Twas the Month before Christmas

Twas the Month before Christmas 

 

Twas the month before Christmas

 

When all through our land,

 

Not a Christian was praying

 

Nor taking a stand.

 

See the PC Police had taken away

 

The reason for Christmas - no one could say.

 

The children were told by their schools not to sing

 

About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

 

It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say

 

 December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.

 

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit

 

Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

 

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod

 

Something was changing, something quite odd! 

 

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa

 

In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

 

As Targets were hanging their trees upside down

 

At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.

 

At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears

 

You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.

 

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty

 

Are words that were used to intimidate me.

 

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen

 

On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!

 

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter

 

To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.

 

And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith

 

 Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace

 

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded

 

The reason for the season, stopped before it started.

 

So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'

 

Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.

 

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say

 

Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,

 

Not Happy Holiday!

 

Please, all Christians join together and

 

Wish everyone you meet

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

Christ is The Reason' for the Christ-mas Season!

FINALLY, a great alternative to body scanners at airports . . .

 FINALLY, a great alternative to body scanners at airports . . .

The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.

It's a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.  They see this as a win-win for everyone with no crap about racial profiling.  It also would eliminate the costs of long and expensive trials.  Justice would be swift, case closed!

You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system . . . "Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight number XXXX.

Shalom!"

Death Panels, VAT Will Fix Debt Crisis

Note:  In 'newspeak'/demospeak "CLAIRIFY" means that 'we meant it but we don't want you to THINK we meant it'.

Krugman: Death Panels, VAT Will Fix Debt Crisis

Sunday, 14 Nov 2010

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of "death panels" (those 'they aren't in the bill death panels) and a national sales tax. (oh goody... ANOTHER tax!)

The national sales tax, referred to as VAT (value-added tax) and widely used by governments across Europe, will help cut the U.S deficit, Krugman argues. (does just cutting spending ever cross their little narrow minds????)

Krugman made his comments on ABC's “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Here's the key excerpt:
"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."  (ANOTHER good reason to vote them ALL out of control and/or impeach the 'leader' so it will NOT happen at all!!!!!)

The Obama healthcare plan passed by Congress in 2010 includes government-run healthcare committees with sweeping powers, including the power to engage in competitive pricing and cost analysis, a system used by Britain that has led to rationing of medical care for the elderly.
Critics of the Obama plan, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, quickly dubbed the committees "death panels," saying government agencies would decide who would live and who would die. Supporters of the Obama health plan dismissed such suggestions as nonsense.  (oh right, yeah sure)

Krugman apparently thinks otherwise, and suggests that such death panels could be one way the federal government will be able to deal with soaring medical costs under control as the Baby Boomers enter retirement. (how about NOT allowing illegal aliens have any of it????)

He continued: "If they [the Debt Commission] were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, ‘OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

(why is the 'Debt Commission meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Phoenix???? Why not use the internet teleconferencing of 'Go To Meeting.com???)

Krugman also criticized Republican plans to fully extend the Bush tax cuts, including those who make more than $250,000 a year.  

(since an increasing population must live in metropolitan centers like NYC.... have you ever tried to raise a family on less than $250,000??? that's just lower middle class in many cities.....)

He said: "The cost of permanently extending just the upper-end Bush tax cuts, as opposed to only extending the middle-class tax cuts, the 75-year cost of that is just about identical to the 75-year accounting shortfall in Social Security. So we've got people who are saying, ‘Oh, Social Security, got to do something about it, but let's extend those tax cuts for rich people. This is showing how the priorities are all skewed.’”

(How about allowing small businesses create more jobs which will feed into the Social Security ponzi scheme????  It is really THEIR priorities that are all skewed, but when your head isn't screwed on too tight that's the sort of thinking you are likely to get.)

Apparently realizing his comments were inflammatory, Krugman took to his blog Sunday afternoon to immediately “clarify”*** his comments.

“I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify*** what I meant, which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again,” he wrote. “So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”.

“What I meant is that:

"(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

"(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax

And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.

He then provided a link to a June 20th column in which he also described “death panels,” but only in passing and in a mocking way. The column is actually about budget deficits.

What he doesn't say is that he has written at least half a dozen columns repeatedly referring to death panels the last year in an ongoing effort to malign Palin and other conservatives.

Krugman also conceded his solution may be “politically impossible.” But, he added, “I believe that some day — maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration — it will actually happen.”

Do we have any reality squads around?????

PROGRESSIVES??????????? Fair????????

What we have below is the example of what can happen when you allow the 'media' to formulate your opinions because they don't give you all the facts, because they use labels when they know that the facts do not support their views and because we have a totally dumbed down and propagandized public educational system that inhibits and demeans logical thinking.....

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year,....

 would you have approved?  

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years,....

 would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read,

    

would you have called him an 'ignorant hot head'?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration,....

   would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on? (yes, GW WAS way too cozy with the elite of Mexico but.....)

If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident .....would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed.....      ....  would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, ......

......would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? .... like George Soros and William 'I regret I didn't kill more at the Pentagon bombing as a member of the Weathermen' Ayers

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, 

.......would you have approved? 

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM,....

........would you have approved? 

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, .........would you have approved? 

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown (Prime Minister of UK) a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, ....

..........would you have approved? 

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches,......

......... would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? 

  

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, .....

...........would you have approved? 

  

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language,"  (they speak GERMAN... how hard is THAT to know????)

.......... would you have brushed it off as a  minor slip? 

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes,....

.......... would you have approved? 

  

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in theUnited States, ........ (well, good grief!  Obama was not even RAISED/EDUCATED in the U.S. so what would you expect????)

............would you have said that he is 'clueless'?

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front    door in Texas, ......

............ would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,....

......... would you have winced in embarrassment? 

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes....

........... as proof of what a dunce he is? 

  

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day,.......

............ would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? 

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, ......

............... would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? 

  

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in  New Orleans,........

........... would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue  with claims of racism and incompetence? 

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America,.........

............ would you have approved? 

  

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,............

............ would you have approved?  

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? 

Can't think of anything? 

Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama.  

Every idiocy is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

THE POLITICAL TOOL OF SOCIALISTS - THE COURTS!!!!

HERE'S THE REAL REASON.... AND HOW THEY ARE DOING IT... THE COURTS
...AND YOU THOUGHT THAT THE DEMS WERE JUST 'SENSITIVE' PEOPLE?  And the 9th Court of Appeals seems to think it is a law until itself!  But what the heck?  It IS in San Francisco.  Do you think it might be the water..... and that's why bottled water is now prohibited in government offices?

Federal Court Nixes Ariz. Effort to Protect Integrity of Elections

By James Walsh

The United States through acts of Congress and the complicity of some federal judges has now –– at least until the U.S. Supreme Court rules –– sanctioned the “right” of non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections. The Democratic Party actively concurs.

On Oct. 26, 2010, the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in its Gonzalez v. State of Arizona decision declared that Proposition 200, a state law passed as a voter initiative requiring voters in Arizona to document that they are U.S. citizens, is superseded by federal statute. The Court held that the Arizona law conflicted with the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.

Congress enacted NVRA, in response to claims that states were discriminating and harming voters of “various groups, including racial minorities.” Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an Arizona native, joined Judge Sandra Ikuta to form the majority, while Chief Judge Alex Kozinski dissented. Ikuta was previously a law clerk to Kozinski and then to O’Connor.

NVRA includes the Motor-Voter Law (MVL), which allows applicants for drivers licenses to simultaneously register to vote. MVL requires that the voter registration form be part of the drivers license application and that voters can register to vote by mail. On the mail-in registration form, an applicant merely checks a box that he or she is a U.S. citizen. The form has a disclaimer providing a criminal penalty for providing false information, yet it requires no verification.

In the Gonzalez v. State of Arizona opinion, the two-judge majority found the Arizona law to be in conflict with the federal law, because “It is indisputable that by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, Proposition 200 (Arizona Law) creates an additional state hurdle to registration.” They concluded that NVRA supersedes Arizona’s voter registration requirement for federal elections.

In contrast, Kozinski wrote a cogent and withering dissent, in which he opined: “In this case, the text of the NVRA doesn’t ‘directly address the precise question at issue’. . . namely whether states can ask for supplemental proof of citizenship . . . Arizona gladly accepts and uses the federal form, it just asks that voters also provide some proof of citizenship.”

Pointing out the fallacy of the majority opinion, Kozinski held: “Congress thus told us that it was concerned with maximizing the registration of ‘eligible’ voters, in addition ‘to protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process’ and ‘ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.’ None of these purposes is served when individuals who are not citizens register to vote.”

Proposition 200 was passed by the citizens of Arizona in 2004 because of the increasing number of illegal aliens in the state who were usurping the rights of U.S. citizens while remaining citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries. Many citizens believed that the state was coming to resemble part of Mexico with illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and gang-bangers running loose. The State of Arizona was losing control.at the Arizona law 

conflicted with the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.

Congress enacted NVRA, in response to claims that states were discriminating and harming voters of “various groups, including racial minorities.” Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an Arizona native, joined Judge Sandra Ikuta to form the majority, while Chief Judge Alex Kozinski dissented. Ikuta was previously a law clerk to Kozinski and then to O’Connor.

NVRA includes the Motor-Voter Law (MVL), which allows applicants for drivers licenses to simultaneously register to vote. MVL requires that the voter registration form be part of the drivers license application and that voters can register to vote by mail. On the mail-in registration form, an applicant merely checks a box that he or she is a U.S. citizen. The form has a disclaimer providing a criminal penalty for providing false information, yet it requires no verification.

In the Gonzalez v. State of Arizona opinion, the two-judge majority found the Arizona law to be in conflict with the federal law, because “It is indisputable that by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, Proposition 200 (Arizona Law) creates an additional state hurdle to registration.” They concluded that NVRA supersedes Arizona’s voter registration requirement for federal elections.

In contrast, Kozinski wrote a cogent and withering dissent, in which he opined: “In this case, the text of the NVRA doesn’t ‘directly address the precise question at issue’. . . namely whether states can ask for supplemental proof of citizenship . . . Arizona gladly accepts and uses the federal form, it just asks that voters also provide some proof of citizenship.”

Pointing out the fallacy of the majority opinion, Kozinski held: “Congress thus told us that it was concerned with maximizing the registration of ‘eligible’ voters, in addition ‘to protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process’ and ‘ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.’ None of these purposes is served when individuals who are not citizens register to vote.”

Proposition 200 was passed by the citizens of Arizona in 2004 because of the increasing number of illegal aliens in the state who were usurping the rights of U.S. citizens while remaining citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries. Many citizens believed that the state was coming to resemble part of Mexico with illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and gang-bangers running loose. The State of Arizona was losing control.

State officials, outraged at the Gonzalez v. State of Arizona opinion, say that Proposition 200 helped to assure that only those eligible voted in elections. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett observed: “It is a slap in the face to Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of U.S. elections.”

Other Arizonans complained that the Court’s argument stating that Proposition 200 discriminated against minorities is nothing but a red herring frequently used by liberal advocates to distract attention from the real issue––perjury.

An Arizona rancher asked, “What does perjury mean to an illegal alien here illegally, a law violator? It is a joke that the feds threatened non-citizens with criminal actions. Show me one case that the feds prosecuted anyone for perjury under the feds’ law.”

The Gonzalez v. State of Arizona opinion coincides with news of voter fraud incidents taking place during early voting in mid-term elections in Arizona (Yuma County), Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Then there is the state of Washington, which apparently competes with the city of Chicago for voter fraud expertise.

Among the organizations promoting the enfranchisement of illegal aliens is OneAmerica Votes, an offshoot of the radical-left OneAmerica group, which promotes Democrat candidates by using illegal aliens to get out the vote. The brazen attitude of Democrat operatives in Washington state exemplifies the contempt that they and partisans like them across the nation have for the laws of the United States.

Also active in getting illegal alien “voters” registered are foreign criminal gangs. Maryland provides an example, as it has become an East Coast haven for MS-13, an international illegal alien gang operating in the United States.

With lax policies on drivers license applications and a blasé attitude toward illegal aliens and law enforcement efforts involving them, Maryland has become a sanctuary state. Its cities and towns now permit voting in elections by non-citizens as a gesture of a liberal one-world, open-borders mentality.

Thomas A. Saenz, president of the liberal Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), praised the Gonzalez v. State of Arizona opinion. He noted that it is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation that the Constitution will protect our democratic process.” Exactly what Saenz meant as a “warning” is open to interpretation.

Read in conjunction with President Barack Obama’s recent admonition to the Hispanic community to vote and “punish our enemies,” it hardly helps bring the country together to work for a better America. While MALDEF looks to the Constitution to legitimize voting by illegal aliens, the state of Arizona looks to the same Constitution and to a much needed U.S. Supreme Court opinion reserving the right to vote to U.S. citizens.

Veteran's Day redux - MISSING IN AMERICA

Missing in America Project
http://www.miap.us/


One of the symbolic images of Veterans Day is the American flag flying next to the grave of a fallen soldier. 

When they pass away, it’s traditional for veterans to receive a proper burial with full military honors, but not all are afforded that right. You could call them forgotten warriors.

500 miles north of the Las Vegas Strip, in the small town of Winnemucca, you’ll find a funeral home that holds a secret. 

“They’ve been sitting here since the funeral home took care of them.”

The cremated remains of veterans have been sitting in a basement closet for years. One has been there for nearly three decades. 

The remains include those of dozens of veterans who served in Vietnam, Korea, and one on the beaches of Normandy. 

We have no pictures and know little about them. Most have no family to claim their remains, which are housed inside metal boxes. 

Funeral home manager Mark Anderson helped indentify the men by sifting through boxes containing dusty records. 

“Generally on death certificate, it indicates whether they served in the military. A lot of times there’s discharge paperwork or discharge certificates.” 

These forgotten warriors are forgotten no more. A non-profit called the Missing in America Project is giving them the proper burial they earned. 

The group calls funeral homes across the country looking for the remains of unclaimed veterans. 

Recently, members of the group braved bitter cold and rain to drive to a veterans’ cemetery in Fernley, NV, where the fallen heroes were honored by living ones, among them, Dorothy Minor, the director of the Missing in America Project. 

“I feel like I know these men.” 

After finding their remains, Minor located family for some of the men, but not all. Seven veterans plus one spouse were unclaimed. 

“They become part of your family and it’s kind of like you’re burying part of your family.” 

So far, Minor and the Nevada chapter of Missing in American have held services for 13 veterans. 

Project members say their goal is to not get to this point. Currently, they’re lobbying states across the country, Nevada included, to pass laws which would give them access to a person’s information after they die to determine if that person was a veteran. 

Veteran Fred Salanti founded the Missing in American project four years ago. 

“75 percent of coroners and medical examiners never check to see if the person was a veteran.” 

Dorothy Minor says she’ll soon turn her attention to funeral homes in Las Vegas.