(When you have read what Pat Boone wrote about Obama(below), you may want to click on the link to “Snopes”, which brings up a page telling you that this is an actual letter written by Pat Boone – and very well written, I might add.)

The President Without A Country



By Pat Boone


“We’re no longer a Christian nation.” – President Barack Obama, June 2009

” America has been arrogant.” – President Barack Obama

“After 9/11, America didn’t always live up to her ideals.”- President Barack Obama

“You might say that America is a Muslim nation.”- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he’s president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale’s “The Man Without a Country,” a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, “Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!”

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: “You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country’s naval vessels – under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed.”

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan’s dying hours in his small stateroom – now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore – never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president – a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white – I want to ask him, “Just what country do you think you’re president of?”

You surely can’t be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It’s because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn’t you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark “Federalist Papers”: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers – and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation – to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: “Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900’s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a “wall of separation between church and state” was used to deny some specific religious expression – contrary to Jefferson’s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute: were your ideas about America’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that “America is no longer a Christian nation”? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that “America has been arrogant”?

Even if that’s the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of “not always living up to her ideals,” how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be “considered a Muslim nation”?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a “Muslim nation”?

Why are we not, then, a “Chinese nation”? A “Korean nation”? Even a “Vietnamese nation”? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you’re trying to make is a religious one, why is America not “a Jewish nation”? There’s actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution – and the success of our Revolution and founding – owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Sharia law, can’t you? You do recall Muhammad’s directives [Surah 9:5,73] to “break the cross” and “kill the infidel”?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are “no longer Christian,” who have “failed to live up to our ideals,” who “have been arrogant,” and might even be “considered Muslim” – you are president of a country most Americans don’t recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?


To all of you who love your Christian beliefs and your country, forward this message to all in your address book. We simply cannot be subjected to another term by this president!

Starbucks’ Schultz Urges Fellow CEOs to Halt Campaign Giving

Starbucks’ Schultz Urges Fellow CEOs to Halt Campaign Giving

            By Leslie Patton –             Aug 15, 2011

Starbucks Corp. (SBUX) Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz urged other CEOs to boycott donating to U.S. political campaigns to encourage leaders to solve the nation’s growing budget deficit.

“I am asking that all of us forego political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people,” Schultz wrote in an e-mail sent to business leaders that was obtained by Bloomberg News.

Schultz, 58, joined Starbucks about three decades ago and later served as CEO until in 2000. He took the reins again in 2008 amid slumping sales growth after the company expanded too rapidly. The Starbucks leader has spoken on issues such as the high price of coffee, which he says is driven by market speculation.

Among the recipients of Schultz’s e-mail were NYSE Euronext CEO Duncan Niederauer and Bob Greifeld, CEO of Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., who in turn e-mailed letters to companies listed on their respective exchanges.

Schultz encouraged fellow business leaders in the e-mail to“voice your perspective publicly” and said that “businesses need to do all they can to accelerate job creation.”

Corey duBrowa, a spokesman for Seattle-based Starbucks, said the e-mail was sent last night and dated Aug. 15.

Schultz donated to Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington state Democrat, in March, according to

Starbucks is the world’s largest coffee-shop operator with about 10,900 U.S. stores.

The New York Times earlier reported on Schultz’s e-mail.

To contact the reporter on this story: Leslie Patton in Chicago at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kevin Orland at

Class Warfare Erupts Into Just Plain Warfare

Class Warfare Erupts Into Just Plain Warfare

By Joseph

Lately it seems the only thing more sobering than
America’s creeping decline is Europe’s rapid decline.  The riots in London put a
painfully fine point on the dark future that awaits us.  It is true that Greece,
Spain, Portugal, and Italy show us the grim numerical realities of unlimited
government, but all those nations were past their prime before the American

Great Britain is different.  There are people alive
now who remember when Great Britain was the preeminent world power.  Today’s
hollowed-out version serves as an example of how quickly greatness can slip
through a nation’s fingers.

The riots in London show the logical conclusion of a
brand politics which is ashamed of national identity and is built on class

The violence was lit off when, in what has been
reported as a gunfight between London police and some number of alleged
assailants, a black man named Mark Duggan was killed.  Years of
multiculturalism’s racial-grievance appeasement led the first rioters to seek
retribution for supposed police racism.  Never mind that an officer was hurt in
the confrontation or, as a friend described it, Duggan was “involved in things”
— rioters maintained that Duggan’s family required “justice.”

Before long, the racial component of the protest was
swallowed up in an apparent socioeconomic war.  To try to decipher the mob’s
motivations, an incredulous BBC reporter asked
rioters, “Why is it targeting local people, your own people?”  One of the two
drunken assailants responded, “It’s the rich people.  It’s the rich people, the
people who’ve got businesses, and that’s why this has

The “this” in her statement doesn’t refer to the riots
themselves, but some condition over which the rioters are protesting.  Mary
Riddell of the UK Telegraph calls the
riots an uprising of the “underclass.”  Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone
blames the
violence on “social division” brought on by conservative cuts to welfare
spending.  The New York Times writes that
the cuts in social programs “have hit the country’s poor especially hard,
including large numbers of the minority youths who have been at the forefront of
the unrest.”

Such conclusions fit the longtime political narrative
of the left, but they struggle to match reality.  After faulting government
austerity for causing the violence, the Times reports that British
authorities may disable BlackBerry Messenger’s encryption capability.  Why?
Because rioters are coordinating attacks using the private message system.  How
exactly we can call these smartphone-owning agitators “the underclass” is
unclear.  What is clear, however, is that, on some level, the rioters believe
it.  “This was always going to happen,” declared Tony, a former resident who
believes the left’s narrative.

Belief in the “underclass” meme sets England’s anarchy
apart from most other austerity-related vandalism.  The protests in Wisconsin,
for example, were a combination of well-to-do leftists chasing Vietnam-era nostalgia and a privileged public-sector
union class who wanted to maintain their favored position.  Conversely, the
English rioters genuinely appear to believe that they are somehow

As a result, those who have their schooling, food,
housing, and medical care paid for are now turning on their benefactors,
ostensibly as punishment for the benefactors’ privilege.  It is not so difficult
to see how such a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement and backward view of
personal property can come to exist.

Just look at the terms of the recent debt ceiling
debate here at home.  “It’s not right to ask middle-class families to pay more”
President Obama while advocating for his so-called balanced approach.  Nancy
Pelosi said of
one Republican plan that it “burdens the middle class and seniors.”  To read
these sentiments, one would think that huge tax increases on the middle class
and seniors were on the table.  But no such proposal ever existed.  The “burden”
and “pay hike” described by Democrats were actually a reduction in transfer
payments to these groups.  That mindset equates shrinking a social program to
stealing from the program’s beneficiaries.

Thus a free and prosperous society destroys itself.
Both Great Britain and America became the world’s leading economic powers
because they fiercely protected their citizens’ property rights.  Not
surprisingly, both nations sink into decline as they now fiercely protect their
citizens’ ability to violate property rights.

John Adams, a man who was both a British subject and
an American president, shared these prophetic words in 1787: “The moment the
idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of
God…anarchy and tyranny commence.”  Because England was ashamed of her
national identity and cast aside her protection of property rights, anarchy and
tyranny have commenced.  Tragically, America nips at her

Page Printed from:

at August 11, 2011 – 11:51:27 AM CDT



Independence Day 2011: Happy 235th birthday, America

Independence Day 2011: Happy 235th birthday, America

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 3, 2011 11:09 PM

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton



Photo credit and source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Randall Clinton via

Don’t forget: We remain the land of the free because of the brave. These are U.S. Marines assigned to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, most of whom joined the service after the jihadi attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They ran in NYC in honor of 9/11 heroes and victims recently during Fleet Week.

And here’s the story of U.S. Army Spc. Matthew Thomas, who survived an insurgent rocket attack June 6 on Forward Operating Base Loyalty near Baghdad that took the lives of six of his fellow soldiers. He’s home for Independence Day, but will return to Iraq to finish his second tour of duty:

“This July 4th will have special meaning,” Thomas said. “I will be thinking of those lost to make freedom possible.”

…Thomas, whose family has deep roots in the area, joined the Army in 2006.

“I asked myself, ‘If others are serving, why shouldn’t I? I want to help and serve,’” he said.

He served in Iraq in 2008-09 and began his current tour in 2010. He is assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kansas.

“Those serving feel there is no duty too difficult, and no sacrifice too great,” to protect the country, he said. “The ultimate sacrifice of these six soldiers may help save thousands in the U.S. by avoiding a terrorist attack” on American soil.

God bless all our men and women in uniform on this and every day.


I’m still in London, where many Americans will celebrate Independence Day at Grosvenor Square with the unveiling of a Ronald Reagan statue:

An $800,000 statue honoring former President Ronald Reagan is set to be unveiled on Independence Day, joining monuments to Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower in the heart of the British capital.

At a time when the much-celebrated “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain is widely seen to have frayed, about 2,000 people are expected at the ceremony. Organizers say that is about ten times the typical crowd for such an event.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who declined an invitation to Prince William’s recent wedding due to her poor health, is said to be “determined” to attend. Now aged 85, the “Iron Lady” rarely appears in public.

Nancy Reagan will be represented at the ceremony by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who will give the keynote address. U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman and a congressional delegation led by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy are also due to attend on Monday.

Reagan Foundation executive director John Heubusch told that roughly $800,000 had been raised from private donors for the sculpture, with around 40 percent of the funds coming from people in the U.K.

Sculpted by Charlotte, N.C.-based artist Chas Fagan, the 10-foot bronze will stand near statues of Eisenhower and Roosevelt outside the U.S. Embassy in Grosvenor Square. A plaque will recognize the 40th president’s role in ending the Cold War.

The ceremony will be part of a European tour celebrating Reagan’s 100th birthday.

One of Reagan’s famous quotations engraved on the statue provides an apt warning for holiday revelers who forget the reason for the season:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

May we never take for granted the sovereignty and liberty our Founding Fathers risked their lives to secure 235 years ago.

Charlie Sheen: Typical Addict

Charlie Sheen: Typical Addict

By Nancy


I know Charlie Sheen. I’ve never met him, and I don’t
wish to. But I know who he is and how he feels. He is no super-star and he is
not unique. He is merely a typical addict/alcoholic.

Charlie Sheen’s continuing public meltdowns come as no surprise to anyone
who has ever attended an Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous meeting. His drug
induced behavior is the norm for millions who struggle daily with substance
abuse. Some give in to it, as Sheen has, and others manage, for a day at a time,
to remain clean and sober.
Make no mistake, drugs and booze offer an enticing alternative to harsh
reality. When one is under the influence, reality becomes whatever you want it
to be. The capacity for self-delusion is unequaled, at least till it’s time for
another fix or drink. For most substance abusers, this imagined reality must be
maintained at any cost. Hey, who wants to admit to needing a crutch? Better to
redefine reality to a less judgmental interpretation.
Science has not yet determined whether alcoholism or drug addiction is
genetically determined. No-one has figured out why one person can have just one
drink while another must continue drinking well past the drunken stage. There
are, however, certain common patterns of behavior that remain exclusive to
substance abusers. And Charlie Sheen exhibits them all.
Denial: The stock-in-trade of drunks who have not yet lost
everything. To acknowledge a problem means having to deal with it. And taking a
pill or drink instantly banishes that annoying intrusion of reality. Until the
day it doesn’t.
Grandiosity: Anyone who has seen Sheen’s recent appearances on TV should be able to recognize his
increasing disconnect from reality.
Because Sheen has mucho bucks and an entourage of enabling sycophants, it
is unlikely that he will beat his addiction. He will continue to insist his
version of reality is the correct one and will continue to willfully ignore the
myriad warning signs that are so obvious to the unimpaired.
Charlie Sheen is a pathetic drunk. The only thing that separates him from
the gutter is his money. He is not unique. He is a typical substance abuser,
just like the homeless drunks you see in the inner city. The only difference is,
Charlie isn’t homeless.  And despite his insistence on redefining reality to his
specifications, there are certain realities he can’t change.

Alcoholism is a progressive disease. There comes a point when
ever larger quantities of drugs or booze are required to maintain the illusion
of euphoria. Soon the drugs cease to produce a high and instead result in severe
depression and the inability to reason logically. Many drunks hit their bottom
when this happens. Many die. A lucky few are forced to start the rough road to

Another reality Sheen can’t change is the fact that when drunks and
users are under the influence, they don’t mature normally. If a drunk started
drinking at age 17, the emotional and social maturity remains at 17 years old.
Sheen’s show, “Two and a Half Men,” is appropriately titled. Sheen is half a man
— lacking the behavioral maturity that normally comes with age.
Charlie Sheen is one of the unlucky ones, like Anna Nicole, Elvis Presley,
Michael Jackson, and many other stars. He has the means to indulge his addiction
and the money to enable him to continue to escape the consequences of his
destructive behavior. So far.

Charlie has publicly stated that being
sober is boring. It appears he does not have the will or desire to change his
behavior.  I doubt Charlie has the fortitude or character to ever admit he is
just a typical addict, which is the one essential step on the road to recovery.
I predict that when Charlie hits bottom, and he will, he will not be able to
bounce back.

Rasmussen just published a poll showing that 71% have an unfavorable
impression of the “Two and a Half Men” star. But that doesn’t keep Americans
from eagerly watching his life become a train wreck. Sheen’s oh so public
appearances titillate those that need someone to feel better than. Sheen
interprets the interest as support.  I’m embarrassed for him.
Like all of those who live their lives under the influence, the day is
coming when Charlie will hit his bottom. He will self-destruct and finally have
to make a choice that all addicts are eventually forced to make. Death or
sobriety. Personally, I think he has already decided.

is a columnist and news editor for
conservative news site
lives in South Carolina.

End Public Sector Unions…Period

End Public Sector Unions…Period

By C. Edmund


It’s about time.  I’ve been waiting for this debate to mature for 15 years.
The battles in Wisconsin and New Jersey over public sector union benefits
are merely financial precursors to a much bigger ideological war that has been
on the horizon now for years, if not decades.  When you acknowledge the coming
battle, you realize that Governors Walker and Christie — courageously as they
are behaving — are only nibbling at the edges of the real issue.
And the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed
to exist.  Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the
equation, the answer is a resounding no.  And the foundational reason is
simple.  There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are
actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Well let’s see what went wrong: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan,
Chicago, New York State, New York City, Wisconsin…on and on I could go
including almost every city and state where government workers are
Oh, and have you seen pictures of Detroit lately?
The problem is that our country has been lulled to sleep over decades of
hearing that government workers are dedicated and low paid public servants who
trade good pay for security.  And every time a union pay debate came up, it
seemed like only cops and fire fighters and teachers were mentioned.  No one
stopped to think that most government workers are actually bureaucratic charmers
like those we see at the DMV and other government offices — and not “heroic
teachers” or crime fighters.
But as long as the private sector was humming along, there was no reason
for reality to permeate that myth in most peoples’ minds.  But the reality is
that government workers long ago passed private sector workers in pay and
benefits, and now the compensation is more like 150% or even double, factoring
in all the benefits, including more vacation days than private sector workers
enjoy.  And of course, the inestimable value of job security remains intact and
strengthened — while all of us in the private sector deal daily with the
risk-reward constraints of reality that are only getting riskier.
And along the way — with a public school teacher-educated population that
understands virtually nothing about economics — the sheer idiocy of the concept
of government unions escaped almost everybody.  It’s almost as if the union
teachers were lying to their students about economics on purpose.
Consider: Unions exist primarily for the function of collective bargaining,
where the union bosses will negotiate on behalf of all the workers with the
management of a company over pay and benefits and other conditions.  This
built-in adversarial relationship along with the realities of a limited resource
— known as operating revenues — do a pretty good job for the most part of
keeping contracts in line.
The union bosses represent the workers.  Management represents everybody
else, including the stockholders, vendors, customers and potential customers of
the company.  In other words, management represents everyone whose interests are
served by keeping payroll costs down.
In the case of a government workforce, those whose interests are served by
keeping costs down would include all who pay taxes and fees to said government.
In other words, the universe of folks represented by management is far larger
than that represented by the union.  This inherent tension is the invisible hand
of reality that keeps collective bargaining in line.
However, public sector “collective bargaining” is a bad joke, given that
there are only chairs on one side of the bargaining table.  The bigger universe
of interested parties have zero representation in the process.  There is no
natural force working to keep costs in line.
Moreover, quite often the very politicians who are “negotiating” with the
public unions are politicians who have been financed by those same unions.  At
least Bernie Madoff ripped off his clients with some panache.  No such style is
even required in a public sector union negotiation when the folks in charge are
bought and paid for Democrats.
Under any circumstances and in any economy, it is simply a matter of time
before these costs reach a tipping point.  We are at that time.  There is simply
no more money to give to these public sector unions — period.
And that is why we are seeing what we are seeing in Madison this week and
it is why we have seen the emergence of Chris Christie as a national
phenomenon.  And I welcome it.  Things are finally so bad — that they are
good.  And by good, I mean that folks now cannot help but pay attention to the
issue of public sector unions.
I submit that the very existence of these unions has only been allowed to
happen because it’s the kind of issue an electorate is never forced to confront
— until they are forced to confront it.  And now they are.  There is, as
Charles Krauthammer said, a bit of an earthquake in the country.  People are
sensing that the nation is spinning off a cliff.
And of course it is, and public sector unions are one huge reason why.
This conclusion is inescapable.  And when you understand that, you understand
that public sector unions cannot be allowed to exist.  If they are, we will
never turn back from the cliff.

Faith is the Source of America’s Greatness

Faith is the Source of America’s Greatness

December 10th, 2010

Floyd and Mary Beth Brow,

“America  is great  because she is good.”  Those famous  words by Alexis de  Tocqueville  still hold true as they did when he  spoke them centuries  ago.   In the  holiday season, we see repeated  demonstrations of this  goodness.  De  Tocqueville also noted, “The  Americans combine the  notions of religion  and liberty so intimately in  their minds, that it  is impossible to make  them conceive of one without  the other.”

And moreover he said, “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

In   the 40 years since 1970, secular humanism has assaulted the  fabric of   this faith. The American Civil Liberties Union and various   associations  of atheists and Marxist-leaning intellectuals have   attempted to  disconnect America from God. They have failed….

Read more.

Celebrating the Declaration of Independence

July 4th, 2010

Celebrating the Declaration of Independence

Happy Birthday, America


Conceived in liberty, born in conflict, the United States of America has stood as a beacon of hope for mankind the world over, ever since that fateful day 234 years ago in Philadelphia, when courageous men signed the Declaration of Independence. They came from all walks of life, but shared one thing in common, a burning desire to be free, and to confer that freedom to all of their descendants, whether by family ties or those bound by the unity of their American citizenship.


The road we have walked as American has rarely been smooth or straight. We have been challenged and tested many times in many ways – by wars, natural disasters, disease, economic chaos, political strife, and yet the underlying documents that bind us have prevailed until now.


Today, we stand at crossroads as we face a new kind of enemy, more insidious, and in numerous ways, more insidious than any we have ever known. The enemy is among us, having insinuated its way into the highest offices of the land, threatening our liberty and the very foundations that have made us the nation we have become.


There have been times past when our patriotism has waxed and waned, when the pedestrian burdens that life imposes have distracted us, when we have become complacent in the assumption that all we enjoy is the normal human condition, but it is not. Our liberty was hard won, and must be fought for to maintain.


We are reminded, today, of an immigrant to these shores – Mr. Thomas Paine, a man of modest means who became an anonymous pamphleteer, in a role we well know. Mr. Paine cloaked himself in anonymity to avoid the hangman’s noose. Not all of brave signers of the Declaration of Independence were equally fortunate to survive the Revolution without having to wear the necktie of death. We at  C O M M O N  S E N S E are similarly anonymous, but for reasons that we wish only our ideas to be challenged, and this is best accomplished without the publication of persona.


Throughout the year, we normally ask you to examine just facts and events using your intellect. Today, on our Nation’s birthday, we would like to pull at the heartstrings of your emotions.


Feel free to read the Declaration of Independence  and then take a moment to see and hear the debut of one of our nation’s most stirring anthems. Written in 1917 by Irving Berlin, it was first performed by Kate Smith on Armistice Day, November 11, 1941, just a bare two weeks before the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. As you hear the words, join us in wishing America a grand happy birthday, with many happy returns.


God Bless America.  

 ______________________________________________________________________Who the author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776.”





Copy and paste into your E-mail send it to  youe wole list EVERYONE needs to hear this it is breath taking

Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing ‘Offensive’–but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama

Fox News Radio: The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.