers buy your product. They're the main source of your profit. If they buy your product, you bring in money. If they don't buy your product, you don't bring in anything. Thus, you must satisfy them. You also need enough profits to set good prices and make a high-quality product. If the price is bad, and the quality is bad, less people will buy your product, which will give your competitors an advantage.

See how much responsibility you have as a business owner? You dissatisfy people, and they just might take a hike. You get less profits. You don't want this to happen. You are motivated to avoid the worst in order to keep profits, stay ahead of the competition, and thrive. Simple as that.

When the government starts to stick it's nose in everything, however, force can be used to bring in revenue (which isn't profitable if you're spending more money than you take in). Money can be squeezed out of taxpayers whether they like it or not because paying taxes is the law. It's not voluntary. You can be jailed or even threatened for not paying your taxes. Therefore, most people will want to pay them. What you have is coercion. If you spend more money than you take in, which is usually the case with government due to reduced profit motive, then you add on debt. This means higher taxes, more inflation, currency degradation, and more. It's horrible for the economy. We're on the edge of destroying the dollar right now.

Excessive government intervention leads to waste and inefficiency. I mean, look what happened. The health industry was relatively unregulated - and then came the government with price controls, subsidies, regulations, tort reforms, and programs like Medicare. Is it any coincidence that our system got worse as intervention got heavier? Social Security's broke, Amtrak is broke, Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke, every government program on the book is broke. If the government was a business, they would have failed decades ago!

The worst thing about this whole ordeal is that the pay dictator is letting executives of government-owned corporations keep their massive salaries - think GM and General Electric - in addition to thinking about regulating the salaries of private businesses that aren't even propped up by taxpayer dollars. This means that the big guys are going to literally squish the little ones into tiny little pieces. Oh, President Obama sure loves those small businesses, doesn't he? Unless they have money, that is. Then he stabs them in the back and accuses the millions of small businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce of having too much profit.

Since when can one man - the pay dictator - determine executive salaries? I mean, I could understand if Congress was involved. These are taxpayer funds, and Congress is supposed to have control over those funds. But since when can one man say, "Your salaries need to be cut," and be automatically fulfilled of his wish? This is dangerous, people! One man having so much control is not a good thing. Powerful corporations have been given even more ability to call the shots in the very laws we must abide. You'd better believe it.

On top of that, the Federal Reserve, a supposed "private" entity that is supposedly "separate" from the government has been given the power to monitor the activities and actions of other businesses. If you don't think these guys are power-hungry, string-pulling puppeteers whose ultimate goal is one-world government, you've got to be out of your mind. The proof is everywhere, people! This banking elite is the most powerful entity in the world. They must be destroyed.

God help us all.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Much Ado About Nothing

The opinions I express today are going to be extremely controversial. Neither liberals or conservatives are going to be very happy with me after I say what I'm going to say next. As my ideas are often shaped by my own experiences, I don't expect everybody - or even most people - to agree with me.

Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Louisiana, denied a couple their marriage license based on the fact that it was an interracial relationship. I, for one, think there is too much brouhaha over this story. You're probably thinking, "But, Michelle, he's a racist!" It is my personal belief that Bardwell is not a hateful man, or even a complete and utter racist for that matter.

Bardwell says that he has not denied marriage to people based on their race alone. In fact, he has married numerous black couples. He is friends with people of multiple races, and he has discussed this issue with them. He is opposed to interracial marriage because, from his personal experience as well as the experiences of others, interracial marriages have not lasted long or have had a good impact on children.

Do I agree with him? No, I don't. In fact, I am the product of an interracial relationship, and I am in one myself. So is my sister. So is my brother. So is my aunt. Obviously, I am not opposed to interracial relationships or interracial marriage. However, I was raised and still live in a place where jokes about white girls and their black boyfriends run rampant, a place where jokes about blacks and Native Americans are very, very, very frequent, and a place where people often refer to President Obama's race in many of their jokes. I can honestly tell you that most of these people are not racist.

I mean, everyone's a little bit racist. I'll admit it myself. To a certain extent, I like black jokes. To an even greater extent, I like jokes about my own race. Native Americans have a great sense of humor about themselves. A major portion of their jokes are about Native American culture. Everyone makes judgments based on race. It's in our blood. Does that mean that statements, like, "Black people are the scum of the earth and should be murdered," are acceptable? Hell no! But that doesn't mean we should be policing political correctness and accusing everyone left and right of bigotry for a few racially-fueled jokes.

I realize that this is a different topic. However, I can also tell you that many of the people I am surrounded by are a little uncomfortable with interracial relationships. A black guy with a white girlfriend comes to mind. People often are weary when it comes to these types of things. Couples like that are often joked about or even criticized. To me, it's not right or fair, but those kinds of attitudes don't make a person a complete and utter racist.

I mean, look at the percentage of Americans who either are not sure they agree with interracial relationships or oppose them altogether: 32 percent. Does that mean that 32 percent of Americans are racist? Of course not! In fact, many black people actually share Bardwell's opinion. People need to open up their minds and realize that some people live in a completely different atmosphere with completely different values, especially the elderly who have grown up in a different time and place entirely.

In further defense of Bardwell, let's take a look at what this man has to say:

To me, this man seems nothing but well-intentioned and goodhearted. I am seeing constant hate for him. "What a bigoted racist. He should just die. I hope he burns in Hell." If you ask me, those with open minds should at least be more considerate. You don't have to agree with Bardwell. I sure as hell don't! The point I'm trying to make is that, in America, we can't force people to think like we do.

In the private industry, priests, rabbis, imams, and other issuers of marriage can deny pretty much anyone marriage. As a government worker, however, it is against the law for Bardwell to deny people marriage if they can pay up front. He misunderstood this, and it was a very honest misunderstanding. He thought that the law was that you could not prevent people from getting married. In fact, he offered them his advice and referred them to someone who would marry them. Does that really make him such an awful man? I think not!

Call me a racist, call me a bigot, call me whatever the hell you want, but I don't care. I stand by my statements. Leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!

Monday, October 19, 2009

Attack of the Second Stimulus!

Everyone knows that the first stimulus was a complete and utter failure. Even President Obama himself admitted it. In fact, Vice President Joe Biden took it a step further and said that the administration and Congress underestimated the economic crisis. Although some politicians seem to be in denial, most of America knows that the first stimulus hasn't really done anything. It hasn't even been fully spent yet. Once put into full throttle, the Fed's gonna be printing money like there's no tomorrow. They already are. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has three main principles that he implies openly:

1. Inflation is good.
2. Urgency calls for more spending.
3. Don't worry about deficits.

Of course, he has ulterior motives, and anyone who knows the true agenda of the banking elites knows that economic recovery is not a top priority. Bernanke has extremely flawed principles. Keynesian economics - I'm sorry to say - just doesn't work. Bernanke is a smart guy. He knows the dollar is being obliterated. Unfortunately, that's the goal. It will open the gates for an open-borders North American Union with a continental currency. In fact, it will bring the world that much closer to a one-world government. With the dollar destroyed, mass poverty will ensue worldwide. Do you know how many people are invested in our debt? No one wants to buy our debt anymore because the American dollar is nearly worthless now. You could burn it, and no one would care. With massive budgets and exceedingly flawed monetary policy, this series of events will come quickly, so be prepared.

Some Democrats proposed a second stimulus bill. President Obama, however, says it isn't necessary - and he's right. I want the American citizens to know, though, that this is just a game. We now know why Obama doesn't want a second stimulus bill. It's because a second stimulus is already being spent away in the form of countless "recovery" programs. Republicans will point to Democrats, saying that this is all their fault, but the plans that Republicans have aren't any better, and they have shown that for the past eight years. They want to throw tax refunds at failing corporations! Yeah, it'll give the corporations an unfair advantage over the little guy, but Republicans don't care. It's all in the plan, folks. Washington is just one big party.

Not only is Washington spending away our futures, but they're spending away the futures of the next generation. We're going to see tax hikes, hyperinflation, massive job loss, poverty like we've never seen before, and the complete and utter destruction of the dollar. I know it may sound apocalyptic, but the New World Order is coming. My late grandfather knew about it, my mother knows about it, and I know about it. The truth is being passed down through each generation. Milton Friedman and all of the other great free market economists predicted every single thing that is happening now. If we don't put a stop to this insanity, their startling revelations will be fulfilled.

But there's hope.

There is a revolution brewing in our people. We are going to fight a long and glorious war - not a war of guns and bullets and bombs, but a war of words and ideas and principles. I feel the spirit of the American people, and it is a strong one. We have defeated socialism, communism, fascism, and every other totalitarian system in the book. We can and will defeat the New World Order.

Viva la revolution!

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Matthew Shepard Act: A Paleoconservative Lesbian's Perspective

The Matthew Shepard Act, a bill recently passed by the Senate, is now awaiting the approval and signature of President Obama. The bill extends federal hate crimes laws to include crimes inflicted on victims due to his or her gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Its origins lie in a 1998 crime in which Matthew Shepard, a teenage boy, was supposedly tortured and murdered for being gay.

Many people would expect me to support this bill. After all, I am a lesbian. However, I don't support this bill at all. In fact, I vehemently oppose it. Now before you accuse me of suffering from Stockholm syndrome, as Janeane Garofalo would do, please hear me out. As much compassion as I have for Matthew Shepard and his family - as well as for other gays and transgender people killed because of the way they are - I have plenty of reasons for opposing this bill.

First of all, let me say this: I believe in equal protection of all individuals, regardless of immutable differences such as race, gender, nationality, background, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. What hate crimes legislation seeks to do is enact a form of collectivist thought process - that rights should be given to groups rather than individuals. While this type of legislation seeks to combat discrimination, it does the exact opposite. Giving special rights to one group over another is discrimination by the government. If someone murders another person because they are gay, shouldn't they receive the same sentence as a drug dealer who murders a customer for not getting their drug payments in on time?

Collectivism is the enemy of the individual. By thinking of everybody in terms of groups, you start to give preferences. While our U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our government officials want to go the collectivist route instead and victimize those who have been oppressed in the name of "social justice."

I have something to say to those who want to use minorities as pawns for their own political gain: As a Native American lesbian girl, I don't want your pity! While other gays will be tricked into thinking that this is something they should support, I, for one, will not buy into this little scheme. I am much stronger than that. If you don't think I have as much potential as a straight, white male, you're wrong. I am more than my skin color, I am more than my gender, and I am more than my sexual orientation. Those are things I was born with, and I shouldn't be receiving any pity treatment just because I'm a minority. It feels demeaning when I am judged for what is on the outside rather than the content of my character.

You can try to lure me in all you want by saying, "You poor thing. You need special protection under the law." Just know that it won't work! It never will. I am much more than some little chess piece for your stupid political gain. I am an individual, and there is no other person like me on the face of the earth. That goes for the rest of you, too. Don't think that all you are is the person you appear to be. You are much more than that. You may be of a certain race, but that doesn't compromise your entire character. You may be of a certain gender, but you're more than that boy or girl those magazines and television shows make you out to be. You may even suffer from a disorder, but you're more than that. You are an individual, and no one on earth is like you. You have your own separate talents and gifts to offer to the world. Your individual pursuit is the greatest pursuit of all. Don't ever forget that.

The politicians up on the hill are going to try to get people locked up for saying things like, "God hates fags." Honestly, though, I don't need to be babied by Big Mommy Government. Free speech, no matter how stupid or offensive, is a First Amendment right and a personal freedom. I'm sick and tired of hearing all these so-called "hate speech" accusations coming out of people who want to ban speech they simply don't like. If someone calls me a fag, I can just fire back and say, "And I'm not ashamed of it either! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Let people have a right to oppose homosexuality. Not everything people have to say is hateful, and even if it is, that's their right. We have the power as individuals to voice our opinions as well, and we can't let some oppressive power structure take that away from us. Free speech and the pursuit of the individual are the greatest threats to the government there is. We the people need to stand up and protect our rights, preserve our principles, and fight for liberty no matter what sacrifices we have to make. We are Americans, and it is time for us to say, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Long Time, No See, Folks!

You're probably wondering where I've been. Let's just say that I've been quite busy and stressed out lately. I'm having some issues with our police and government. It's pretty much why I've become so passionate about politics in the last few months. There has been a lot that has been happening in the world recently, and you're probably wondering what I have to say about it. President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, a decision on Afghanistan is yet to be made, the Supreme Court has refused to take up a case on a student who was harassed for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, gay rights activists marched on the hill on Saturday to demand that Obama keep his pledges, the White House is waging a war of words against Fox News, the health care bill inches closer and closer to being passed, and Columbus Day is being phased out. So where do I stand on these important issues? You're about to find out!

President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations, Mr. President! I have to say I'm quite shocked. You really haven't accomplished anything good so far, and I have no idea why they decided to give you such a prestigious award. Perhaps the award has become a sort of punch line, seeing as Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are other winners of this decade. The thing is, even they actually accomplished something. I will spare the hate, and realize that there is still a lot of time left. However, you have shown so far that you can't be trusted.

You went back against everything that you promised in your campaign. We found out that you don't really hate the Patriot Act. You just want to use it to your advantage. You don't really want to cut spending. You want to raise it to fund your own plans for the nation. You don't really want to keep the middle class from getting a tax hike. You want to tax them to death so that you have revenue to fund your health care plan, and even that won't be enough to do so. You're going to have to get the Federal Reserve to print more money, risk hyperinflation post-recession, and destroy the dollar as we know it. You're not really anti-war. Apparently, Afghanistan is a "good war" that must be fought. You don't really hate the lobbyists. One of your number one priorities is appeasing SEIU. You're a shill for lobbyists. You weren't really going to avoid an individual mandate for health care coverage. You want to demand it. You're not really listening to the "other side" of the debate. You're closing the door on it. The list just never ends.

On, I wrote the following:
President Obama will gain my trust if he at least does these things:

1. Attempts to repeal the Patriot Act
2. Ends the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3. Criticizes the Federal Reserve on tremendous levels, then at least attempts to influence Congress to audit or abolish it
4. Says that we should re-institute a gold standard
5. Frequently criticizes his own administration and his own party
6. Frequently criticizes himself for his past mistakes
7. Attempts to cut taxes for at least the middle class
8. Attempts to cut spending drastically
9. Denounces Chavez, Castro, and other dictators
10. Attempts to minimize, decrease expansion, or lower the expansion rate of the size and scope of government
11. Denounces every Marxist in his life
12. Denounces the last three administrations
13. Attempts to reduce lobbying
14. Embraces the Constitution as America's sacred document
15. Stops apologizing to the world and becomes a proud American who doesn't care what other people think of us
As I monitor the president carefully, and look at this list often, I also encourage my readers to do so. If President Obama fulfills any of these promises, please email me immediately. Near the end of his term, we'll see how he did.

The War in Afghanistan

President Obama can't seem to come to a decision, and I can honestly say this would be a very hard one to make. If I were in his position right now, I'd fear being persecuted for ending the war right on the spot. Just like Obama, I don't have much political experience. However, I can say this: ending the war and focusing on domestic defense is a good idea. I just don't see this happening, as Obama seems to think that Afghanistan is a "good war."

Those on the Left want Obama to keep things the way they are right now, and those on the Right side with military leaders by wanting to send more troops. I, however, disagree with both sides. We don't need any troops in Afghanistan. What we need is for our borders to be secured, increased domestic defense, militarization of space, and an effective missile defense system. Engaging in American imperialism is not something our Founders would be proud of. We're only weakening our national security by provoking violence and hostility abroad. For more on my opinion of this issue, read my blog entry - Afghanistan: The "Good" War? - from a few weeks ago. It explains my positioning and reasoning quite clearly.

Student Harassed for Not Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance

Up until a few weeks ago, I was not aware that some states mandated that students and schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't get me wrong: I think patriotism is one of the most admirable and necessary qualities that a person should have in this great nation. I love reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it's great that students do. However, when you give the state power to force patriotism on people, you're doing the opposite of what you're intending to do. Patriotism enforced by the establishment is just going to make anti-patriots even angrier. Not only will it make anti-patriots angrier, but it will also make those who love this country angry as well. In what way does that encourage patriotism? It goes beyond that, unfortunately. Coercion by the state is only needed when someone violates another person's right to life, liberty, and property, and when you try to use it otherwise, you're committing an act of aggression. This creates hostility in the population, spreads violence throughout, and makes people much more fearful of the government.

That being said, I should move on to the actual story. Cameron Frazier, a high school student in Florida, was ridiculed, cursed at, and accused of being unpatriotic by his teacher when he refused to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Some people think that's the appropriate thing to do, but I, for one, think otherwise. Frazier points out that it takes more than imitating the crowd and saluting a flag to be patriotic. According to him, patriotism also includes supporting our troops and victims of natural disasters. He thinks the flag is a powerful symbol of our nation's core principles, but the government's recent policies don't reflect those principles. I am in total agreement with him. Any proud American should be.

Honestly, his teacher is a bitch for doing what she did to him. If she did that to me, I'd totally wanna sue her. I mean, who wouldn't? I really can't blame the kid. I feel deep pride in my heart that this student stands up for he believes in, respects the core values of our nation, and stays strong and brave through all of it. This is the kind of role model that we need for America. Someone who speaks out against the establishment regardless of what anyone else thinks and respects old traditions and values that have made this country great.

This kid obviously took the self-initiative to develop himself beyond the confines of government education. My fellow conservatives should be voicing out on this issue. If they think our educational system is flawed, admire patriotism in our youth, and really stand for the core principles of our nation, why aren't they expressing their outrage? Seriously, it makes me angry that they would rather continue to ramble on about some birth certificate than help distinguish the difference between enforced patriotism and real patriotism. They should be expressing their pride in this kid!

Liberals, where are you? Say something!

Gay Rights Advocates Pressure Obama to Keep to His Promises

On Saturday, in case you haven't heard, some super-duper gay rights activists headed up to Washington on pink ponies and multi-colored rainbows to demand that President Obama keep the pledges he made to the gay community during his campaign. As many of you know, I'm a lesbian myself, and I do fully support the rights of the LGBT community. Although I'm not a bleeding-hard liberal who will expose every inch of her body at each opportunity she gets - or a promiscuous girl who thinks sleeping around is the perfect way to live - I would also like Obama to keep to his word on this. However, it's not on my top priorities list.

We have more urgent issues at hand, and we need to focus on those more than we need to focus on things like gay marriage. The solution I have in mind is making everything a civil union under law and leaving individual churches to decide on the issue of marriage. I believe that a church has a right to deny anyone marriage and speak out against homosexuality. When I marry my sweetheart, I'll just go to a church that is willing to hitch the two of us. This process of allowing any kind of marriage whatsoever - gay, straight, monogamous, or polygamous - is a long and tiring path. I realize that my views are a bit radical and not representative of the mainstream. As I don't see this solution being implemented anytime soon, gay marriage is not on my top priorities list.

However, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. President Obama said he would address this, but he hasn't really said or done anything about it so far. Gays have every right to serve in the military. If someone wants to risk their life for the country that they love, who are we to tell them that they can't just because they're gay? I can see how homosexual activity can be disruptive in the military, but so can heterosexual activity. Who are we restrict rights to anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation? That's discrimination. DADT is a flawed policy that needs to be dealt with.

The White House vs. Fox News

I have a few things to say, and I will sum it up quickly.

1. FOX News is biased, but...
2. They will cover crucial stories that other networks won't.
3. With two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, a news station is not the enemy.
4. The White House is openly watching Glenn Beck now. I hope he gets it through their heads.
5. Anti-FOX News stories are a great way for the MSM to bring in more viewers. Clever idea.

Health Care

With a vast majority of Democrats in Congress, something tells me that H.R. 3200 has the potential to be passed soon, and those of us who oppose the bill - not those who would rather see no reform whatsoever - should continue to fight against it. On, I wrote the following:
Here is how we will pay for H.R. 3200:

1) Request that the Fed print more money
2) Raise taxes not only on the rich, but also the middle class
3) Increase inflation
4) Spend debt
5) Devalue and eventually destroy the dollar

If we continue to tax and spend like a bunch of crazy lunatics, inevitable consequences will ensue, and we'll all regret it. We can't trust the government with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and many other programs that have sent this country into a downward spiral. How can we trust them with HR 3200? More people are denied under Medicare than private insurers! In this country, it has led to rationing. We may get short-term social benefits, but we will ultimately see a rise in poverty.
As you can see, the price of H.R. 3200 is not a price worth paying. Its economic effects will greatly outweigh the social benefits it seeks to provide. I've written about this subject several times before, and you can check under the archives for my entries.

Columbus Day

Although Christopher Columbus was a murderer who slaughtered several of my Native American ancestors, I respect that some people think that he should be revered through a national holiday. Evidently, a Native American group is protesting this holiday. I can't blame them, really, for feeling resentment towards this man for what he did. I know I do. However, when they start accusing people of being racist bigots and trying to ruin everything for them, that's where I draw the line. To some people, criticizing members of your own race represents self-hatred, but I don't hate myself. They're people just like everybody else. I don't know how important Columbus Day is to everyone, but calling it "Fall Day" or "Native American Day" is a bit over the top. Can't we just have another day reserved for Native Americans? How about a holiday reserved for white people? That would be nice.

Well, folks, it's time to wrap things up. I hope this much-needed update satisfied any curiosities you may have had about my opinions on current events. With that, I bid you farewell.

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America!

Saturday, October 3, 2009

A Growing Disdain for Capitalism

I want my country back!

It seems as if a growing number of youth are outwardly embracing socialism and crediting capitalism as nothing but an evil system that exploits workers and ignores what Progressives like to call "the common good." With the release of Michael Moore's new movie - Capitalism: A Love Story - I believe that anti-capitalist sentiments will increasingly infest our culture. I have yet to watch the film, but I should in order to gain an understanding of where Michael Moore is coming from. It seems to me as if he cites corporate fraud and deceitful bankers as reasons for anti-capitalist sentiments. However, fraud, theft, and corporatism are anything but capitalist. It's mild fascism.

Progressives think of corporate welfare, corporate preference, fraud, theft, bailouts, and other corporatist policies and behaviors as purely capitalist principles. This, however, is a fallacy. In a capitalist system, corporations and banks are left to fail and succeed in a system of natural selection. In a corporatist system, however, financial aid is given to corporations and banks through taxpayer-funded subsidies. Taking money from one group and giving it to another is anything but a capitalist principle. Redistribution of wealth is, more than often, a socialist principle.

In a capitalist economic system, the market primarily regulates itself, giving individuals and businesses private property rights and private ownership over the means of production. When the government intervenes in large ways, however, we start to stray from the principles of laissez-faire economics. When we implement things like the minimum wage, corporate welfare, federal welfare, social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and subsidies, we are no doubt paving the way for what some Progressives call "a little socialism." A little socialism may not seem like a bad thing, but once we realize that we still have problems, some people like to say, "Well a little more socialism wouldn't hurt." We head into a slippery slope of more and more socialism.

Socialism creates a system of dependency that leads to feelings of individual entitlement that are not earned through work or labor. When an individual is free to pursue his or her own self-interest without a governing power providing for his or her every need, he or she has the motivation to work and produce. When a governing power, however, starts to provide for citizens instead of having them earn it through work or labor, it begins to create feelings of entitlement that lead to citizens asking for more and more and more and more. The only way the government can provide for its citizens without setting up a voluntary tax system is by forcing people to give to others. The reason for giving no longer becomes human kindness and generosity, but rather coercion.

The problem with government providing charity is that the method of collection is force. Unfortunately, the money often does not get to the people who need it most. Two thirds of taxes allocated for federal welfare do not get to its appropriate place, but instead the government, who spends it on other things. On top of that, it often goes to people who refuse to work, but could actually do so. Private charity, however, uses two thirds of its collections - on average - for the people who truly need it. In the history of our nation, private charity has proven to be a better means of helping the poor and needy than federal welfare. Unfortunately, our national charitable contributions are only a third of what they used to be. It is because federal welfare stifles the work of private charities by setting up a competitive system that cannot truly be competed against. Federal welfare has a significant competitive advantage in that its money always gets there by force, whether it goes to those who need it or is spent on other things instead. Private charities, however, depend on human kindness and generosity. People are more hostile and less generous than ever before because the government forces households to give anywhere from 40%-70% of their income.

Socialism claims to be a better means of promoting "social justice" and ensuring workers' rights and well-being. For example, socialists often advocate a higher minimum wage in order to pave the way for higher household incomes. However, it is often not taken into consideration that businesses will have to pay more for production and labor, which ultimately results in higher prices. Higher prices mean that people have to pay more for their goods. Businesses suffer lower profits, and they must often raise prices and lay off workers in order to stay stable in the market. The price is passed onto the consumer, and workers are the largest consumers of all. If it hurts consumers, it hurts workers. The more businesses have to pay for production and labor, the less people they can hire. This stifles job growth and opportunities, not only because it provides less jobs, but because it also takes jobs away from the poor, the young, the elderly, and the disabled.

When businesses can hire only so many workers, they must hire the most qualified and the most skilled people in order to be efficient and productive in the market. The poor and the young often do not meet either the educational requirements or the necessary skill requirements to be hired for the job when a minimum wage is implemented. The elderly and the disabled often do not have the physical capabilities for the job, unless, of course, it is a job that relies on other talents that do not require certain physical capabilities of people. If businesses could dole out a wage lower than the current minimum standard, they would be able to provide more jobs to less qualified people. However, the minimum wage stifles their ability to do so.

On top of all that, the minimum wage has lead to increased outsourcing and layoffs. With less money to pay for production, businesses often have to turn to workers in other countries in order to produce cheaper goods and pay less for labor. This needs to be done in order to be efficient and productive in the market. Socialism collapses in on itself.

Free market capitalism is a better means of sparking innovation. When one is free to pursue his or her self-interests, and one is free to compete with others in the market, the result is, more than often, innovation. For example, if a business owner who sells tools notices that a competing tool business is attracting an increasing amount of customers, he will ponder upon why this is happening. This competing business would be taking away potential customers, so he would naturally want to find out how to best his competitor. He would want to create better tools at a higher quality and higher value in relations with costs. This, my friends, is the magic of the free market. What has resulted is innovation, and innovation leads to more consumers, more investment, more profits, new inventions, improvements that result in more efficiency and quality, and an overall boost for the economy.

With socialism, however, working is encouraged as a means of providing primarily for the common good. When one is forced to work beyond self-interest and is forced to share the fruits of his or her labor with those he or she does not choose to share it with, he or she is less motivated to work. Selfishness is human nature. Milton Friedman, the late, great free market economist - whose unfortunate predictions for our generation have been fulfilled - puts it better than I do.

There are so many other aspects of capitalism and socialism that would take much of my time to discuss. In order to leave you with as much information as possible without overdoing myself, I would like to share with you some incredible animated short films that discuss the core principles of laissez-faire economics in a very simple manner. These cartoons touch me on deep emotional levels, combining both of my passions, cartoons and politics, into one amazing package. The best short film is going to be the last one, so stay tuned.

The first short film I would like to share with you is a brief, excellent explanation of competition and innovation in relation to free market economics, primarily focused on profit motive.

If you liked that one, prepare for a more detailed explanation of free market economics that is still extremely comprehensible. This next short film takes my breath away.

Isn't that wonderful? It really made my day to watch these. They make me so cheerful and warm. I love my country so dearly, and the principles of free market economics touch me emotionally. I have always been a conservative at heart, even when I started to think I was a liberal in my early adolescence. Even with all of the complicated arguments I have seen in defense of capitalism, these classic animated short films make the most astounding case for a free market system.

The next short film you are about to see relates to wages and prices in relation with productivity. It pretty much outlines what I discussed here, but in a cute, fun, simple way. I hope you enjoy it.

I know that cartoon was probably a lot more controversial. Most people, even conservatives, advocate some sort of minimum wage in one way or another. The cartoon I just showed, however, made a great case against it. In my opinion, they did it in the best way possible. I love it, love it, love it!

The next cartoon I'm going to share with you attempts to explain the basics of the stock market, something which I've been trying to understand for a very long time. This short film really helped me learn a lot about it, and I hope you do, too.

I know there are some socialists, nationalists, and liberals who read my blog, and they are probably feeling sick to their stomachs, but I can assure you that I do not mean to offend. I simply would like to share my viewpoints with my readers and share something that I enjoy with them. I love it when I am free to choose who I can share with, instead of being forced to share. It feels so much better, and I feel so much warmer inside.

The last cartoon is my absolute favorite out of all the ones I have shown today. It left a lasting impression on me, even sending me to tears with its powerful message of liberty and patriotism. Our Founding Fathers would be proud that there are still values like this in America. I hope it touches at least a few people. I know it made me warm. Without further ado, I present to you the 1948 classic - Make Mine Freedom:

What an incredible masterpiece. It will always be in my heart. A special thanks to Industrial Com for posting these wonderful short films on YouTube.

Viva la revolution!

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Government Education: Taking Away Your Kids with Smiley-Faced Fascism!

What the hell happened, America? There used to be a time when both mother and father would pay attention to their children, a time when family was an important cornerstone of everyday life. Family, country, and God always came first, even if sacrifices had to be made. People were hardworking and took responsibility for their actions. They relied on strong morals that guided them to be kind to one other, to accept personal responsibility, and to always respect others. People had manners, people had faith, and people were almost always fundamentally good. People were generous and peaceful. People were loving and caring.

With the rising popularity of the Progressive movement, however, that all started to change. Family started to crumble as an institution when careers were put over loved ones. When people were coerced into giving, generosity and human kindness no longer became the main reasons to give, and those things started to fade away as decades passed. Secularism spread rapidly as leaders denounced religion, faith, and God as unnecessary and unreasonable. Patriotism began to be regarded as nothing but foolish pride rooted in bigotry and hatred. Believing in personal responsibility, self-virtue, and hard work began to be represented as cold and cruel. Staying at home to spend time with children began to be dismissed as socially unacceptable and backward.

Instead of communicating with their children, providing them with care, and making sure that time was spent in order to instill strong moral values, parents simply gave their kid a computer, a television, and a video game system to occupy them with as they went off and either worked, shopped, went out, or did who knows what with whom. Marriage began to be regarded as not a sacred institution that created a virtuous structure, but rather a legal benefits system which would financially support people. People began to manipulate the system, often divorcing their partner in order to take money that wasn't theirs, depriving children of one parent or another, or simply as a means of revenge rather than a personal necessity to be used only when the marriage had no way of being rekindled.

And now President Obama wants to take away your children completely. Take a look at this:

What you have just seen and heard is real. President Obama wants to eliminate summer vacation and keep you away from your kids for a longer amount of time by forcing schools to extend the school day. Damn straight that isn't going to be a popular idea, and for the right reasons! In this day in age, what kids need is more time with their parents, but instead, we're furthering the problem by adding on to it. Does it make any sense that politicians seem to think that destroying the very foundations of our society is the only means of advancing it? In fact, that is the very idea behind the Progressive movement, no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

I surely hope that President Obama doesn't get his way. I hope people wake up and stand up for themselves. I hope that if he does get away with this, parents take the initiative to pull their children out of school and either home school them or send them to a private institution that will allow for more time to spend with parents. I know damn well that America isn't stupid, and so do the rest of you.

Unfortunately, another problem arises. Public schools are now indoctrinating students with socialist propaganda. No wonder President Obama wants shorter summers and longer school days! He knows that these actions will further the totalitarian New World Order agenda. Are we really going to stand for this?

Some people say I have a way with blowing things way out of proportion, but you just wait and see what happens with this country! We're destroying ourselves from the inside, and we will be the ones to blame for the obliteration of our Republic. Look what the schools are doing to our children:

I feel so sorry for the kids who are being deceived and lied to by our leaders and teachers. I look into the eyes of that adorable little Muslim girl, and I see innocence and youth. It pains me that she is unaware of the things that are happening around her in this country. We are a far cry from being free at last. Our freedoms are being taken away, our property is being stripped from us, and the imperialistic American empire is gaining control over our lives and our minds.

These kids seem so kind and gentle. It breaks my heart to see them manipulated this way. I remember the magic of childhood, but I don't remember any of this. I feel like my spirit is being crushed as I watch our nation fall under the trance of a great and powerful dictatorship.

This made me cry:

With the indoctrination of our youth and the crumbling of our nation, horrible things are happening all over America and the rest of the world. Endless wars are being waged, family is no longer considered sacred, values are being thrown right out the window, and people are needlessly dying due to the loose moral structure our society has succumbed to. If you need proof of this, you only need to look around you. Observe what is happening. America used to be a very different place. It was rare for this type of thing to happen:

This event sends tears to my eyes. What has our society come to? This isn't the America that former generations grew up with. It's a new and scary America that doesn't at all reflect the principles of our Founding Fathers. Not a single witness intervened to help this poor, defenseless honor student. The kids just stood there, laughing and unaffected. There were a few people fleeing the scene, but no one was crying or screaming or showing any kind of sorrow whatsoever. This is despicable, people!

I was talking to my mother the other day, and she discussed how her late father predicted everything that is happening now. He predicted that socialism would infest our culture, that our government would become more and more corrupt with each passing year, that we would run into an inevitable economic recession, that our children would be indoctrinated in our schools, that our system would work off inflationary deficit spending rather than sound economic policy, and that a charismatic and influential leader would rise to power and make Marxist ideology look wonderful to the masses.

Only we can make sure that our youth are prevented from falling into these socialist traps. Parents, teachers, priests, leaders, adults: We need to stand up and protect those that are too defenseless to help themselves. We can't let this happen any longer. Let us shout from our heart and let the spirit of God guide us into making our country the place it used to be once again. It's time for us to take back America.

Viva la revolution!

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America.