Archive for August 18th, 2009

Do Not Be Afraid

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.
Acts 18:9 (New International Version)

Poll: More Than Half Say Stimulus Isn’t Working

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

The $787 billion stimulus package that Congress passed in February doesn’t seem to be having an effect, at least in the minds of a majority of adults polled by Gallup and USA Today.

The poll out Monday shows 57 percent of adults say the stimulus is having no impact on the economy or making it worse. Worse still, only 18 percent say they see an improvement in their personal situation as a result of the massive federal spending program, and 60 percent say they doubt the economy will be aided by the package in the years ahead.

“This is a wake-up call for the administration,” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told USA Today. “People see the stimulus hasn’t worked, and now you want to lay on over $1 trillion in a health care plan.”

The stimulus package contains $499 billion in new spending. Another $288 billion is intended for tax cuts. But as of Aug. 7 $77.1 billion had been distributed, according to the Obama administration Web site, The government says it has designated $200 billion of that money so far.

The Gallup poll mirrors a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken last week that showed 72 percent of say returning the unused portion of the $787 billion dollar stimulus to taxpayers would do more to boost the economy than having the government spend it. Nineteen percent supported continued government spending.

Of a subsample of the USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,010 adults polled between Aug. 6-9, 51 percent say the government spent too much while 31 percent the sum was “about right.” Almost half of those polled said they are very worried about overspending. The margin of error for the poll was 4 percent.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement Monday saying the stimulus package is “paying dividends” even though it still has a long way to go.

“Millions of Americans remain out of work. Families continue to struggle each day just to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. But as last month’s encouraging jobs and GDP numbers show, the Recovery Act is helping our nation move in the right direction,” she said.

Original Link.

Poll: Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

It’s about time. Now start voting like it and things will be good.

( – Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

Original Link.

“A Different Set of Worries” by Jeff Schreiber

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

More right-leaning protesters openly carrying firearms to presidential events has me worried, but not for the same reason as it worries those on the left.

I don’t know. When I look at the photograph to the right, taken by Scott Wong at the Arizona Republic, I think to myself: “Hmm. Nice AR-15.” There’s something elegant, even, about the extra mag in the back pocket of his suit pants. I like it. I’d be willing to bet, though, that liberals from one side of this country to the other look at this photo in a completely different way.

1. Holy crap, he’s got a gun. No — he’s got TWO guns!
2. Ohmigawd, that big assault rifle is evil. Like, it could accidentally go off and kill me from there.
3. He must be a lunatic. Who wears a clean, pressed dress shirt to a political protest?
4. Is that photograph overexposed? It looks almost like he’s black.

So, here’s the story: According to several news reports, including one from the Associated Press, about a dozen people were exercising their right to openly carry firearms in Arizona. This, of course, comes on the heels of another man spotted lawfully carrying a handgun openly in a thigh holster in New Hampshire. Chris Matthews, from MSNBC, embarrassed himself “covering” that one.

What the frenzied left needs to realize is that the people carrying firearms openly–or concealed with a lawful permit–are not the ones they, the Secret Service, or the president need to be worried about. The ones that I worry about (and I pray daily for the safety and security of the president and his family) are the ones that wouldn’t announce themselves, the ones who wouldn’t acquire the necessary permit before stuffing a pistol in their waistband.

Thing about it. Did the shooters at Virginia Tech, at Columbine, at the Trolley Square Mall or that department store in Omaha bother to obtain the proper permits? Of course not. In fact, all of those mass shootings happened in so-called “Gun Free Zones,” places where law-abiding citizens are not permitted to carry firearms, openly or otherwise. I’m not an expert, but I would imagine that if the gentleman from Arizona with the AR-15 were visiting a professor at Virginia Tech on the day of that tragedy, Seung-Hui Cho would have either (a) decided to take a raincheck and push off his murderous rampage to another day and/or a more “soft” target, or (b) certainly not have gotten as far.

Nevertheless, back to the presidential event, a report from MSNBC brought with it a comment from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. It was predictable:

Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense. Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner. The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidently [sic] mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.

The National Rifle Association and other ‘gun rights’ groups need to send a message about ‘gun responsibilities’ to their members and all gun owners. Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate. Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home — no exceptions.”

I understand what he’s saying about the attention of the police and Secret Service, but I’m certain that if any one of those people were acting suspiciously, they would be questioned — just as someone acting suspiciously without a gun on his hip would be questioned. Heck, cellphone signals have been known to trigger improvised explosive devices . . . should we be worried about everyone with a Blackberry clutched between their thumb and forefingers? Of course not. Local authorities stated that there was no cause for serious concern; Helmke should just let law enforcement and the Secret Service do their jobs.

On the gun rights debate as a whole, the left simply cannot fathom that it takes a killer to kill. And, contrary to what Chris Matthews would like everyone to believe, we’re not all killers. The people lawfully carrying in the open, announcing to the whole world that for the sake of their personal safety or even to make a point about their constitutional rights they have decided to arm themselves, are likely the last ones law enforcement need to worry about.

Furthermore, every presidential event brings with it a veritable brigade of people armed with loaded firearms. In fact, the president is constantly surrounded by people with loaded weapons. They aren’t mishandled. They don’t go off accidentally. Why? Because they are handled by competent, responsible, professional Secret Service agents and law enforcement officers. No different than your average law abiding gun owner.

But that’s the fundamental difference between left and right. Those on the political left trust the government with their money, their safety, and their liberty; those on the right trust the government only to abscond with each. For the life of them, they cannot understand why we’re not all raving lunatics, and I worry that somebody out there might exploit that perception.

We can see, from special reports already run by ABC News and other news outlets, that those of us on the right are already being set up to take the blame should–God forbid–anything awful happen. Former President George W. Bush had an abysmal approval rating (far less, even, than Joe Biden’s IQ!), had books written and movies made about his assassination, and yet no such reports emerged. Such reports, however, have a chilling effect on free speech, and that’s why they’re put together.

That being said, those of us on the right must be conscious that our every move is being scrutinized and catalogued for future use, if necessary. It’s to be expected, considering the left’s penchant for stifling debate rather than addressing it. And it’s fine, because for the most part we’re good-hearted, God-fearing people who may not like this president, but respect the presidency. Nevertheless, I urge each and every one of you to be aware of your surroundings, to be in tune with the sentiments of those around you — not to “snitch,” but to spot someone masquarading as something they’re not.

At a health care town hall in Texas, an Obama supporter donned a white coat and pretended to be a doctor. My worry is that someone will open-carry a firearm and act a fool, thus maligning law abiding gun owners everywhere. Be conscious of that. The same goes if someone at an event is shouting hateful things. Be conscious of how we will be perceived, and act accordingly.

All in all, I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I want to see passion. I want to see awareness. I want to see reasoned arguments, and throngs of people getting involved. But I am acutely aware of the microscope we’re under, and I want to make sure that the efforts of all these concerned Americans are not undone by one yahoo that may or may not have been planted there by the left.

Original Link.

Obama Snitch Mail Address Made “Permanently Inactive”

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

Obama Snitch Mail
Obama Snitch Mail

Back on August 6, we posted about Obama’s plans to have people who agree with his health care take over, to snitch on those of us who completely oppose it. We even added a convenient link, in the sidebar, to aid our detractors in snitching on us.

It now appears that his “Snitch Them Out” plan has failed, and as of this morning, the “flag” email address has been made “permanently inactive”.

Rest assured though, I made sure to turn us in before the email address was nixed, so His Most Inflated Egomaniac, the Emperor (want-to-be) Obama I, knows exactly how I feel about him and his socialization of the United States.

The White House on Monday implemented several new changes to its Web site, apparently aimed at reducing the number of people who receive unsolicited e-mails from the administration and at battling charges that it’s collecting personal information on critics.

After the White House took heat for asking people to report “fishy” information about health care reform, the e-mail address set up for that purpose became inactive Monday.

It’s unclear whether the White House pulled the plug on the controversial account,, or whether there is a bug in the system.

But the error message that shows up indicates it is a permanent change.

“The email address you just sent a message to is no longer in service,” the message says. “We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via:”

Through the “reality check” site, set up last week to address what the White House said were health care reform rumors, the White House is still asking people to send in their “myths” on health care. But that site now includes a warning that says, “please refrain from submitting any individual’s personal information, including their e-mail address, without their permission.”

The administration has heard mounting complaints from the public in the past week about the way it is collecting and sending out e-mails.

The request for “fishy” information led to charges, which the White House denied, that it was trying to compile some kind of “enemies list.”

Original Link.

Obama to Use Courts to Strike Down Defense of Marriage Act

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

Obama stated through his campaign and since taking office that he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and would like to see it repealed.
Thanks to a lawsuit, he may be able to “have his cake and eat it too”.
The lawsuit, brought by a couple of California homosexuals, will be heard in the most liberal court in the land.
Just how hard would it be for the Obama DOJ lawyers to “loose” the case? Pretty easy, in my opinion.
Now before you lawyer types start screaming at me about disbarment for intentionally “throwing” or loosing a case, keep in mind that proving that before the bar association is difficult. Did the lawyer intentionally throw the case or did they just have a bad day in court? Maybe the best lawyers were not assigned to the case. You see my point?
In a nutshell, Obama may be able to get the court to do his dirty work for him. He can get rid of the Defencse of Marriage Act and not even get his hands dirty.
There’s still a chance that the California court might take the day off from their usual legislating from the bench and actually uphold the law, but that is a very long shot.

The Obama Justice Department today filed court papers claiming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals. In the meantime, the DOJ lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a homosexual California couple challenging DOMA. (See Associated Press story below)

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, says President Obama is committed to repealing DOMA — but does not want to take the political flak that would come along with it.

“What the White House wants is for a court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act so that the White House and the president don’t have to take the political damage for undermining a law that protects normal marriage,” he explains.

Original Link.