Testosterone and American Society

Laughing or not there has been a movement, probably since the '60 designed to emasculate the male in society, especially American Society.


For instance:

Absolutely potty | Spectator, The | Find Articles at BNET

Young Swedish women now demand that their men use the lavatory in a strictly sedentary posture - partly, I am told, for reasons of hygiene, but, more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and, by extension, degrading women. I am not taking the pissoir, dear and trusting reader; this is for real. To micturate from the standing position is now viewed among the more progressive Swedes - as the height of vulgarity and possibly suggestive of violence.


‘All my friends demand that their husbands or boyfriends sit down,’ says Jessica, from Uppsala. ‘I think it shows respect for the women who clean,’ adds the 31-year-old biologist. ‘My brother, for example, would not dream of standing up. Among the young, leftish intelligentsia there is also a view that to stand is a nasty macho gesture.’ Her English husband has refused to be cowed, she admits, because ‘it infringes his manly rights’. Reward for his heroic stand? Full-time cleaning duties.


Television:


Prime-time puts softer side of men on display - Television- msnbc.com

“There’s a bit of an evolution, the idea of male bonding, which has always been around in entertainment, but in the past it was done with a little more machismo,” says Nicole Vecchiarelli, entertainment director of Details, a men’s fashion and lifestyle magazine. “But in the post metrosexual era guys bonding isn’t necessarily about guns and action and high testosterone activity. They’re exposing their more sensitive side because that’s a reflection of the typical urban male.”



Not to mention that most of the male characters you see in sitcoms today portray the male as a bumbling, stumbling doofus that the woman has to bail out of trouble...........


Christina Sommers book "The War Against Boys" documents the tendency of the nation's schools to suppress boys' natural ways of seeing and doing things and force them to adopt feminine attitudes and behaviors.

With the work schedules of a lot of parents we leave our kids on their own with the TV, internet and peers as the babysitter. Without input from both parents on a consistent basis the young males of today are adrift without a rudder.

A country's ability to steer itself along a path that brings out the best of what society can offer does depend on both male and female input, a country will go down a path to ruin if only one of these traits is prevalent.

__________________

But what if they are Marxist?

They have been trying for years to convince us that socialism/communism works. they have yet to show good examples. Now they want to try and silence us by shouting us down when call attention to the truth.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/making_the_world_safe_for_marx.html

Excuse me, but isn't the great lesson we were supposed to learn from Nazism to recognize such evil before it reaches critical mass - to quash such movements before things get violent? As a reminder, the Holocaust count was 11 million; communism killed 100 million.

If we do not allow ourselves to call something "wrong" or "evil", we yield the battle without even a fight. Yet to refrain from such "invective" is what is now called "civil discourse" and the right "tone."

Bill Ayers called himself a "small ‘c' communist." Is it OK to call him a communist? Barack Obama said this in one of his autobiographies (at least he said it on tape, whether or not he wrote the book himself ):

"To avoid being mistaken for such a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets."

Here's a hint: you have to be pretty steeped in leftist thought to even know that the adjective "structural" goes with the noun "feminist."

Obama was essentially a "red diaper baby" who was raised and educated by Marxists to be Marxist. Communists really did spy on us. They had secret meetings. Communism is no longer "strange"; it is taught in our schools, sometimes by Marxists. Obama went to such schools, took such classes and personally sought out Marxists. Bill Ayers calls himself a communist. Barack Obama's run for elective office was kicked off at a meeting in Bill Ayer's house. His voting record was the most liberal in the Senate in 2007, or left of self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Are we not to infer the obvious?

Some more hints: "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto. So is "centralization of credit in the hands of the State." So is "centralization of the means of communication" and "establishment of industrial armies."

I don't think it's my imagination that (a) we are already far down the road in establishing each of these planks (e.g., Federal Reserve System), and (b) Barack Obama and the Democrats are itching to take us even further down that road: more progressive income taxes; more government control of credit, banking and industry; the "fairness doctrine" and other regulations of speech and communications; a national service plan and mandatory "public service" for students; etc.

A reasonable person could infer that the present aim of the Democratic Party is full implementation of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the ten planks and look at the Democratic Party's platform or its legislation waiting in the wings. You don't need rose-colored glasses to see the red in either.

In fact, the interesting question is no longer whether our politics in the US and Europe (not to mention Latin America) are leading to Marxism. The interesting question now is whether voters care. My guess is that almost half the people in the US, and probably more elsewhere, think Marxism is no worse or even better than "capitalism." Isms is isms, in our post-rational world.

(Personally, I avoid the use of the word "capitalism." It is a Marxist term that just means letting people buy and sell what they want at the prices they want -- or what Adam Smith called "the system of perfect liberty.")

Of course, Barack Obama has not even begun his Rule yet. It's possible, I suppose, that the Obama we'll get in the Oval Office is the Obama we saw in his campaign ads -- good old American nice -- a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" as Joe Biden said.

Then again, here are a few parting thoughts from the horses' mouths:

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time." Barack Obama

"I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx

"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx

"We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it." The Communist Party USA

Ready to play Communist Manifesto Bingo? Just get out your copy of the Manifesto and look at the 10 planks. Once Obama passes laws that enact or strengthen at least, say, five of them, yell "bingo." That will be the sum total of your power to do anything about it.

Ten Random, Politicially-incorrect Thoughts

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/ten-random-politicially-incorrect-thoughts/

1. Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the ‘role model’ diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles’s Antigone in Greek or Thucydides’ dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies—indeed, anything “studies”— were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.

2. Hollywood is going the way of Detroit. The actors are programmed and pretty rather than interesting looking and unique. They, of course, are overpaid (they do to films what Lehman Brothers’ execs did to stocks), mediocre, and politicized. The producers and directors are rarely talented, mostly unoriginal—and likewise politicized. A pack-mentality rules. Do one movie on a comic superhero—and suddenly we get ten, all worse than the first. One noble lion cartoon movie earns us eagle, penguin and most of Noah’s Arc sequels. Now see poorer remakes of movies that were never good to begin with. I doubt we will ever see again a Western like Shane, the Searchers, High Noon, or the Wild Bunch. If one wishes to see a fine film, they are now usually foreign, such as Das Boot or Breaker Morant. Watching any recent war movie (e.g., Iraq as the Rape of Nanking) is as if someone put uniforms on student protestors and told them to consult their professors for the impromptu script.

3. All the old media brands of our youth have been tarnished and all but discredited. No one picks up Harpers or Atlantic expecting to read a disinterested story on politics or culture. (I pass on their inane accounts of ‘getaways’ and food.) The New York Times and Washington Post are as likely to have op-eds as news stories on the front page. Newsweek and Time became organs for paint-by-numbers Obamism, teased with People Magazine-like gossip pieces (at least, their editors still cared enough to seem hurt when charged with overt bias). NBC, ABC, and CBS would now make a Chet Huntley or Eric Sevareid turn over in his grave. A Keith Olbermann would not have been allowed to do commercials in the 1950s. Strangely, the media has offered up fashionably liberal politics coupled with metrosexual elite tastes in fashions, clothes, housing, food, and the good life, as if there were no contradictions between the two. No wonder media is so enthralled with the cool Obama and his wife. Both embody the new nexus between Eurosocialism in the abstract and the hip aristocratic life in the concrete.

4. After the junk bond meltdown, the S&L debacle, and now the financial panic, in just a few years the financial community destroyed the ancient wisdom: deal in personal trust; your word is your bond; avoid extremes; treat the money you invest for others as something sacred; don’t take any more perks than you would wish others to take; don’t borrow what you couldn’t suddenly pay back; imagine the worse case financial scenario and expect it very may well happen; the wealthier you become the more humble you should act. And for what did our new Jay Goulds do all this? A 20,000 square-foot mansion instead of the old 6,000 sq. ft. expansive house? A Gulfstream in lieu of first class commercial? You milk your company, cash in your stock bonuses, enjoy your $50 million cash pile, and then get what—a Rolex instead of a reliable Timex? A Maserati for a Mercedes, a gold bathroom spout in preference to brushed pewter? The extra splurge was marginal and hardly worth the stain of avarice on one’s immortal soul.

5. California is now a valuable touchstone to the country, a warning of what not to do. Rarely has a single generation inherited so much natural wealth and bounty from the investment and hard work of those more noble now resting in our cemeteries—and squandered that gift within a generation. Compare the vast gulf from old Governor Pat Brown to Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. We did not invest in many dams, canals, rails, and airports (though we use them all to excess); we sued each other rather than planned; wrote impact statements rather than left behind infrastructure; we redistributed, indulged, blamed, and so managed all at once to create a state with about the highest income and sales taxes and the worst schools, roads, hospitals, and airports. A walk through downtown San Francisco, a stroll up the Fresno downtown mall, a drive along highway 101 (yes, in many places it is still a four-lane, pot-holed highway), an afternoon at LAX, a glance at the catalogue of Cal State Monterey, a visit to the park in Parlier—all that would make our forefathers weep. We can’t build a new nuclear plant; can’t drill a new offshore oil well; can’t build an all-weather road across the Sierra; can’t build a few tracts of new affordable houses in the Bay Area; can’t build a dam for a water-short state; and can’t create even a mediocre passenger rail system. Everything else—well, we do that well.

6. Something has happened to the generic American male accent. Maybe it is urbanization; perhaps it is now an affectation to sound precise and caring with a patina of intellectual authority; perhaps it is the fashion culture of the metrosexual; maybe it is the influence of the gay community in arts and popular culture. Maybe the ubiquitous new intonation comes from the scarcity of salty old jobs in construction, farming, or fishing. But increasingly to meet a young American male about 25 is to hear a particular nasal stress, a much higher tone than one heard 40 years ago, and, to be frank, to listen to a precious voice often nearly indistinguishable from the female. How indeed could one make Westerns these days, when there simply is not anyone left who sounds like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Robert Duvall, or Gary Cooper much less a Struther Martin, Jack Palance, L.Q. Jones, or Ben Johnson? I watched the movie Twelve O’clock High the other day, and Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger sounded liked they were from another planet. I confess over the last year, I have been interviewed a half-dozen times on the phone, and had no idea at first whether a male or female was asking the questions. All this sounds absurd, but I think upon reflection readers my age (55) will attest they have had the same experience. In the old days, I remember only that I first heard a variant of this accent with the old Paul Lynde character actor in one of the Flubber movies; now young men sound closer to his camp than to a Jack Palance or Alan Ladd.

7. We have given political eccentricity a bad name. There used to be all sorts of classy individualists, liberal and conservative alike, like Everett Dirksen, J. William Fulbright, Margaret Chase Smith, or Sam Ervin; today we simply see the obnoxious who claim to be eccentric like a Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Barney Frank, or Harry Reid. The loss is detectable even in diction and manner; Dirksen was no angel, but he was witty, charming, insightful; Frank is no angel, but he merely rants and pontificates. Watch the You Tube exchange between Harvard Law Graduate Frank and Harvard Law Graduate Rains as they arrogantly dismiss their trillion-dollar Fannie/Freddie meltdown in the making. I suppose it is the difference between the Age of Belief and the Age of Nihilism.

8. Do not farm. There is only loss. To the degree that anyone makes money farming, it is a question of a vertically-integrated enterprise making more in shipping, marketing, selling, packing, and brokering than it loses on the other end in growing. No exceptions. Food prices stay high, commodity prices stay low. That is all ye need to know. Try it and see.

9. As I wrote earlier, the shrill Left is increasingly far more vicious these days than the conservative fringe, and about like the crude Right of the 1950s. Why? I am not exactly sure, other than the generic notion that utopians often believe that their anointed ends justify brutal means. Maybe it is that the Right already had its Reformation when Buckley and others purged the extremists—the Birchers, the neo-Confederates, racialists, the fluoride-in-the-water conspiracists, anti-Semites, and assorted nuts.—from the conservative ranks in a way the Left has never done with the 1960s radicals that now reappear in the form of Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, etc. Not many Democrats excommunicated Moveon.org for its General Betray-Us ad. Most lined up to see the premier of Moore’s mythodrama. Barack Obama could subsidize a Rev. Wright or email a post-9/11 Bill Ayers in a way no conservative would even dare speak to a David Duke or Timothy McVeigh—and what Wright said was not all that different from what Duke spouts. What separated Ayers from McVeigh was chance; had the stars aligned, the Weathermen would have killed hundreds as they planned.

10. The K-12 public education system is essentially wrecked. No longer can any professor expect an incoming college freshman to know what Okinawa, John Quincy Adams, Shiloh, the Parthenon, the Reformation, John Locke, the Second Amendment, or the Pythagorean Theorem is. An entire American culture, the West itself, its ideas and experiences, have simply vanished on the altar of therapy. This upcoming generation knows instead not to judge anyone by absolute standards (but not why so); to remember to say that its own Western culture is no different from, or indeed far worse than, the alternatives; that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort; that AIDs is no more a homosexual- than a heterosexual-prone disease; and that the following things and people for some reason must be bad, or at least must in public company be said to be bad (in no particular order): Wal-Mart, cowboys, the Vietnam War, oil companies, coal plants, nuclear power, George Bush, chemicals, leather, guns, states like Utah and Kansas, Sarah Palin, vans and SUVs.

Well, with that done—I feel much better.

America’s True Genius

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzUwYzY2ZWZjYTNhOWM4OTQ5NjNlOTQ4ZWNjZjY5OGI=&w=MQ==

The Founding Fathers designed our Constitution so as to make it very difficult to bring about significant changes. New legislation requires majorities in both houses of Congress followed by a presidential signature. Constitutional amendments are even more difficult — the easiest method is for an amendment to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities and then be ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures. This suggests the Founding Fathers were suspicious of quick and easy change.

The actual genius of America, and what makes our country unique, is precisely the opposite of change. It is that our country was founded on certain timeless principles, laid out in the Declaration of Independence and put into practice by the Constitution. These principles include the conviction that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and to provide freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and equal protection under the law.

There are those who argue that the principles of the founders are woefully out of date — that our old ideals of limited government and individual liberty need to be revised and updated to accommodate the sweeping government intervention that the complexities of modern society demand. But Americans have always believed that our founding principles are not merely the product of a particular society or point in time. The principles are universal and inalienable or, to quote the Declaration of Independence, they are “self-evident truths.” These moral truths have not weakened over time, but rather have been strengthened by our national experience and our advances in social and economic understanding. Free-market capitalism has led not to the oppression and misery of the working class, but to a record of prosperity and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. Our conservative Constitution, skeptical of change and rooted in respect for the tradition of ordered liberty, has not made us inflexible but has rather safeguarded us from the turbulence of political fads and the temptations of radicalism..........................



Just Beautiful.........................

Socialized Medicine

Socialized Medicine is defined as is a term used primarily in the US to refer to certain kinds of tax paid for health care.
Who receives this care? Well in the ideal it would be everyone.

The pro's of this system are argued to be, everyone gets health care, no one has high costs and the quality of health care goes up.

The con's against say that the quality of care actually goes down, there are long lines for Dr's and the system is impersonal as you do not get to choose your GP.

Those that argue for socialized health care say, one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars go to administrative costs.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Conversely current regulatory costs are argued to be in the neighborhood of about 25 % which includes regulation of health facilities, health professionals, health insurance, drugs and medical devices, and the medical tort system, including the costs of defensive medicine, or say an annual 335 billion.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formula or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment notes that 31 % of care given to patients for free, is wasted, and access related facilities regulations which cost 11.8 billion, provide benefits of only 3.8 billion.
Also quality related facilities regulations impose about 21.8 billion in costs and tender about 4 billion in benefits.

What does all this mean, probably that there are some other paths we could take to help provide health to everyone other than just paying for it out of the tax payers pocket.

Another dire side effect of the thinking of those that promote free for everyone medicine is rationing of care. We will not be able to provide all services for everyone.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/whatswrongwithushealthcare.php

Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University sees health care swallowing up 28 % of GDP by 2030 (up from 16% now), but asks: What would we rather spend the money on? "SUVs" In contrast, Brookings Institute senior fellow Henry Aaron prescribes a bitter, if sugar-coated, pill: "Intelligent health care rationing - limiting the availability of care that costs society more to produce than it is worth to patients - is not a horror to be avoided. It's a regretfully necessary limit to sustain fair access to health care that is worth what it costs."

The health care industry and the insurance industry are in need of major shake ups beginning with some good old fashion competitiveness coupled with real pricing transparency. We as consumers cannot "shop around" for our health care we must go where we're allowed.
This is a set of chains that need to be removed and then we will probably see the prices of daily health care come down.

'Socialism'? It's Already Here

This is the title to a great article by George Will at the Washington Post. In it he talks about how America need not wait for socialism to arrive via the Obama/Pelosi express but how it is already here. It is here we allowed it and we don't even know it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

McCain/Palin spoke out about it in their C- campaign for the Presidency, attacking The Big O on his "spreading the wealth" quote. But since different programs have crept into our everyday lives under the auspices of "good for the country" (Medicare, welfare, farm subsidies, bailouts etc) when confronted with the cold statement "Socialism" most Americans don't grasp the significance.

It won't be till it begins to hit our personal take home pay that we will begin to understand, by then it may be to late.

"The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well."

I call BS.

WP

Moving Forward

Most voters that I have communicated with since election day are devastated at what we feel
is a bigger threat to America than the attacks on 9/11. There is a serious feeling that Socialism is
coming in massive waves and we do not have enough of a arsenal to defend against it.


We are asking several things from our representatives going forward.

For one, toughen up, lose the idea of moderation, return to solid conservative
principles that should be our foundation.

Remove those in current leadership roles, (this is 2 election cycles where they have proved ineffective) and replace them with individuals
who will put conservative values with a message we can become excited about and support.

Maintain diligence that those who we support uphold solid conservative and personal values.

We are looking for, and counting on, your votes against the upcoming liberal/socialist agenda;
tax increases, military budget cuts,
additional bailouts, assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights, the appointment of activist judges,
an attempt to return TO the "Fairness Doctrine", Pro-abortion legislation and a retreat form the War on Terror.

We are looking for you and others we support to stand solid against permanent, irrevocable changes to
our American way of life and our freedoms.

America has come far in it's short History, but it did not come this far by adhering to the ideals
put forth by the incoming Administration and Congressional Leadership.

Conservatism did not lose November 11, 2008, for the most part IT was not on the ballot.))))

Socialism's Appeal

Ever been in a job where you realize that, this is as good as it gets? I'm not moving up, I'm wasting away here, why should I continue.

Welcome to socialism.

When everyone makes the same, has the same benefits, gets treated the same no matter if your job is the least important or the most important at the company, why try your best? Why make the extra effort? You get paid the same, no one can question your effort, there is no where for you go, except home at the end of the day.

For some this is called paradise. This is the sum total of their existence and ambition. For others though, they want to be successful, they want to improve, move up, make a difference, but without reward for the extra effort why will they try.

America has tried Socialism before. Many different communities have been created since our founding based upon a socialistic system, none exist today.

Ever since the start of the industrial revolution and the writings of Marx and Engel, those that have not or will do not, want to participate in the rewards of those than can and will accomplish goals.

Let's start with today's society. Look at all the magazines articles and TV shows that dedicate themselves to the lives of celebrities. Those that are not in the spotlight want desperately to have or share in some of the fame that others have achieved. Many cannot be satisfied with their own abilities and accomplishments, they need to share in those of others.

The State comes in with the promise of law and order, equality of wealth for everyone, or the old "chicken in every pot" routine and everybody says "that's for me". To many are willing to sacrifice their liberties for a perceived promise of having the same "life" as everyone else, without having to put out the same effort or have the same talents as the other person.

The Left's Coming Economic Overreach

They just want us to be safe and warm, since they don't feel that we can care for ourselves.




http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2CF46009-795E-4C9A-9185-C0D0288D74E6

"Sound" does not mean bullet-proof. Nor does it mean that everything is going wonderfully at the moment or that nothing needs to be done.

You may be as sick as a dog from having eaten the wrong thing. But that does not mean that you need to have your arm amputated or to receive massive doses of morphine. In other words, your body may be perfectly sound - and radical medical treatment can do more lasting damage than your temporary suffering will.

To add to the painful irony, many of those who are most eager to have a massive government intrusion into the market are among those whose previous intrusions into the market are largely responsible for the current financial crisis.

Obama's 'Big Brother'

In an effort to try and get everyone "thinking alike" Obama wants to start them early. We get virtually no say in our kid education, but the Gov. get to have this kind of indoctrination?


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=%2069784

"Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines

, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks."

Shoving it up our @#$%............................

This report is very important. Our government slips further and further from our control. The Demo's while assailing GWB for his "lies" that got us into the situation we are in today, themselves go about their version of legislating for our benefit.
This must be their version of "let them eat cake".


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/post_19.html



Stealthily, with minimal legislative deliberation (much less media attention), a vast new claim on the United States Treasury is being enacted into law by Congressional Democrats. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with a porked-up bill that allowed only limited debate.

An open-ended, potentially multiple-trillion dollar piece of legislation came out of committee at 6:30 p.m. (July 22, 2008) and was voted upon on the floor of the House at 2:30 p.m. the next afternoon.

Rep. John Culberson's (R-TX) office emailed this information:

H.Res. 1363 a closed rule for H.R. 3221, the Housing Omnibus bill. It
amends the latest Senate version of H.R. 3221 with a 694-page House
amendment, which was made available to House offices just 16 hours ago.

We will have only 2 hours of floor debate on the most sweeping changes
to housing law in a generation. It denies Republicans any amendments or a Motion to Recommit. [emphasis added]

That means only 1 hour of debate for each side. A final vote on the largest open-ended tax commitment levied on the federal government (and therefore its citizens personal wealth) since the New Deal, and the Republicans get one hour in which to raise objections.

The Democrats are running the 100^th Congress ruthlessly. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are largely a Democrat scandal, with names like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick major embarrassments for the Dems, and therefore objects of little interest to the media.

We are to be committed to bail out Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, banks, savings and loans, mortgage brokers, along with funding for more pork projects without our Representatives given time to actually read and study the legislation. Or time to conduct full and open debate without rules and restrictions applied to those in dissent?

Rep. Culberson, breaking House rules, sent these messages in real time from the House Floor:

• "Total unfunded liabilities of USA over 56 trillion yet today House voted to increase this liability by nearly 10 percent"
• "America's annual budget 2 trillion -- mortgage bail out taxpayer guarantee of 5 trillion in home loans -- US could only pay for it w new debt"
• "Mortgage bail out also added 800 billion to national debt limit TODAY"
• "Mortgage bill creates an open ended line of credit for Freddie/Fannie to withdraw as much taxpayer cash as they want w/o repaying us ever"

The same is occurring in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bundle all the legislation together in one massive omnibus bill -- The Advancing America's Priorities Act. This is in defiance of Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) fight to put "holds" on numerous bills while still in committee.

According to Sen. Coburn, "The Reid Omnibus is 398 pages and contains approximately 35 various bills." Coburn is also angry that Reid will not allow full and open debate on this bill. Instead Reid is forcing it through the Senate with only one vote. No debate; just one up or down vote.

Upon learning of Reid's plan, Coburn spoke these words from the floor of the Senate:

"That bill is coming about because myself and several other senators have refused to allow those bills to go without debate on this floor and without the ability to amend them. Now, some of them are very good things we ought to be about. But we should not be about it until we are going to inculcate and act as senators the same way every other family in this country has to act; that is, by making a decision based on priorities. ...

"By historical standards, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. In the 110th Congress, 890 bills have passed - 890. Fifty of them have had debate. Only 50 have had debate. And for most of those, the debate has been extremely limited and shortened through the power of the majority leader. ..." [emphasis added]

Also alarming was another Culberson message from the House floor,

"No reporters and few visitors were in the gallery to see America's gov't go into the home building and loan business -- just another day."

So don't look for video of the event on the news. Before this 110th Congress leaves for a 5 week recess it will have, according to Culberson, created the

"Biggest expansion of gov't since New Deal - just passed House 272 to 152 - this may be the best no vote I ever cast - 5 trillion new liability."

But even this is a guess because without ample time to actually read the legislation or to have full debate; no one will know what is actually in the passed legislation until it's too late. Almost without debate, and with virtually no media scrutiny, a potentially major claim on our wealth is being snuck into law.

If not for the new realtime media we probably wouldn't know this much. Which is why Congressional Democrats are trying to silence this technology enabling members to communicate directly with their constituents and the public.

Obamanomics

Grab your check books and get ready to see a wave of accounts moved out of the US.
The presumptive savior of all "he " holds dear has big plans for dipping into every one's pocketbook.

From Money at CNN.com:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008062311


"Obama's plan to shift the tax burden toward the wealthy and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 over two years (under current law it goes to $6.55 in July)."

Count on the price of everything from gas to hamburgers going up. Leftist's always think that corporations are going to take the increased cost of doing business out of their profits. Maybe they feel it they raise the minimum wage up high enough and fast enough that companies will have to absorb the cost because consumers won't.


He takes his advice from the likes of Warren Buffett, Paul Volker, Steve Jobs, Jason Furman



"The core of Obama's economic plan is:

a) more government spending: $65 billion a year for universal health insurance, $15 billion a year on alternative energy, $20 billion to help homeowners avoid default, $60 billion to bolster the nation's infrastructure, $10 billion annually to give students college tuition in exchange for public service, and on and on;

and (b) shifting the tax burden upward: ending the Bush tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 and raising payroll taxes on those same higher-income earners (the latter meant to bolster Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age). Middle-class earners would receive tax cuts, and low-income seniors would pay no income tax. Combined with a tax rebate as part of this new $50 billion stimulus plan, he argues, putting more money in the hands of middle-class consumers will help them cope with the income squeeze as well as rising energy prices.

Obama also wants to raise a range of other taxes on business and investment. He would increase the 15% capital gains tax rate - probably to 25%, according to advisors, though he excludes small businesses and new ventures from the tax altogether. He would raise the dividends tax, reinstate a 45% tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, and close $1.3 trillion in "corporate tax loopholes." The thinking behind those tax hikes comes in part from Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who has studied behavioral response to economic policies. Goolsbee believes the Republican argument that lower tax rates - by spurring investment and productivity - end up generating more revenue than they lose is overblown. (He notes that Obama wants to go back to the rates of the '90s, when the economy was booming.) Instead, he believes the tax code should be used to ease financial pressures on the middle class."

In there is no consideration to look at the current budget at take a chainsaw to it to provide the money for the changes he wants to make, just the old tired Leftist attitude of redistributing the wealth of those that have........... to those that wont.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

WP

Could be the most dangerous man in America

Barack Obama:


"Issues are never simple. One thing I'm proud of is that very rarely will you hear me simplify the issues."

"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"

"The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."


"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."


What actually not simple is trying to define who Barack Obama is and what he stands for. He was just a simple state politician until recently and now after 2 yrs as a Senator he is poised to become the leader of the free world.
Does any one else smell a rat here?? Now granted the current political climate as far as conservatives go just simply blows..........we have made our bed but it's time to change the sheets.

The person of Obama is beginning to emerge as flip flopping, racist, bordering on a pathological liar. He is beginning to say anything that sounds great to get elected and the problem is the MSM isn't checking the facts (like that's new). Also the jury is still out on whether or not he really hates America..................verdict due anyday now.

There's the Selma speech where he alleges that his father got one of those free tickets to America that Kennedy administration was handing out to young Africans and his parents met at the Selma march etc...................bullshit

He was born years BEFORE the Selma March.

His father came to the United States years BEFORE JFK took up residence in the White House.

He spends a large amount of time making up who he is and where he comes from, begs the question................who really wants him to succeed? He is really coming up against some veteran and well financed individuals and is still pushing through.


WP

Here it comes again............

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
--Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration



Write your reps.......................now, today, tell them to vote no on any type of legislation of this type.


WP

What Barack Obama learned from the Communist Party

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html


Read this article to help you understand what we're up against......................WP

Time to Get Moving

Ok, it's an election year, we conservatives have about blown it as a collective group, people lookin for change and change we need. Time to come off our high horses, roll up our sleeves and get to doing the real work of setting this place we call America back to right. The Obamanation is set to Change the World.....................give everybody a coke and a smile and one big hug.
America need a new direction....................not that one.
There are members of that party over there that are a second coming of the same ole calvary........the move to the left by many members of our society is frighting. That position has been shown over many years not to be successful..... unless your one of the ones in charge.
I say that if you move far enough to the right or the left, you end up in the same place..............a small group who "knows best" running the whole show.

What do we need to do??

Let's start by telling the truth and demanding the truth from our leaders and the media, change the reps who can't stay on track and do not support advertisers who hawk their wares using media outlets that can't report the truth, be objective or "omit" facts and stories.

Let's start calling people who they really are, no malice, just facts.
Leftists are who they are, they try to hide behind different labels (progressives etc), Islamofacists are who they are. No malice needs to be used just stick to the facts.

Let's learn to voice our case and opinions in head on debates, they of course will try and monopolize the conversation and when that doesn't work they will try and shout us down.......stand your ground, we will get no where playing their game, giving up, or just having places like talk radio to run to as our sanitaries. We must be among them, punch holes in their statements, lay waste to their ideas, but again no malice for once you loose your temper you have lost the fight.

Will it be easy? No we have to retake alot of ground and alot of trust that we let slip over the last 8 years.
But I believe that the spirit is there.........................just think back to that moment when the President stod there with that bull horn and replied "well I can hear you".................the spirit of that moment is the one we are looking for and everyone knows it's there.


Now..........................GET TO WORK.............

WP

Who are They??

Hear it all the time, "they are responsible for this", "they killed Kennedy","they only give us that"..............Who are these people?

When did "WE" give up to "they"?
The American people are being lead to think that all of us think alike, and we are the images of those that own and participate in the world of news and entertainment. That we all share those dreams and goals.............bullshit. We can think for ourselves but we seem to be on the defensive all the time because someone will laugh and put us down.
The Least and Left Coasts believe they know the way, the right way, the only way............they forget about those of us in the middle of the country and we have a voice......and when spoken together.............oh what a voice we can have.