The President's Address to the Nation. Are you going to watch it? Did you watch it? Does anyone care to elaborate on the issues he covered? Did he tell the truth? Is President Obama's Administration headed in the right direction?

America truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

By: Kitty Werthmann

What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.
In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.
The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.
We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.
We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.
Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.
Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.
My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.
Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
"Mercy Killing" Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.
The Final Steps - Gun Laws:
Next came gun registration.. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.
After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned.. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.
"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

"After America , There is No Place to Go"

Would you repeat that ?

The Senate health care bill just signed contains some exemptions to the "pay-or-play" mandate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:

So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.

Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.

"Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don't have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion," said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. "And that's perfectly constitutional."

Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance - and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance - to be haraam (forbidden).

Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light calls our attention to the probability that Muslims will also be expempt. According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:

Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.

In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/251):

Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people's wealth unlawfully, and other shar'i

Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: "but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment"

[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote.

reservations.
And Allaah knows best.

So, it turns out that observant Muslims are not only strictly forbidden from buying any health insurance under the ObamaCare mandate, but may also not even work for any company that provides such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance.

It is not made clear whether or not it is religiously okay to accept "free" non-insured medical care such as that offered in hospital ERs and to some who are covered by Medicaid.

Whether it's all right to serve as a doctor, nurse, or orderly caring for patients whose medical services are being paid for by insurance is not covered in the present response - but one could probably obtain a religious ruling from the Sheikh, whose site welcomes the submission of questions about Islamic law and practices.

 

 

Subject: Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

Had never heard the word until now---Type it into Google and start
reading…Pretty interesting. Note that Muslims and certain other
religions are exempt from the Obamacare penalties and it is
supported by law. (See Prior Post) We are surrendering from within! The boy is
leading us right down the path to total control!

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim
populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING
of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a
coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia
muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically
exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also
from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance
to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned.
Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How
convenient. So I, Average Joe, a Christian, will have crippling
IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate,
cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison
time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax.
Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have
100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government
insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims.
Period. This is Dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND
serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to
convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as
well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral
anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no
problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. Lots of people will say "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson

Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a tough new law designed to crack down on the flood of illegal immigration in the state and the violence and mayhem that has accompanied it. Political mayhem is the price of the law's enactment.

Stepped-up enforcement of the border in California and Texas has funneled much of the illegal alien traffic and cross-border smuggling through Arizona. A sharp increase in crime has resulted, with Phoenix now being the kidnap capital of the United States. Ranchers near the border live under a state of siege, but demands that the federal government take aggressive remedial action have been unavailing. The recent murder of Rob Krentz, a kind-hearted rancher who often assisted desperate immigrants abused and abandoned by their "coyote" guides, prompted widespread outrage at the federal government's fundamental failure to protect its citizens against a dangerous foreign invasion.

The race-baiting grievance mongers wasted no time in denouncing the law. Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of a swastika on the Arizona Capitol building (which we find to be an incredibly strange mixed message). Some leftist church leaders denounced the law as "hateful." Race hustler Jesse Jackson called it "terrorism." Calling it "stupid," "an embarrassment" and "racist," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (Tucson) said he would refuse to enforce it.

Latino activist and far-left Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) called for a boycott of his own state, saying, "I support some very targeted economic sanctions on the state of Arizona. We will be asking national organizations -- civil, religious, political -- not to have conferences and conventions in the state of Arizona. There has to be an economic consequence to this action and to this legislation." We're sure Arizona's 2.3 million unemployed will thank Grijalva for his principled stand.

Meanwhile, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, the government of Mexico issued a travel advisory and expressed concern about the rights of its citizens in the United States. Of course, Mexico plays by much more stringent rules when dealing with its own immigration issues.

These critics either haven't read the law or, more likely, don't want to be bothered with reality. Among other things, Arizona's new law makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they are in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver's license is presumptive proof of lawful status.
The law specifically forbids police from basing their actions solely on someone's race or ethnicity. It also compels the police to base their "reasonable suspicion" on criteria that are permissible under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Moreover, when she signed the bill, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order directing additional training specifically to avoid racial profiling when the law is enforced.
The new law, which in many places quotes federal law verbatim, was enacted because of the failure at the federal level to enforce those same laws. None of this matters to the Left. With tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they have demonized everyone who dares stand up for responsible enforcement of our laws and for the protection of our citizens.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama declared that the nation may not have the "appetite" for an immigration fight this year, so he removed the issue from his agenda. That's a relief.

Quote of the Week:
"So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they've got Washington's attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so, 'Hey, maybe we better do something, too.' And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress. President Obama called the Arizona law 'misguided.' What's misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored. Now we'll hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There'll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling -- all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we're going to get this freak show. Washington's position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security, just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that's being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the president says that's misguided. What a shame." --CNN commentator Jack Cafferty

Headline of the Week

"Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law" --Associated Press

Isn't that the point?

"The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations. But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America? No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation -- actually it's at the heart of the alienation -- of the age. In the past four years, It has been argued that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the common sense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. ... Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away. Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address. Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people are noticing. SECURE OUR COUNTRY'S BORDERS NOW!!!

Very few Americans are inherently opposed to immigration. For the most part, the controversy we face isn't about immigration at all. It's about the systematic failure of federal government to enforce the law or offer rational policy. There's a difference.

A Country that does not secure its borders does not stay a Country. Our borders must be secure and this Great Country's sovereignty protected.

"Judges ... should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men." --John Adams

President Obama's high court pick has practically no paper trail, yet her left-leaning orientation is clear. The president knows what he's getting in his old friend Elena Kagan; America doesn't -- yet. 'Our solicitor general, and my friend: Elena Kagan.' That was how Obama introduced his replacement for the most aggressively liberal member of today's court, John Paul Stevens, appointed by Republican Gerald Ford 35 years ago. 'My friend' speaks volumes. Kagan has never been a judge, so we have no written opinions or dissents upon which the Senate -- or the American people -- can judge her suitability to serve as one of the nine most powerful judges in the country. ... Before Obama made her his solicitor general, Kagan was Bill Clinton's associate White House counsel and served on his Domestic Policy Council. Clinton nominated her to the D.C. Circuit near the end of his second term, but the then-Republican majority in the Senate refused to act on that and other nominations. Moreover, it was Lawrence Summers, Clinton-Obama economic bigwig and then-Harvard president, who in 2003 was responsible for Kagan becoming dean of Harvard Law School -- another political appointment. Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and for Abner Mikva, the Carter-appointed D.C. Circuit judge, a former Democratic Chicago congressman, a Clinton White House counsel and an Obama legal adviser. It's noteworthy that after Kagan's ill-fated Clinton court nomination, Chicago Law wouldn't let her come back to its faculty, gleaning that she'd just be waiting for her next plum political job. Even the New York Times, which would undoubtedly be happy with a Justice Kagan, is grousing that 'whether by ambitious design or by habit of mind, Ms. Kagan has spent decades carefully husbanding her thoughts and shielding her philosophy from view.' Put it all together and this looks like an ambitious radical stealthily, and for many years, grooming herself for the pinnacle of judicial power. ... With the Supreme Court likely to scrutinize the constitutionality of ObamaCare and other recent Washington power grabs, Elena Kagan is another liberal elitist sure to give her stamp of approval. The President is crafty... remember him saying that he wanted to "fundamentally change this Country?" Well, you're getting it whether you want it or not! Kagan will help reject any challenge to the unconstitutional actions of this President.

"Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens." --George Mason

Now is the time to start educating ourselves about political candidates running for office. From the top down, our Country is headed away from our founding principals. Please,... read, investigate, and seek out information on candidates running for office. Make sound, logical decisions about who will lead our Great Nation out of the mess we are in. GO VOTE! Vote with a purpose. Vote at every opportunity!

Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Recently the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world. According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries 'prevent, combat and eradicate' what those countries define as 'the illicit trade in small arms.' The UN's solution isn't too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these 'reforms.' But not all insurgencies are 'bad.' To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war. ... Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century -- that is 2.6 million per year. This includes genocide, the murder of people for political reasons, and mass murder. Even if all 300,000 deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small arms trade, an obviously false claim, people have much more to worry about from their governments. ... The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban,' Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice." --economist John Lott

Weasel, at the very least, it shouldn't be taken lightly. Anytime polticians are doing something for the good of people, the people end up getting screwed. In fact if you listen closly they arn't worried about their guns just ours!

"The most important overlooked story of the past few weeks was overlooked because it was not surprising. Also because no one really wants to notice it. ... I speak of the report from the inspector general of the Justice Department, issued in late May, saying the department is not prepared to ensure public safety in the days or weeks after a terrorist attack in which nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are used. The Department of Homeland Security is designated as first federal responder, in a way, in the event of a WMD attack, but every agency in government has a formal, assigned role, and the crucial job of Justice is to manage and coordinate law enforcement and step in if state and local authorities are overwhelmed. So how would Justice do, almost nine years after the attacks of 9/11? Poorly. 'The Department is not prepared to fulfill its role ... to ensure public safety and security in the event of a WMD incident,' says the 61-page report. Justice has yet to assign an entity or individual with clear responsibility for oversight or management of WMD response; it has not catalogued its resources in terms of either personnel or equipment; it does not have written plans or checklists in case of a WMD attack. A deputy assistant attorney general for policy and planning is quoted as saying 'it is not clear' who in the department is responsible for handling WMD response. Workers interviewed said the department's operational response program 'lacks leadership and oversight.' An unidentified Justice Department official was quoted: 'We are totally unprepared.' He added. 'Right now, being totally effective would never happen. Everybody would be winging it.' The inspector general's staff interviewed 36 senior officials involved in the department's emergency response planning and summarized the finding: 'It was clear that no person or entity is managing the overall Department's response activities.' You could almost see them scratching their heads and saying, 'No one's in charge here.' ... We may be witnessing again a failure of imagination, the famous phrase used after 9/11 to capture why the U.S. government was caught so flatfooted and was so stunned that such a terrible thing could occur. They neglected to think of the worst thing that could happen, and so of course they did not plan for it. If agencies within the government now are having a second failure of imagination, it is not forgivable. We're not being asked to imagine a place we've never been, after all, we're only being asked to imagine where we've been, and how it could be worse, and plan for it." --columnist Peggy Noonan

"In a 'fireside chat' to quell concerns about the Gulf oil disaster, the president announced the appointment of an oil czar. Is more bureaucracy the answer to every problem? ... The president on Tuesday evening proved himself tone-deaf to this popular disenchantment, manifested in his sinking public approval ratings. He double-downed on his status as the federal government's expander in chief by announcing the establishment of an oil czar who will join the nearly 30 other czars running various sectors of the American Leviathan absent public accountability. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs described the newest czar as being 'in charge of a recovery plan, putting a recovery plan together ... when we get past the cleanup and response phase of this disaster.' It kind of begs the question: Why not a cleanup czar in the meantime? First things first. This is quintessential Rahm Think. Before the president was inaugurated, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, cutthroat even by the Chicago machine standards that spawned him, infamously declared that you should 'never let a serious crisis go to waste.' The Democrats in power used a financial crisis -- of their own making, being the culmination of years of politicized housing policy -- to fulfill every taxpayer-funded fantasy on their wish list. Now the president is using the BP oil gusher crisis to justify yet another new taxpayer-funded agency. ... [M]illions of Americans would like to hear a reporter ask this president, 'Can you solve anything without asking for more government?'" --Investor's Business Daily

Has anyone stopped to consider that we might come closer to balancing the budget if all of us simply tried to live up to the Ten Commandments and by the Golden Rule?

Nope... it's all about social justice, entitlements, political correctness, control, power, greed and corruption. Now, let's throw in a little Sharia Law. Sure... we're a Muslim Nation. Aren't we? So, says Mr. Obama.

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington

What ever happened to that "DECENCY AND PROPRIETY OF CONDUCT" idea?!? This country must protect itself at its borders! Our Nation's survival depends on the rule of law, ethics and decency. Our borders must be maintained proper. We must also protect ourselves from the attack from within. Many currently in powerful political and appointed positions are focused on "fundamental change" -- sound familiar? Everyone must do their part to save this Great Country we love. Go VOTE at every opportunity with the knowledge of exactly who and what you are voting for! If you think The United States of America is not that great, or the changes taking place are no big deal, take a trip. Take a trip anywhere out of this Country. You will return more patriotic, surely.