My great great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Civil War, my grandfather watched as his friends died in WW II, and my father watched as my friends died in Vietnam

My great great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Civil War, my grandfather watched as his friends died in WW II, and my father watched as my friends died in Vietnam.
None of them died for the Mexican Flag.
Everyone died for the U.S. flag.
In Texas , a student raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole; another student took it down.  Guess who was expelled…the kid who took it down.
Kids in high school in California were sent home this year on Cinco de Mayo because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.
Enough is enough.
The below e-mail message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America .
We’ve bent over to appease the America-haters long enough.
I’m taking a stand.
I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the U.S. flag can’t stand up.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.
Let me make this perfectly clear!
And, because I make This statement
Mean I’m against immigration!!!
Welcome! To come through legally:
1. Get a sponsor!
2. Get a place to lay your head!
3. Get a job!
4. Live By OUR Rules!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
6. Learn the LANGUAGE like immigrants
have in the past!!!
7. Please don’t demand that we hand over our lifetime
savings of Social Security Funds to you.
If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone,
When will AMERICANS STOPgiving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We’ve gone so far the other way…
bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the
that’s being offended!
WAKE UP America !!!
If  You agree…. Pass this on.
If  You don’t agree.. Delete It!!!

Food Stamps:You Want Fries With That?

Judicial Watch


A government entitlement program heavily promoted by the Obama Administration
to eradicate “food insecure households” is doling out so much money that a
growing number of private businesses are competing for a piece of the lucrative

At stake are nearly $65 billion distributed annually to food-stamp recipients
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The number has skyrocketed in the
last few years (from $28.5 billion in 2005 to $64.7 billion in 2010) in part
because the Obama Administration has spent millions
of dollars to recruit
more participants and reduce the “stigma” associated
with food stamps,even as the number surged without taxpayer-funded publicity

Obama’s Agriculture
Secretary,Tom Vilsack
,claims that increasing
the number of food-stamp recipients actually helps the economy
communities and creates jobs. The USDA has cited some unknown “research” that
shows every $5 in new food-stamp benefits actually generates as much as $9 in
economic activity. The source of the research has never been revealed by the

Now so many people get food stamps in the U.S. that a growing number
of businesses—including gas stations,dollar discount stores and pharmacies—are
accepting them,according to a national newspaper
Even restaurants,which don’t participate in the program,are fighting
for a piece of the action,according to federal lobbying records cited in the


Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

By Rosslyn

The controversy over President Obama’s address to a
joint session of Congress underscores his ignorance of history, his lack of
understanding regarding the Constitution, and how lacking he is in political
skills other than speechifying.  Voters seem to instinctively understand which
issues transcend partisan politics and thus are appropriate for a presidential
address before a joint session of Congress.  They also have a history of not
responding well when that venue is misused.  Giving a political stump speech
before a joint session of Congress is simply not being

We are most familiar with the annual rite of the
president’s State of the Union address, with its stylized partisanship.  In
addition, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that the electoral
votes for president be counted before a joint session of Congress.  Diplomatic
courtesy has long honored the practice of allowing an important foreign head of
state or government to address the nation by speaking before a joint session of
Congress.  Finally, great Americans — alive and dead alike — may also be
honored by a special joint session of Congress.  These are the acceptable
reasons for Congress to meet in a joint session.  When a president addresses the
nation from inside the U.S.
on any other occasion, he is expected to speak on
matters of genuine national importance, not partisan advantage.  This is because
under our Constitution’s system of separation of powers, a president has to be
invited to come to Capitol Hill and speak.

The State of the Union address evolved from the
command in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

He shall from time to time give to Congress
information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and

“Time to time” was quickly interpreted to mean an
annual report.  Many early presidents made this report in writing, but by the
early 20th century, it became standard practice for the president to
speak on the State of the Union before a joint session of Congress.  It is now
also a tradition that in lieu of a State of the Union address, a newly
inaugurated president will address a joint session of Congress shortly after he
assumes office with an outline of his first-term agenda billed as an economic or
budget address.  A far less happy tradition has also developed.  Truman,
Johnson, and Ford each addressed a joint session of Congress after being sworn
in upon the death or resignation of their predecessors.

Outside the annual State of the Union address and
transitions of power, presidents have pretty much limited their addresses before
a joint session of Congress to major issues of national security.  Examples
include FDR’s A day that shall live in infamy speech after Pearl
Harbor, FDR again on the Yalta Conference in the closing days of WWII, Truman
announcing the Marshall Plan, Carter announcing SALT II, and Reagan’s report on
the Geneva summit.

The man the press has been trying to compare Obama to
as a communicator made only three special joint session addresses to Congress in
eight years.  In addition to the Geneva summit address, Ronald Reagan also spoke
on Central America in April, 1983.  Reagan’s April 1981 speech before a joint
session was billed as an address on the economy, but the real purpose was to
reassure both Congress and the nation that Reagan was capable of fulfilling the
duties of the office after the assassination attempt a month earlier.  That
address is a
minor masterpiece of sound economic policies
genuine bipartisanship, and grace under pressure — commodities I suspect will
be in short supply next Thursday night.

George H.W. Bush made two special addresses to
Congress in four years.  One was on the need to go to war to reverse Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, the other announced victory in that war.  Bill Clinton made
only one special address to Congress in eight years.  In September 1993, Clinton
urged the joint session of Congress to pass his health care plan.  Congress
preferred to listen to the voters instead.  The plan failed, Democrats lost
control of Congress, and Clinton decided that he had better ways to move his
agenda forward.  For the rest of his two terms he confined his appearances
before Congress to State of the Union addresses.  George W. Bush also made only
one special address to a joint session of Congress in eight years.  On September
20, 2001 he announced the War on Terror in response to the attacks on September

On September 9, 2009 Barack Obama addressed a joint
session of Congress on health care.  His address was no more successful than
Clinton’s in swaying the voters, but Congress charged ahead anyway.  Less than
two years later, having lost control of the House and with his poll numbers
sinking fast, Obama now plans on speaking again.  As Clinton learned, the track
record of presidents using a special joint session of Congress to promote
domestic policy proposals is not that great.  No one remembers Nixon’s 1971
speech on the economy or Carter’s 1977 address on energy as great moments in
political oration.  Nor does Congress take kindly to being scolded by a guest in
its own chambers.

It is noteworthy that FDR, another president revered
for his ability to sway public opinion, once attempted to do just that.  In 1935
FDR used his first special address to a joint session of Congress as the venue
to deliver his veto of the popular WWI
veteran’s bonus act
While the Senate sustained that veto, a few months later Congress sent FDR a
message.  When an almost identical bill passed a second time, a congressman took
the bill, rushed out of the Capitol, hailed a taxi, and hand-delivered it to the
White House, daring a second veto.  That veto was handily overridden, and for
his remaining decade in office, FDR limited his requests to address a special
session of Congress to issues of national security.

It is true that Truman addressed the so-called
nothing” Congress
domestic issues in a joint session in July 1948 and then came from behind to win
reelection, but 1948 was one of the most unusual presidential election years in
American history.  Truman had not been elected to the office, and both his style
and his social background were poles apart from those of the man he replaced.
He did not enjoy FDR’s relationship with many in the national press, who often
treated him as a temporary place-keeper until another member of the East Coast
establishment could take over.  The Democrats were badly divided that election,
with not one, but two splinter candidates that year.  Progressive Party
candidate Henry Wallace had been FDR’s vice president before he was replaced by
Truman in 1944, and Strom Thurmond’s candidacy was the Southern Democrat
response to the growing power of Northern Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, who
led the 1948 platform fight on Civil Rights.  The Republicans were incredibly
complacent in the face of this disarray among their opponents.  Thomas Dewey ran
one of the most lackadaisical presidential campaigns in memory, while the
Republican Congress failed to connect with the concerns of many returning GIs.
Several historic bills had been passed by that “do nothing” Congress, but they
were mostly related to the growing Cold War, containing communism, and business
interests.  Domestic matters such as new housing were high on the list of voter

What Truman did in his whistle stop campaign was, in
effect, to introduce himself firsthand to voters in America’s heartland in the
age before television.  Many were pleasantly surprised to see that he was very
much one of their own — a plain-spoken Middle-Westerner who hadn’t particularly
sought great ambition but who eagerly accepted the responsibility and who
offered commonsense solutions.

If anything, Obama’s situation is almost the opposite
of Truman’s.  Obama has long dwelt inside the cocoon of Ivy League-educated
experts bereft of common sense, and if anything, he has been massively
overexposed in the media.  Since 2004, the press has been extolling Obama’s
intelligence, wisdom, and first-rate temperament at every opportunity.  Many
voters took Obama at the media’s estimation of his skills in 2008.  The record
increasingly suggests that in fact, Obama possess none of these traits.  The
patented Obama partisan speech with its straw men, false choices,
blame-shifting, and self-aggrandizement in the very heart of representative
democracy is likely to only make more people realize what a terrible mistake
they made in 2008.

Spending Cuts

Salary of the US President ……………….$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ………….$180,000
Salary of House/Senate ……………………$174,0​00
Salary of Speaker of the House …………..$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders …….. .$193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made ! If you agree…RE-POST

Open letter to Sen John McCain

Senator McCain,

My husband
worked and paid into Social Security from 1952 to 1998. That’s 46 years. I paid
into it from 1953, on and off for 8 years. My job was to stay home and raise
two sons.

Tell me why
it’s called entitlement. Because of reckless decisions and spending in
Washington we have not had a cost of living raise since 2009. Our cost have
gone up like everybody else’s, but you voted to give these benefits to illegals
who have not put in one penny. WHY?

Please, be the
Conservative Representative we hoped you were when we voted for you. Perhaps
you’ve been in Washington too long and made too many friends across the aisle.
Is that it?

Our Country and
our National Reputation are being stolen out from under us. I’m 78 years old
and have seen a lot of different people come to represent me, but at this time
I do not have a voice in Washington.

Spencer, my Great Granddad, removed nine times, was one of the Founders of
Jamestown. He came here in 1607 on the Susan Constant. The people on the three
ships met at Cape Henry, Virginia and raised a 7 foot wooden cross and
consecrated the land to God. I mention this because our [present] President
says we are not a Christian nation. He didn’t even come here until he was grown
and I am not that sure that he was ever an American. I’ve read his wife’s
thesis and certainly she’s not proud to be an American.

We are in need
of Proud, Conservative, Fearless, Patriotic and Godly people to save our country.
Please, stand up and be that person. Never before do I remember a voice in
Washington from the Oval Office being so ready to criticize our USA.

Bettye Simmons

Tempe, AZ

Bad omen for Obama; Locked out of White House

Bad omen for Obama; Locked out of White House

Jeannie DeAngelis


than spending quality time in Rio
de Janeiro
, Barack Obama
has had a rough couple of weeks. First, there was the promise of no
on the ground in
Libya immediately followed the potential for boots on the ground in Libya. Then
the exotically titled “Operation Odyssey
” got the lowest
approval rating of
any military operation in recent history. Obama’s “kinetic” endeavor seems to be surrounded by
confusion and inconsistency, as well as humiliating “return the
” buzz.  By all
definitions, Obama is in the process being
slammed by a force generated by his own outstanding competency at being
outstandingly incompetent.

Vowing to never give up the Nobel
Peace Prize, the President, after being
by French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, returned
from a “five-day”
trip to Latin America and nonchalantly “strolled up” to the French doors of the
Oval Office only to find them locked. Anxious for solace behind the Resolute
and far from the
dissonance of world events, Obama shook the handle to no avail.

Hearing about
the President’s dilemma brought back a distinct childhood memory.   Locked out
of the house, my 4′ 11” Sicilian grandmother located and dragged two milk
crates alongside the Brooklyn domicile, balanced one on top of the other,
shimmied through a very highly situated kitchen window and slid head first into
the sink before jumping from the counter to the floor.

After realizing the door to the Oval
Office was locked, Obama also managed to gain entry.  The President “appeared to
be whistling” as he made his way down from the secured entrance “to another set
of doors that” that swung open and warmly welcomed the returning

Grandma Josephine was resourceful,
fiercely independent and fully assured that despite being locked out of the
house the situation in no way indicated she was no longer welcome on the
premises.  On the other hand, based on the sequence of events, public opinion,
and circumstances surrounding anything even remotely involving Barack Obama of
late, he probably wondered at least for a second or two whether the universe was
conveying a message that paralleled his recent words to Eliot

Congressman Eliot
Engel (D-NY) said, “Everything that the President has indicated to me [about
Libya] is that we expect to be ‘in
and out
‘ very quickly.”

The vision of
President Obama encountering a locked door and having to search for another way
to access the “seat
of power
” drips with
.  Could it be that,
without milk crates, ingenuity and self-determination, the same type of speedy
timeframe threatens to befall Strolling Doorknob Jiggler Barack Obama’s
Washington DC tenure?

The Oval Office lock out could be
dress rehearsal for what lies ahead for Barack in the coming year. For President
“in and out very quickly” Obama, the impenetrable, dead-bolted entryway may be a
prophetic message to a man whose abysmal domestic and foreign policy skills tend
to indicate that after the 2012 election, Barry’s house keys will no longer fit
the door.

Author’s content:

Our Only Answer is Bankruptcy

Our Only Answer is Bankruptcy

January 18th, 2011

Thomas Sowell, Investors Business Daily

(Thomas Sowell discusses abolishing the Fed on
Judge Napolitano’s show.
Government budget crises can be painful, but the political rhetoric
accompanying these crises can also be fascinating and revealing.
Perhaps the most famous American budget crisis was New York City’s, back
during the 1970s. When President Gerald Ford was unwilling to bail them out, the
famous headline in the New York Daily News read, “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”
President Ford caved and bailed them out, after all. The rhetoric worked.
That is why so many other cities and states — not to mention the federal
government — have continued on with irresponsible spending, and are now facing
new budget crises, with no end in sight.
What would have happened if Ford had stuck to his guns and not set the
dangerous precedent of bailing out local irresponsibility with the taxpayers’
money? New York would have gone bankrupt. But millions of individuals and
organizations go bankrupt without dropping dead.
Bankruptcy conveys the plain facts that political rhetoric tries to conceal.
It tells people who depended on the bankrupt government that they can no longer
depend on that bankrupt government. It tells the voters who elected that
bankrupt government, with its big spending promises, that they made a bad
mistake that they would be wise to avoid making again in the future.
Legally, bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, whose
extravagant pay and pension contracts are bleeding municipal and state
governments dry. Is putting an end to political irresponsibility and legalized
union racketeering dropping dead?
Politics being what it is, we are sure to hear all sorts of doomsday rhetoric
at the thought of cutbacks in government spending. The poor will be starving in
the streets, to hear the politicians and the media tell it.
Party On
But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the
streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding
unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the
taxpayers blind.
Letting armies of government employees retire in their 50s, to live for
decades on pensions larger than they were making when they were working, costs a
lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.
Pouring the taxpayers’ money down a thousand bottomless pits of public and
private boondoggles costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the
Bankruptcy says: “We just don’t have the money.” End of discussion.