Memorial Day Tributes


The Case For Voter ID

Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit
See a sample reprint in PDF format.Order a reprint of this article now

The Case for Voter ID
You can’t cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without ID. Why should voting be different?

On Thursday, the Wisconsin legislature sent a bill requiring photographic identification for voting to Gov. Scott Walker’s desk. This follows the enactment of an even stricter law in Kansas a few weeks ago.

Drafted by my office, Kansas’s Secure and Fair Elections Act combined three elements: (1) a requirement that voters present photo IDs when they vote in person; (2) a requirement that absentee voters present a full driver’s license number and have their signatures verified; and (3) a proof of citizenship requirement for all newly registered voters. Although a few states, including Georgia, Indiana and Arizona, have enacted one or two of these reforms, Kansas is the only state to enact all three.

Other states are moving in the same direction. The Texas legislature sent a photo-ID bill to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk last Monday. And next year Missouri voters will get a chance to vote on a photo-ID requirement.

Immediately after the Kansas law was signed in April, critics cried foul. They argued that voter fraud isn’t significant enough to warrant such steps, that large numbers of Americans don’t possess photo IDs, and that such laws will depress turnout among the poor and among minorities. They are wrong on all three counts.

Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in American elections. To offer a few examples, a 2010 state representative race in Kansas City, Mo. was stolen when one candidate, J.J. Rizzo, allegedly received more than 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The Somalis, who didn’t speak English, were coached to vote for Mr. Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. The margin of victory? One vote.

In Kansas, 221 incidents of voter fraud were reported between 1997 and 2010. The crimes included absentee-ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter, and a host of other violations. Because voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect and is usually not reported, the cases that we know about likely represent a small fraction of the total.

My office already has found 67 aliens illegally registered to vote in Kansas, but when the total number is calculated, it will likely be in the hundreds. In Colorado, the Secretary of State’s office recently identified 11,805 aliens illegally registered to vote in the state, of whom 4,947 cast a ballot in the 2010 elections.

Evidence of voter fraud is present in all 50 states, and public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low. In the Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2008, 62% of American voters thought that voter fraud was very common or somewhat common.

Fear that elections are being stolen erodes the legitimacy of our government. That’s why the vast majority of Americans support laws like Kansas’s Secure and Fair Elections Act. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that 82% of Americans support photo ID laws. Similarly, a 2011 Survey USA poll of Kansas voters showed that 83% support proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

Critics of these laws nevertheless make outrageous arguments against them. New York University’s Brennan Center, which stridently opposes all photo ID laws, claims that a whopping 11% of the American voting-age public—that means tens of millions of people—don’t possess a photo ID. It bases this number on a survey it conducted in 2006.

However, we don’t have to rely on implausible estimates when the actual numbers are readily available. In Kansas, my office obtained the statistics, and they tell a very different story. According to the 2010 census, there are 2,126,179 Kansans of voting age. According to the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles, 2,156,446 Kansans already have a driver’s license or a non-driver ID. In other words, there are more photo IDs in circulation than there are eligible voters. The notion that there are hundreds of thousands of voters in Kansas (or any other state) without photo IDs is a myth.

Carrying a photo ID has become a part of American life. You can’t cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without one. That’s why it’s not unreasonable to require one in order to protect our most important privilege of citizenship. But just in case any person lacks a photo ID, Kansas’s law provides a free state ID to anyone who needs one. Other states have included similar provisions in their photo-ID laws.

Some opponents of election security laws also declare that they are part of a sinister plot to depress voter registration and turnout, especially among minority voters who are more likely to vote Democrat. Here too the facts do not support the claim. Georgia’s photo ID requirement was in place for both the 2008 and 2010 elections, when turnout among minority voters was higher than average. Likewise, Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for registration has not impeded minority voters from registering.

If election security laws really were part of a Republican scheme to suppress Democratic votes, one would expect Democrats to fight such laws, tooth and nail. That didn’t happen in Kansas, where two-thirds of the Democrats in the House and three-fourths of the Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of the Secure and Fair Elections Act. They did so because they realize that fair elections protect every voter and every party equally.

No candidate, Republican or Democrat, wants to emerge from an election with voters suspecting that he didn’t really win. Election security measures like the one in my state give confidence to voters and candidates alike that the system is fair.

Mr. Kobach is the Kansas secretary of state. He is also the co-author of Arizona’s SB 1070 illegal immigration law and former Counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

The Reality Is, We Need Oil

by Jason Bradley

The cry for America to wean itself off foreign oil is well founded. After all, we get our oil from a backward region of the world where anti-Americanism is institutional and academic. Since America possesses an abundance of natural resources, with real potential for a boom in energy production, those cries strongly resonate. A current estimate of natural gas in America is 2,047 trillion cubic feet. That is enough to power our nation for the next 100 years.

A study by the Congressional Research Service claimed that America’s supply of recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal is the largest on the planet. Furthermore, we have the ability to tap into an estimated 165 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Even with the current rate of consumption, our supply of oil is enough to fuel the country for at least the next 75 years. Even if we currently lack the infrastructure, the potential exists. And with the injection of revenue and capital investments from a nation as rich as ours, industry technology and innovation would increase likely lowering prices on extraction and production.

The powers that be, however, have a different view of these potentials. It is not a misunderstanding or differing arithmetic. Rather, it is ideologically and politically motivated. Democrats continuously marginalize America’s potential for domestic energy production. Their law makers, with the help of Obama’s pen and rhetoric, have declared war on energy. They chose to tax “Big Oil”, limit oil production and exploration, revoke leases for inland production and financially backbreaking businesses to drill on federally owned land. Democrats decry record profits made by the oil industries as evil and mislead the country to believe they are only leveling the playing field between consumer and producer. In actuality, the Earth-Democrats are engineering a sinister plan for blowback. A person who possesses even an elementary understanding of macroeconomics would know these added costs will simply be passed on to the consumer. Since the days of horse and carriage are long gone, and Americans still rely on oil and gas to commute and move produce across a country roughly the size of Europe, the market will survive out of necessity. That is until taxes on gas and mileage go up. The word is sabotage.

Ironically, these designs being crafted by Democrats and their power-circles are not being done to push American consumption and production inwards in the form of a tariff. It is all in the effort to force Americans into a product — unproven and unrealistic electric-hybrid cars — they do not want and will not buy when left to their own desires. By using American tax payers as pawns to wreck the oil industry, the Democrats will be able to create a new Green-unionized labor workforce that will carry us into a glorious second, Green-Industrial Revolution. Presumably, these noble workers will be able to construct energy efficient castles in the sky out of wind and solar power and subsidies.

The world, let alone America, can ill afford to become economically weaker which will certainly come to pass should these liberal visions be carried out. It is true America has a robust appetite for oil. We manage to consume 25 percent of the world’s oil production, while making up only 5 percent of the world’s total population. However, add the fact that American manufacturing produces over 25 percent of the world’s output, and we are far from the gluttonous consumer-only sloths the liberals constantly promote. Contrary to that strongly held belief, America still produces and presides over a potent and ever expanding manufacturing market. In fact, we have the most productive workers on the planet, the strongest economy, the most powerful military, and also manage to be the most scientifically advanced country in the world. In America each worker produces over $180,000 annually in manufactured goods. Our American workforce and productivity continues to tick upwards despite losing over 7 million jobs since 1970.

If Democrats are left to their desires, America will soon resemble Spain. Its government forced green jobs onto the economy and the result was for every one green job created, the private sector lost two. Spain’s green industry caused energy prices to skyrocket and businesses found it too expensive to produce. The added costs were passed to the consumer and the economy naturally contracted. The result is an unemployment rate at 20 percent and political paralysis.

Spain was once deemed the leader in green jobs. Now they are the leader of unemployment in the EU. Reality must trump ideology. The fate of America depends on it.

Congress Gets an American President — For a Day

May 25, 2011

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

It was fitting that Barack Obama was out of the country on the day when a leader walked into a joint session of Congress and spoke the way an American President should.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech extolled America and the ideals for which it stands. The enthusiasm of the members of both the House and Senate was born not only of their admiration and love for the State of Israel, but also because a man of stature stood before them and announced something they haven’t heard during the last two years, namely, that America represents the best the world has ever seen. Unlike President Obama, who has reminded us that American values may not be suitable for most countries, Mr. Netanyahu spoke of his pride that his country, Israel, mirrors the idealism and nobility of America. Contrary to Barack Obama, Netanyahu believes in American exceptionalism.

Having actually been in the House Chamber to witness the event, I was able to see a panorama that one doesn’t see on television. The thrill and excitement on the faces, in the applause, in the thirty standing ovations, was internalized by all those who had the privilege of being an immediate participant in this historic moment. They loved the Prime Minister and they loved his speech because he showed his love for America.

When speaking of justice and liberty, Netanyahu spoke about them as enduring principles of the American personality, as opposed to the current President who speaks of them in terms of class warfare, not to mention an America at fault for those within our country he claims have not yet received justice or liberty. He spoke with awe when referring to our Founders and their inscriptions on the monuments that line the Potomac, America’s River Jordan. There was nothing in his remarks, unlike the President, that appeared ambivalent about these great men. For Mr. Netanyahu and the members of Congress who rapturously drank in his words of praise about America, it was a refreshing moment.

When speaking of the narrative of his country, Israel, he found no better model than that of America’s own narrative. They cheered because, on that spot, where Presidents normally deliver an annual message to our citizens, stood a man who they knew revered what they revere and finds precious what is precious in the hearts of the countrymen whom they represent.

He spoke truth and he spoke as a statesman — as a leader. Finally, the people’s representatives heard a leader casting Iran as the foremost threat to civilization. He spoke of a world divided between liberty and tyranny. The public has starved over the last two years for words of moral clarity. What it has received, instead, has been diplomatic, U.N.-type language that speaks about Iran as if it is but a problem in need of a solution, as opposed to the cataclysmic and moral challenge that it really is. Mr. Netanyahu speaks of ultimate victory, intoning a self-confident righteousness in our cause, whereas Mr. Obama uses the standard, lipid political jargon characteristic of bureaucrats dealing with problems of “de-stabilization”.

Instead of a president continually dodging the ideological threat that is Islam and, worse, denying the danger it poses, Mr. Netanyahu spoke forthrightly about the worldwide threat of extreme Islam. He did not speak like a community organizer, nor did he speak as one whose priority is to protect particular constituencies or befriend him to diplomats who populate the United Nations. Unlike the present occupant of the White House, Mr. Netanyahu spoke as a world-class statesman, at times Reagan-esque, and even Churchill-ian.

I saw the faces, the body language, the enthusiasm, the immediacy on each of those filling the seats of august ancestors. Remember, a man such as Eric Cantor, for example, does not simply represent Culpepper, Virginia, but is heir to the seat of James Madison himself. And so it is with so many of our current representatives who are scions of great predecessors. For one hour on May, 24, 2011, our representatives, most of whom see themselves first as Americans, were allowed to imbibe feelings of America’s majesty. Finally, the joint session of Congress was not victim of chastisement from a haughty overseer, but a recipient of sweet and reinforcing acknowledgment of our country’s greatness. Today, no Supreme Court Justice was reviled, instead the justice of America was extolled.

It was evident from Mr. Netanyahu that not only does he love America, but also loves Americans. Over the last two years, the America people have heard how they “cling to their religion and their guns.” They have been forced to listen how their police, such as in Cambridge, are “stupid.” They have been humiliated by a man who has gone across the world apologizing for America and its precipitation of so many of the world’s ills. They have heard their own president characterize this nation as “sometimes arrogant”. Perhaps, worst of all, they have had to endure a nauseating rewriting of their own history and sacrifice by a President who errantly speaks of the great contributions that Islam made from early on in our history in the development of this country. Today Mr. Netanyahu came in front of the entire Congress of the United States “not to bury her, but to praise her.” It was as if for one day we had an American President again.

Rabbi Spero is president of Caucus For America, and can be reached at (212) 252-6861, or

Page Printed from: at May 25, 2011 – 05:08:29 PM CDT

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science


David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The modeling:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.

Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.

While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.

A stunning defeat of everything childish about liberal foreign policy and national defense

May 03, 2011

OBL’s Death a Victory for the Adults

By C. Edmund Wright

The children are celebrating and taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, but make no mistake about it, this is a win for the adults. This will give Obama a short-term boost in the polls, but I submit after a few days or weeks of liberal celebration, reality will start to sink in for more and more Americans.

Now by adults, I mean folks mature enough to understand that the world is a mean place ruled by the aggressive use of power and that the only way to stop evil from ruling is for the good guys to use more power and to use it more aggressively.

And by children, I mean the overgrown juveniles who refuse to understand this reality as it is and who like to think the Muslim world adored us until Bush-Cheney and Rumsfeld came to power. Long before election day of 2012, this will become evident.

Because when you drill down, the death of bin Laden has nothing to do with the core beliefs of this President or the entire liberal movement.

The death of bin Laden has nothing to do with closing Guantanamo Bay. It has nothing to do with trying Kahlid Sheik Muhummad in New York City. It has nothing to do with avoiding collateral damage at our own soldiers’ peril and it has nothing to do with Patti Murray’s gushing about bin Laden’s day care centers.

We did not kill bin Laden by trying to understand why they hate us so much and we did not do it by allowing Jamie Gorelick to keep our CIA and FBI and Special Forces from talking to each other.

We did not do it because we allow gays in the military or because we set lower standards for certain groups so as not to hurt their self-esteem. We did not kill him because we unionized TSA agents thereby memorializing their right to grope us without fear of losing their jobs.

Killing bin Laden was not the result of Teddy Kennedy sanctimoniously railing against Abu Ghraib nor was it the result of Cindy Sheehan’s hatred of George W. Bush. The protestations by liberals — including John McCain — against waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation techniques had nothing to do with this either.

Code Pink was not involved, and this strike had nothing to do with Obama’s doctrine of “courageous restraint.” This operation did not involve the UN and it was not multi-lateral.

And for sure, the supposed worldwide peace and respect the mere election of Barack Obama was going to bring the United States had nothing to do with it either. In fact, as I add it up, there is not one single scintilla of liberal thought or policy that had anything to do with the successful operation by Seal Team Six.

In fact, under Obama’s government shutdown program, Seal Team Six team members would not have been paid.

When you get right down to it, the successful taking out of bin Laden is a stunning defeat of everything childish about liberal foreign policy and national defense. That a liberal kid was in the White House when all of this happened reminds us of the cliché of the rich kid who “was born on third base but acts like he hit the triple.” And make no mistake about it, with the repeated mention of the “I” word in the Sunday night address, Obama wants us all to think he virtually pulled the trigger.

So let’s look at what really happened.

First, it is instructive that candidate Obama campaigned against the idea of even killing bin Laden. Now he’s taking credit for masterminding the entire op and the military hating leftists are now ready to call him the return of Patton.

But let’s look at some background. What really happened is that the intel trail that ultimately culminated in Sunday’s events started in 2007 at Guantanamo Bay. The first key piece of intel was the identification of the couriers who kept bin Laden informed. I guess we’ll never know for sure if waterboarding led to this first nugget of information, but you can bet that whatever it was it falls under the very adult notion of “enhanced interrogation” techniques. In other words, Obama is the beneficiary of tactics he campaigned against — that were performed at a location he campaigned against.

The credit belongs the adults who put in place these interrogation techniques and who decided they would take place at Gitmo. That would be Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Three adults.

And this intelligence nugget led to a four-year chain of events that ended this past weekend with what must have been a real life Jason Bourne scene. But the guys who did this, the Joint Special Operations Command, have been operating in the Afghan-Pakistani theatre for ten years. Sunday night was merely the end result of ten years of hard and dangerous work started by — the adults.

To sum it up, everything we as conservatives believe about our country’s defense, the War on Terror, interrogation, special ops / black ops, Gitmo, and the realities of the world was validated. Our ideas won. Our tactics won. An enemy we never hesitated to call out was killed.

Everything liberals believe about the same was defeated. They are trying to take credit for a win in a war they never acknowledged with tactics they openly hate. With a childish liberal in the White House, that may not be evident to much of the country at the moment. But I predict it will be. Facts are facts. The adults won. The kids were along for the ride kicking and screaming. Americans’ curiosity with how this all went down will bring this to light.

Page Printed from: at May 03, 2011 – 04:11:52 PM CDT

Celebrating Our Military and Intelligence Heroes Who Killed the Mass Murdering Islamic Chief Terrorist Evil Bastard

Every member of every terrorist group now knows none of them are beyond the reach of the U.S. Military.

Meet The ‘Seal Team 6’, The Bad-Asses Who Killed Osama Bin Laden

The military team that killed Osama Bin Laden is an elite special forces group unofficially called Seal Team 6.
Officially, the team’s name is classified and not available to the public, technically there is no team 6. A Tier-One counter-terrorism force similar to the Army’s elusive Delta group, Team 6’s mission rarely make it to paper much less the newspaper.

The members of Team 6 are all “black” operatives. They exist outside military protocol, engage in operations that are at the highest level of classification and often outside the boundaries of international law. To maintain plausible deniability in case they are caught, records of black operations are rarely, if ever, kept.

The development of SEAL Team 6 was in direct response to the 1980 attempt to rescue the American hostages held in Iran. The mission was a terrific failure that fell apart at many points and illustrated the need for a dedicated counter-terrorist team capable of operating with the utmost secrecy.

The Team was labeled 6 at the time to confuse Soviet intelligence about the number of SEAL teams in operation at the time. There were only two others.

Team 6 poached the top operatives from other SEAL units and trained them even more intensely from there. Even among proven SEAL’s the attrition rate for Team 6 is reported to be nearly half.

There are no names available for current Team 6 members, but the CIA does recruit heavily from their numbers for their Special Operations Group, so it makes sense that they were chosen to work with the CIA on this mission.

Team 6 is normally devoted to missions with maritime authority: ship rescues, oil rigs, naval bases or land bases accessible by water. There are no waterways near Bin Laden’s compound.

When a former Navy SEAL was called for a comment about this article all he could say was: “You know I’d love to help you man, but I can’t say a word about Team 6. There is no Team 6.”

Read more:

To the Debtor’s Prison Born

April 22, 2011

By Betsy M. Galliher

It’s unlikely today’s student of history is even familiar with the debtor’s prison of past centuries “home” even to innocent children, bearing the unfortunate sins of their parents. Today’s student may be even less likely to know debtor’s prisons seem to be making a formidable comeback. Worse, the debtor’s prison of which today’s youth and certainly their offspring are now born, is of their own government’s making.

Obama continued his campaign for the youth vote in Annandale, Virginia this week, giving lip service to America “living within its means,” and throwing out soft bribes of free-flowing Pell Grants. After all, who needs a defense budget in the new, borderless world order?

At least some of the students Obama arranged to lecture, along with their questions so warm and fuzzy even “soft” doesn’t describe, will enter the real world in just a few years. By Obama’s account, the world of his re-making sounds downright utopian, if not for this week’s pesky slap of reality courtesy of Standard and Poor’s.

It’s no shock Obama failed to mention to students it is a reality of record joblessness, jittery markets, untold taxation, and backbreaking debt, largely of the left’s making, they’re destined to enter. By the time their children graduate higher education, the interest alone on our debt will outpace the federal government’s income, no matter the government’s efforts at confiscation.

But Obama’s Annandale campaigning struck more than just the usual nerve — it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Call it the conservative mother’s Stalin smell test.

It wasn’t just that Obama’s usual economic misnomers, his slandering of success, abject denial of who pays taxes, definition of “shared sacrifice and responsibility,” and his calls for bipartisan cooperation, as he simultaneously mocked the efforts of Republicans and his predecessor, were directed at youth. It isn’t just that “fair” really is the scariest word to capitalists living on the Marxist precipice. It isn’t even that after Obama’s 26 month experimentation with executive leadership he still can’t bring himself to tell future taxpayers the means to make more pie is always better than a one-time slice, even if it means not having a slice today, or never having as large a slice as some others.

The hair-raising alarm isn’t even that Obama — the largest and most reckless spender in all of history — is now campaigning as the man to get America’s “finances in order.” It’s that he’s lying — and lying with great audacity. Lying about what got us here and where we’re going. And a man, who postures to anyone, let alone students, as he dupes them into subjugation, isn’t just irresponsible, he’s a charlatan.

Like a church official proselytizing to the faithful with one hand in the collection plate, even his media can no longer summon economic cover. Every time Obama opens his mouth, he reminds us of his shortcomings — playing out in real time — and long revealed even to those who couldn’t be bothered to vet him.

–When Obama appointed unaccountable Czars with unchecked power, he revealed his disdain for the Rule of Law.

–When Obama bowed to Saudi Kings, appeased terrorists, and abandoned our allies, he revealed his contempt for American exceptionalism.

–When Obama nationalized banks, GM, awarded stimulus dollars to special interests and Democrat supporters, and awarded favored contracts to political allies, he revealed his addiction to power.

–When Obama appeared on Late Night talk shows, arranged glamorous travel and “date nights” at great taxpayer expense, gave self-aggrandizing speeches, and threw lavish White House parties, he revealed his narcissism.

–When he ridiculed FOX, the Tea Party, Republicans, and virtually any conservative, he revealed his utter disrespect for the 1st Amendment.

–When he organized for public unions from within the White House, he revealed his loyalties.

–When he grew entitlements, government, and government dependence, he revealed his faith in government, not the individual.

–When he expressed his support of the Ground Zero Mosque and turned 9/11 into a Day of Service, he revealed his inability to name our enemy.

–When he promised to close Guantanamo, afforded terrorists the rights of our Constitution, refused to call terror by name, replacing war actions with kinetics, he revealed his cowardice.

–When he perpetrated a State takeover of the medical system covertly disguised as “reform,” he revealed his Statist tyranny.

–When Obama accused a white officer of “acting stupidly” for doing his job, arranging an adolescent Beer Summit, he revealed his own preoccupation with race.

–When he continually blamed George W. Bush for the economic Armageddon of his own creation, he revealed his utter lack of experience and leadership, even courtesy.

–When he shut down domestic drilling in the Gulf, even as he lectured of our dangerous foreign dependence, and loaned tax dollars to other nation’s drilling operations, he revealed his lack of sovereign allegiance to his own citizenry.

–When he denied his alliances with Soros, Ayers, Wright, and other anti-Americans, despite the evidence to the contrary, he revealed his radicalism.

–When he sent NASA to appease the Muslim world, he revealed his allegiance.

–When he ridiculed the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, on the floor of Congress with a national audience, he revealed his pettiness.

–When he accepted a Nobel Peace Prize, he revealed his lack of humility.

–When he insulted visiting dignitaries with gifts of DVDs and iPods, he revealed his immaturity.

–When he golfed, and golfed, and dribbled, and golfed, he revealed his disconnect.

–When he staged photo ops with the bodies of dead soldiers returning home, downplayed the Fort Hood massacre, and ignored his generals, he revealed his contempt for the military.

–When he said, “at some point you’ve made enough money,” he revealed his disgust for private business, free markets, and Capitalism.

–When he burned more jet fuel in a day than a family can even dream in a year, in order to celebrate Earth Day, and lectured us on personal habits as he smoked, dined, and turned up his thermostat, he revealed his hypocrisy.

–When he said during Easter week, “there’s something about that resurrection…” he revealed his insincerity for a Christian faith he knows only as a means of social justice and black liberation.

–When Obama directed his Department of Justice to sue a State for enforcing federal immigration laws, refused to secure our borders, or prosecute crimes along certain race lines, he revealed his racism and social justice.

–When Obama signed the START Treaty, and disclosed England’s nuclear secrets, he revealed he is not to be trusted.

–When Obama was caught snipping at a reporter about how he was to be interviewed, and his sneering attitudes toward Republicans, he revealed he is dangerous.

–And when he refused to honestly divulge his past, the circumstances of his birth, and his intentions, he revealed his disdain for the American people, the Constitution, and the office of the President.

This all bears repeating — and the list falls far short of being comprehensive, disturbing in and of itself — not because Obama’s anti-Americanism hasn’t been laid out for all to see, but because it effectively discounts every word, every policy, each utterance of ridiculous nuance, such as “living within our means.” There isn’t anything — not deed, not speech, not action, not policy, not even his media — that now hides his real end game; purposely ushering in the economic destruction of this great and benevolent nation in the name of retributive fairness.

In Obama’s words, our two goals are “cutting spending in a way that is fair and asks for shared responsibility, and making sure that government lives within its means…while we invest in the future.” This sums it all up with refreshing transparency, if not tyrannical gravitas — spending us into fairness. No leftist has ever said it better.

So when Barack Obama tells students he respects success — the “American way” — it isn’t just disingenuous, it’s deceitful. He stands before our youth and espouses a success that won’t be tolerated, let alone possible, in a nation weakened by debt, reckless spending, and tyranny.

Most students are familiar with the saying, “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.” It might just behoove students, now effectively born to debtor’s prison, to know, in the land of the willfully blind, the man with even two good eyes is nothing more than a serf.

Students should be smart enough to know their path to prosperity need not be, cannot be, paved with enslavement to government debt.

Page Printed from: at May 01, 2011 – 12:07:57 PM CDT

My Journey to Conservatism

April 23, 2011

By Carmen Guillermo

I would like to share with you my enlightenment, which started off with this simple e-mail:
February 16, 2010

I found these pages one night after about 4 hours of research. What prompted the research? I couldn’t sleep one night because it bugged me that people considered Republicans racist. I’ve been a Republican my entire adult life and I just didn’t see the racism. So after tossing and turning, I decided to research why? This is what I found.

This link talks about the Democratic Party.

This link talks about how the Republican Party was founded.

There are other links on these pages if you have any interest. I won’t comment on these pages until after you’ve read them.


As a born Democrat, I was shocked by this information, which I had received from my friend, who’s a black man (he prefers “American black man”). The material bothered me so much that I just had to prove my friend wrong. Being a divorced mother of four children and a full-time nurse, I could hardly find time to sit in front of a computer — but that evening, I stopped watching reality television shows, dusted off my laptop, and began doing some research. I began my mission to discredit my friend by analyzing the links he e-mailed me and all the links that followed. I searched and searched, and to my surprise, the information was accurate. The Republican Party was not the racist party that I had heard about for most of my life. Soon I asked myself, if I was wrong about the Republicans, could I be wrong about the Democrats, too?

It was only about a year prior to my newfound knowledge that I found myself staring at the television in awe as our new president was inaugurated. A tall, dark, handsome, and highly educated man presented himself with his beautiful family. I was so excited to finally see someone who resembled me in the White House. He promised change — in all honesty, I had no clue of what that meant, but it didn’t matter because it sounded good and it made me feel good. Not once did I consider doing any research on this man, but on Election Day, after working a twelve-hour shift, I hurried to the polls and proudly voted for Obama.

Now, however, nothing made sense. Was voting for Obama a mistake? The euphoric Obama feeling and the new knowledge didn’t add up. Confusion led me to do more research. I read everything that I could get my hands on, ranging from history books to news articles and blogs. And for the first time in my life, I read our founding documents.

I had so many questions. Fortunately, I also had a secret weapon: the same man who sent me the eye-opening e-mail. At times, he frustrated me because he never gave me direct answers. He pushed me to think for myself and to do my own research. He challenged me by questioning me, and only when I gave confident answers would he compensate me with his perspective on a subject.

With knowledge, life started to make more sense. I began to pay attention. My life was beginning to change, but it was not Obama’s change. I started to read about conservatism and listen to great American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. One night, I remember watching Glenn Beck’s keynote speech at CPAC 2010 and thinking that I had finally found my kind of people. Believe it or not, I started feeling happier.

For the past 33 years, I felt like an outcast. I’d always been a common sense type of girl, but, being a Latina and living in California, let’s just say common sense isn’t so common. I didn’t want to burden my one conservative friend with my daily questions, but I still needed answers.

One evening, as I browsed the net, I came across a website called Tea Party Nation. I registered and began chatting with other folks who thought like me. I also found Tea Party groups that gathered close to where I live.

On April 15, 2010, I attended my first tea party event in Chino Hills, California. It was a small Tax Day rally that took place a few miles away from my home. I must admit that I was a bit worried about what I might find at the event. Tea Partiers were so badly portrayed by the MSM — as a bunch of racists — so naturally, I wasn’t sure what to expect.

Unfortunately, I arrived late and didn’t have much time to participate in the event. Therefore, I can’t say much about what took place there, but I can describe the group of people present. I saw a small group of about thirty who ranged in age from teens to seniors. The group consisted of about 75% whites, and the rest of the 25% was a mix of Asians, blacks, and me (the one Mexican-American). I confess, being the only Mexican-American made me feel a little awkward, but that feeling quickly subsided. The people there were generally friendly. It was a group of peaceful strangers getting together and making a point about the one thing that unites us all: the knowledge that we’ve been taxed enough already.

My self-directed education, my newfound civic participation, and a slew of great Americans have helped me on my journey to becoming a conservative. I know that there are people who are doing an excellent job at taking our freedom away. I’ve learned to love and value my precious freedom. I understand that with freedom comes accountability and responsibility. I believe that I was blessed to be born in America with the ability to govern myself. I have nothing but gratitude for the man who guided me through this process, and I consider him a great friend. Thanks to him, I now proudly consider myself a principled individual and a conservative American.

Page Printed from: at May 01, 2011 – 12:05:59 PM CDT