No Time For Apathy

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken over health care.

Despite the tea parties, the town halls, the rallies and the protests, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill 220-215. The bill now heads to the Senate. The legislation on which Barack Obama has hinged his presidency is close to coming to fruition.

Unless we act.

Republicans, almost to a man, fought the good fight in attempting to stop this massive $2 trillion monstrosity from seeing the light of day. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. said, "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick.'" But in the end, the liberals rammed it through along party lines as they had planned to do all along. This is the arrogance of the left. A jubilant Pelosi even had the audacity to compare the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

So are we doomed to Obamacare? Is this the end of the battle to prevent socialized medicine from taking over our health care system? Will we be like Europe or Canada, where people wait endlessly for life saving treatments? Will death panels determine ho lives and who dies?

That depends on the degree to which we allow apathy to take over.

It is so easy to become complacent and to decide that what the Democrats have done was inevitable. But this is no time for apathy.

Now is the time for us as Americans to rise up. The question is, do we have the backbone to do it? And if we do, is there a blueprint for getting it done?

The answer is unequivocally yes. And there are two excellent resources for stopping the oncoming juggernaut of massive government expansion.

The first is a new book by Don Crist. What Can I do? After The Tea Party offers outstanding ideas on how to take American angst toward bloated government to the next level. Crist provides a blueprint for organizing relatives, friends and neighbors in a cohesive effort to stop those in Washington who wish to take away our liberties and erode our form of government to the point where what the Founding Fathers intended becomes unrecognizable.

The second resource for putting the brakes on government control of our lives is a relatively new organization called Pinecone Conservatives(www.pineconeconservatives.org). This group has as its mission statement "motivating all voters that share our desire for a return to fiscal responsibility and conservative thoughts to our local, state and national communities". When joining their forum, you receive a free practical guide to conservative community organizing. This guide offers insightful ideas on how to coordinate efforts to stop government from completely taking over our lives.

These two excellent resources provide a method for taking the anger that many conservatives feel toward what the Obama administration has done and designing a proactive plan to stop it utilizing the greatest asset available: people.

We do have a choice. We can be apathetic. Or we can take our nation back.

Listen to America Talks Saturday at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

New York Race Puts Republicans At A Crossroads

An interesting thing happened on the way to the congressional election in New York's 23rd district. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race. This bodes well for the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, who, as it turns out happens to be a Republican who ran on a third party ticket against Scozzafava and the Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a fascinating race to watch, because it forces those in the Republican Party to take a hard look at what has become of the GOP. In the last few weeks, there has been a huge rift within the party between those supporting Hoffman, and the party loyalists who backed Scozzafava.

Hoffman was endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, Steve Forbes and others. Media outlets and personalities supporting Hoffman included the New York Post, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.

Those who put party ahead of principle endorsed Scozzafava. They included Newt Gingrich, Peter King, and the Log Cabin Republicans, as well as an unsolicited endorsement from liberal activist Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the Daily Kos blog. Scozzafava was also supported by GOP Chairman Michael Steele.

Why would a Republican running in a district that has been held by Republicans since the 1860s cause such a divide among those in her party?

Let's examine her record.

She has received the endorsement of the Working Families Party in her earlier campaigns, which has close ties to ACORN. She is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage.

In taking a look at what is happening with this race, one realizes that the GOP is at a crossroads. Republicans have to decide what they stand for and whether or not they can define themselves as being clearly different from the opposition.

After the Democrats swept both house of congress in 2006, there were many who said that conservatism was resoundingly defeated. The nation was headed in a new direction, one that would perhaps take us on the path toward socialism. That's what the people wanted, many believed. Others, however, argued that it was not conservatism that lost the election; it was "republicanism". The conservative electorate decided that if Republicans were not going to stand on principle, they needed to be punished.

The Republican Party seems to have lost its way. It has become 'democrat lite'. It is difficult to distinguish many Republicans from Democrats on many of the core issues that used to define them. Republicans used to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military. They used to be pro-life, pro-second amendment, and in favor of traditional marriage.

Many Republicans, such as Gingrich and Steele, seem to believe that it is time to redefine the party, and become more inclusive of those who hold views that don't necessarily fall in lock-step with the base. Gingrich and others feel it is more important for Republicans to win elections, than it is to stand by the principles on which the party was founded.

The New York 23rd district election is a special election. It was created when John McHugh resigned his seat to become Secretary of the Army.

Doug Hoffman says that if he wins, he will run for re-election as a Republican. Hoffman defines what the party used to stand for.

Bu there is the very real possibility that a viable third party may emerge in this country which could challenge both the Republicans and Democrats. Many would welcome a third party as a refreshing change, because they feel that right now, they have no real choice.

The Republicans are at a crossroads right now. They need to decide if they want to fill the GOP with members, or of they want to stand on the foundations upon which the party was built. If they do not wish to be the party of true conservatism, a new party may emerge which will take back the values which once made us great, and restore this country to what the Founding Fathers intended.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Zero Tolerance To The Max

Three stories in the news this week pointed out the lunacy of what has become known as "zero tolerance".

In the first case, a 6-year-old boy was suspended and threatened with reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school. Zachary Christie, a first-grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Del., was so proud of the spoon-fork-knife combination gift that he wanted to show it off and use it to eat his lunch. He was by all accounts a good student, who sometimes wore suits to school because he took his education seriously. He was also a Cub Scout.

The school clearly overreacted. At best the school officials should have taken the "weapon" away from the boy and promised to return it to him at the end of the day. They should have explained that bringing such a tool to school is not allowed. And they should have left it at that. Instead, they chose to make an example of this fine young man. It was only after the story went national, and a huge uproar ensued, that the officials relented.

In the second case of zero tolerance gone wild, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was suspended because he had a knife in a survival kit locked in his car. It was a gift from his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town. He did not bring the knife into the school. Initially Matthew Whalen was suspended for five days. But the superintendent of the Troy, N.Y. school district tacked on an additional 15 days after a hearing. The superintendent, George J. Goodwin, 55, said in a written statement that his district "has an established policy of zero tolerance with respect to the possession of weapons of any kind on school property or in school buildings." He refuses to budge on the suspension, despite the young man's excellent academic and behavioral record. The suspension could affect Whalen's record at West Point, as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber. Goodwin should lose his job over this dumb decision.

The third case of zero tolerance revolves around radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his thwarted attempt at purchasing the St. Louis Rams.

False allegations of racism on the part of Limbaugh prompted by unsubstantiated quotes attributed to him and milked by race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton derailed his bid to become a minority stakeholder in the Rams. His potential business partners panicked, and the liberal NFL itself, clearly not wanting any problems from the players union, caved.

Zero tolerance for conservative thought on the part of football.

Limbaugh should take legal action, as he was the victim of character assassination. All involved in this fiasco need to pay dearly for this abomination.

And these idiots Jackson and Sharpton should be put in their place once and for all. Jackson is not only a race baiter, he is a racist who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Sharpton, who has made a living out of shooting his mouth off, was brought to task by Limbaugh in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which Limbaugh pointed out that Sharpton was responsible for the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot."
What Sharpton and Jackson need is a liberal dose of "shut up" and a lawsuit resulting in punitive damages would go a long way to achieve that.

There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.americatalks.com.

Will Obama Silence The Opposition?

In recent weeks, a serious threat has emerged to the liberties of every American with regard to free speech in this country.

This threat has come in many forms and from many fronts.

Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, believes that the government should be able to force broadcasters to air "diversity" ads, which would be a backdoor attempt at reconstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

In his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution", Sunstein wrote "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome."

Sunstein would like to see the creation of a "First Amendment New Deal", or a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Obviously, this would result in time constraints to the private broadcasting companies, which would be forced to give up valuable revenue-generating advertising slots to air these diversity ads. This could also result in programming changes on conservative stations, which might be forced to drop certain hosts or programs to prevent having to equalize all points of view.

At the same time, there is a new bill being drafted behind closed doors in the Senate, S.773 (excerpt) which would give the White House the authority to seize control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. In effect, the Internet would be shut down at a moment's notice due to some perceived (or conceived) threat. After all, wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If the threat to broadcasters and the Internet aren't bad enough, Obama is now thinking about bailing out the failing newspapers in this country. There are several bills in congress that would boost the newspaper sector, including a senate bill that would allow newspaper companies to reformulate themselves as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. These newspapers would then be print versions of PBS and NPR, which would, in effect make them mouthpieces for the government. The White House could control the advertising and all editorial content appearing in these papers.

Obama already has the mainstream media in his back pocket. All of the major networks and most of the print media are in the tank for this guy. But it still sticks in his craw that there are those outlets that offer opposition to his policies. Several attempts have been made to demonize those who share disparate views. Charges of racism have been leveled against those who oppose health care, cap and trade, the stimulus and our increasing budget deficit.

The charges of racism won't be enough, however, to keep Obama's critics quiet. So other steps must be taken to stave off the growing cacophony of voices that stand to hold this regime's forces at bay. Pushing for another Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters, taking control of the print media through a financial bailout of the newspapers, and the authority to shut down the Internet at a moment's notice, might just give our government a way to silence all of Obama's opposition.

Scary thought.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

All The President's Race Baiters

Barack Obama sold himself during the presidential campaign of 2008 as a uniter. He was going to bridge the racial divide in the United States, healing wounds of the past and putting this country on the road to a point where skin color and ethnicity would no longer be an issue polarizing its citizens.

Didn't happen.

Despite his smooth talk and his appealing personality, it soon became apparent that the people with whom Obama surrounded himself were anything but racial healers. Reverend Jeremiah Wright surfaced first with his rants about the evils of the white race, with ludicrous charges of AIDS being a creation of those wishing to exterminate the black race. Obama claimed to high heaven that he never sat in that church in Chicago where Wright preached his message of hate, yet he was a member of that congregation over 20 years, was married there and had his children baptized there.

There were some who questioned whether the influence of such as pastor would leave an indelible mark on Obama, one that would later raise the ugly specter that any criticism of this future president might lead to accusations of racism.

This has now come to pass.

Many times since this president has taken office, those who have questioned Obama's policies have been met with charges that any disapproval is racially motivated. Janeane Garafolo, in an appearance at the 9:30 Club in Washington, D.C. on Aug. 21, ripped into tea party protesters, or what some of of the left have deemed “tea baggers” calling them “functionally retarded adults” and “racists.”

“Do you remember tea baggers?” Garofalo said. “It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults.”

The flap over Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst at Obama's address to the joint session of Congress took an unexpected turn when several prominent people, from HBO's Bill Maher, to former president Jimmy Carter blamed racism as his motivation. Many Democrat politicians, including Hank Johnson of Georgia, chimed in and echoed these sentiments, leading to Wilson's rebuke on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There has been a deafening silence from the White House with regard to these charges of racism.

Barack Obama has had several opportunities to address these charges and lay the issue to rest. To his credit, he did tell CNN that he believed criticism of his health care agenda was not motivated by race. But because he took so long to come out and say something, his words rang hollow. He could have given a speech to the nation, admonishing those who would throw up the race card every time he is criticized to "knock it off", as these charges are idiotic, and do nothing to advance the debate on health care and other issues.

He did not. And by not being forceful on this issue, Obama is, in effect, giving a wink and a nod to those who use race baiting as a method to stave off challenges to his agenda.

This will only serve to further divide the nation. And it might work to the detriment of the African-American community with regard to political aspirations. If a black president cannot be criticized on policy without race being thrown out as the motivation behind it, one has to wonder if the nation is really ready for a black president.

It is a shame that this question needs to be asked.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

September Mourning The War On Terror

Everyone remembers where they were on that beautiful September morning in 2001, when almost 3000 of our fellow citizens were brutally murdered in the most horrific attack on our country since Pearl Harbor. The memories of that terrible day are forever etched in the minds and hearts of most Americans.

The current administration, however, is defecating on the graves of those who lost their lives by diminishing the importance of fighting the war on the radical Islamic forces that would seek to do us harm again.

Barack Obama is hell-bent on closing Guantanamo, and bringing the detainees to the shores of the United States, putting them in prisons largely reserved for common criminals. Many of these detainees will be given rights to challenge their detention, and some will be released, where they will be free to plot further attacks on our country. Even those who remain confined will have the ability to communicate with members of sleeper cells operating within the United States.

Obama is also planning on giving rights to detainees being held at the America-run prison at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. They will be allowed to call witnesses and present evidence in their defense.

Subsequent to 9/11, the Bush administration took steps to help prevent another attack by implementing policies to help gain valuable information regarding future plots. These policies included tactics that some have referred to as torture. We now know that the use of waterboarding on such terrorists as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulted in information which did indeed help to foil plans by terrorists to strike America again. These tactics have now been discontinued by the current administration.

In separate interviews with Newsmax, former counterterrorism experts Ken Clizbe and Michael Scheuer indicated that we are now woefully unprepared with regards to the terror threat to America.

Clizbe says it is "indisputable" that moves by Obama with regards to intelligence agents have undermined the global war on terror. With Obama allowing Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the interrogation of terrorists detainees by the CIA.
Scheuer said "Mister Obama doesn't appear to have a clue about what the world is and how it works. He's surrounded himself with surrenderists left over from the Clinton administration. And I think he really is a man who doesn't have much interest in America. He appears to be more concerned with what the world thinks of him. "

Obama has diminished the memories of those who lost their lives on that fateful day in 2001 by putting an end to the terms 'war on terror', and 'terrorist attack', and replacing them with 'overseas contingency operation' and 'man-made disaster'. And his speech on the anniversary of the attacks in which he emphasized public service over the remembrance of our fellow citizens who died, insults the families and friends who lost their loved ones.

It is truly unfortunate that due to Obama's attempt to placate the terrorists and their sympathizers, combined with his arrogance in building his legacy, he may actually be helping to create further national days of mourning in the United States for years to come.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Obama May Actually Save Our Nation

The election of Barack Obama may actually be the best thing that ever happened to our nation, if he and the liberals don't destroy it first.

Increasing evidence appears to indicate a significant shift to the right in this country, since Obama's victory last November. A recent Gallup poll shows that people who identify themselves as conservative outnumber liberals in every state in the Union. Witness the tea parties, the town hall meetings, and the rise in the sale of conservative books.

Why the swing to the right? America is finally waking up and realizing that this country elected a Marxist president who surrounded himself with the most radical group of individuals ever assembled in Washington. And this realization has sparked an anger not seen in many years.

How did this happen in just a few short months?

In order to understand the revolt of the American people, one must examine why Obama was elected in the first place.

Obama preached a message of hope and change, and an electorate tired of eight years of Bush ignored many of the specifics of the changes Obama wanted to bring about. Instead, they bought the 'sizzle', not the steak. If they had done their homework then, as they have subsequently done with regards to the health care bill, they would never have voted for someone hell bent on taking this country so far to the left as to be unrecognizable from what the founders planned.

But whether due to being mesmerized by his eloquent pre-packaged speeches, or the opportunity to make history by putting the first black man in the White House, voters ignored Obama's associations with people of questionable character and his own checkered past, and thrust him into a position that he would use to radically alter the nation.

Those same voters are now suffering buyer's remorse. The stimulus package which was sold as one that would create up to 4 million jobs, has now resulted in a 9.7 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years. Bailouts of major financial institutions and the car companies, has given rise to the impression that Obama and his minions are attempting to nationalize the private sector. And Obama's radical, anti-American czars have proven that he is naive at least in choosing his associates, or a Marxist at worst planning on changing the very foundation of our country.

All of this has combined to trigger that innermost part of the American psyche that shows who we really are: traditionalists who do not want to see the face of our nation changed.

While the mainstream media is still in the tank for Obama, the alternative news sources and the blogosphere have shown a dramatic increase in conservative thought and its resulting angst.

There are some who dismiss this shift to the right as merely a reflection of the change of power in Washington. The publishers of many of the conservative books that have begun flying off the shelves say this was expected. When one party is out of office, people look for and respond to those in the media who can support their cause and empathize with their frustration.

But it may be more than that. Some experts in the media say that the increase in conservative thought in books and the Internet is the result of what is perceived as an elite mainstream press that dismisses conservative opinion and traditionalist values. In other words, the media ignores the heartland of America.

The anger resulting from the health care debacle combined with the radical plans of an administration gone out of control may result in significant losses for the liberals in the midterm elections of 2010. There are those who see the distinct possibility that conservatives may re-take the House and Senate, leaving Obama and his czars crippled in their attempt to damage our nation irreparably. This could even bode well for the next presidential election in 2012.

However, there is still time for the leftists to harm our country within the next 14 months. That is why it is imperative that the people continue to speak out and hold the politicians' feet to the fire on every issue from health care to the economy, and from every move by this administration to trample on the rights of American citizens.

If the people can stave off the attempts by the liberals to destroy our country between now and November of 2010, history may prove that that it was the election of Barack Obama that triggered the return of this nation to what the Founding Fathers intended.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.