Sibby Online

Free speech attacked

Again the Progressives are attacking America’s freedoms:

An amendment proposed to the Financial Services Appropriation Bill that would have protected free speech by preventing the Federal Communications Commission from restoring the so-called Fairness Doctrine regulations to U.S. airwaves has been rejected by members of a U.S. House committee.

"Unfortunately, Democrats on the Rules Committee decided that the freedom of speech, though enshrined in the Constitution, is not a right they were willing to afford their colleagues in the House," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who along with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., sponsored the plan.

"I am profoundly disappointed," Pence said.

The Rules Committee voted 8-4 along party lines to reject the amendment that would have halted any proposals by the FCC that would restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan.

Pence explained in a website statement that the First Amendment "is not a partisan issue; the preservation of constitutional freedoms should be the paramount duty of every elected representative and should take precedence over partisan gamesmanship or heavy-handedness."

Pence must not know about this:

More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson, who was president of Princeton and of the American Political Science Association before becoming President of the United States, was the first Chief Executive to openly criticize the Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that in a 1911 address he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface."

Wilson above all others deserves credit for the notion that the Constitution is a "living" or "evolving" document. As he wrote in 1908, "Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin." Insisting that the Constitution does not contain any theories or principles, Wilson argued that the Constitution has a "natural evolution" and is "one thing in one age, another in another." "Living political constitutions," he wrote, "must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

In the course of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, Wilson's interpretation of the Constitution has served the cause of big government, eventually dropping the self-description of "progressive" for the more marketable label "liberal." But whether they call themselves progressive or liberal, whether they are Democrat or Republican, the advocates of big government are unified in their belief that the principles of the Founding are irrelevant and the meaning of the Constitution can be easily stretched to justify any exercise of government power.

And note the "whether they are democrat or Republican".

Senate looking to has Hate Crimes to Defense spending

Washington DC is clearly broken:

Democrats are expected to sneak the hate crimes bill through the Senate as early as tomorrow after they offered it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.

The Senate approved the same hate crime legislation last year as part of the military funding bill, but it was never reconciled with the House's bill.

The current House version – H.R. 1913, or the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 – was passed April 29 and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Now the Senate is considering the military appropriations bill, or S.1390, and the Senate "hate crimes" act, or S. 909, may be passed as an amendment soon.

The "hate crimes" legislation now faces its best chance in years to become federal law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced Senate consideration of S.909, or the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act" on Tuesday.

"For the last decade, Matthew Shepard's name has been associated with hate crimes. When this bill passes, his name will thereafter be associated with justice," Reid said, according to a Politico report.

Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz, blasted the hate crimes amendment today, saying it is unrelated to the defense bill.

"The hate-crimes bill is not without controversy," McCain said, according to a CQ Today report. "This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period of time while we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars."

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has now signed on as one of more than 45 co-sponsors of the act, the Minneapolis Post reported.

"The overwhelming majority of Americans know that these protections are long overdue," Sen. Franken said. "No American should suffer because of their gender or sexual orientation, and no law enforcement official should be denied the necessary resources to prosecute their case. Minnesotans have a strong sense of justice, and no tolerance for hate. It’s time our laws reflect our convictions."

So why is Franklen hating America's Constitution? Because he is part of teh Progressive movement.

Obama’s eligibility issue heats up

Could this be retaliation:

The Department of Defense has allegedly compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.

Cook's attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but nothing is currently available.

The Department of Defense does contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Cook, a senior systems engineer and architect, was employed until taking a military leave of absence on July 10 in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan.

"Grice told plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become 'nutty and crazy,' and that plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position," Taitz wrote.

Grice made clear that it was Defense Security Services that had compelled Simtech to fire Cook, Taitz wrote.

According to the report, Grice told Cook "there was some gossip that 'people were disappointed in' the plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes."

The Simtech CEO then discussed Cook's expectation of final paychecks, without any severance pay, and wished the soldier well.

Messages left with Grice's office had not been returned at the time of this report.

What the health care plan does

Phyllis Schlafly gives us some of the details of Obamacare:

The Democrats' most recent answer to the question of how they will pay for their trillion-dollar health care reform was just announced by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel. He wants to impose a surtax on incomes over $280,000, which would be a staggering blow to small businesses that create most jobs.

Another option floated by the Democrats is to tax employer-sponsored health coverage. Obama supporter and union boss James P. Hoffa calls this "a bitter, bitter pill for middle-class wage-earners" and has vowed to fight it.

The real purpose of Obama's health care "reform" is to seize control of another major industry (health care) and move us rapidly into socialism. The Democrats' plan involves mandates to force individuals to buy insurance, employers to provide insurance and private insurance to offer an expensive list of benefits.

Instead of allowing insurance to compete by offering different benefit packages, the Democrats are considering insurance mandates to cover exotic benefits that individuals may not want to buy, such as in-vitro fertilization, hair transplants, rehab services, hearing aids, sex-change operations, prescription drugs, abortions, mental health and substance-abuse programs.

The Democrats intend to prohibit low-cost policies for catastrophic care. They want to bar you from buying cheaper insurance in other states.

The Democrats intend to impose community rating on a federal level, which means all customers will be offered the same rates regardless of age, obesity, smoking or other lifestyle differences. This forces young people to subsidize older patients.

The Democrats intend to launch a "public option" to compete with private insurance. Government subsidies for the public option would soon drive private insurance out of business and become the "single-payer" (government plan) that the liberals really want.

Obama promised that if you like your current insurance, you can keep it – but that option will soon be gone under Obama reform. Your employer could cancel his company-paid insurance (because it's cheaper to pay a fine, instead), or your insurance company (because it can't compete with government-subsidized insurance) could cancel your policy.

GOP needs return of conservative leadership

Ellis Washington puts forward the need for conservative leadership of the GOP (Grand Old Party) versus the GIP (Grand Irrelevant Party):

Where do we go from here? If economic projections and unemployment rates remain depressed a year from now, I think the GOP will be poised to retake both houses of Congress, rendering Obama a lame duck president into the 2012 election and almost assuring that a Republican will become the nation's next leader. That's why Obama is so desperately trying to pass his FDR welfare state legislation before the August recess.

Here's what the GOP must do:

• Like Reagan did 30 years ago when he ran against the bumbling socialist Jimmy Carter, get three or four policy platforms on economics, domestic policy, foreign policy and health care, and get behind a person who can best articulate this focused vision.
• We need candidates not intimidated by Obama's radical racialism. Any GOP candidate will be relentlessly demonized as racist, sexist, homophobic Nazi. Here is the GOP platform in a statement: Obama is a certified socialist with fascist tendencies. The welfare State he erected has destroyed our civil liberties and has made us all slaves of the federal government. The Democrats have ruined this country economically and made America a joke internationally. If elected, I vow to return America back to the Constitution.
• Any politician running on the GOP ticket that doesn't have the guts to spend 15 minutes in the crucible of "The Savage Nation" radio show in my opinion cannot and should not represent my country, because I would consider them cowards and duplicitous and therefore untrustworthy when it comes to zealously defending America's vested domestic and foreign interests.
• We need GOP candidates that can speak in the authentic voice of the American people –freedom, liberty, Natural Law, constitutionalism, limited government, anti-socialism, anti-welfare and an America-first foreign and domestic policy.

(Column continues below)

In conclusion, whether the GOP wins in 2010 and 2012, or the GIP loses in 2010 and 2012 will be a simple matter of determining which candidates can stand flat-footed without a teleprompter, without a deer-in-the-headlights look, without saying "uuuhhh," "aaahhh" or "you know," without vacuous rhetoric of bipartisanship or "my friends across the aisle." We don't need another Benedict Arnold, another Neville Chamberlain, another "Maverick"; no more Fords, McCains, Bushs or Upper Eastside, country club Republicans. This is war! Therefore, we need a wartime consigliore in the GOP to stop Obama's ruination of America, not an empty suit or a ventriloquist doll with lipstick, a tight skirt and a convoluted sports metaphor to explain simple questions. Enough is enough!

GAO reports shows dangers of Obama’s environmental policies

Bob Ellis has a GAO report that clearly how Obama’s Cap and Trade legislation is far more dangerous than global warming:

A new GAO report concerning the cap and trade global warming tax tells us what many of us already guessed: this self-destructive legislation will severely handicap American business’ ability to compete in the global market. The report was authored by Loren Yager, GAO director of international affairs.

If we figuratively put one leg of the American economy in a plaster cast, we will be at a severe disadvantage when competing for international business when other countries can sell similar products for much less–countries that frankly don’t care the slightest bit about playing silly global warming games with their economies.

Due to runaway business costs brought on by excessive government regulation, taxation and union demands, American business already has a difficult time competing in the world market.

This silly global warming tax may just sink American business internationally at a time when we are already struggling to remain competitive.

From CNS News:

"We are trying to make the Congress aware of that kind of a situation, so that they can look at particular features of the legislation," Yager said, and "to try to seek an international agreement in order to prevent these kinds of competitiveness shifts from occurring."

Yager authored a July 8 GAO report titled, "Climate Change Measures: Considerations for U.S. Policy Makers." It argues that China, which provides half of the world’s steel, would benefit if the U.S. adopts cap-and-trade energy legislation.

"Adverse competitiveness effects from emissions pricing could increase the already growing share of Chinese imports," the report stated.

The U.S. already spends approximately $30.5 billion importing China’s iron and steel,

The four U.S. industries at a disadvantage include chemicals, primary metals, paper, and non-metallic mineral manufacturers. The GAO calls them "trade and energy intensive" industries. They account for 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product, according to the report.

"Together, these four industries provided 23 percent of total U.S. manufacturing output in 2007 and had trade flows of about $500 billion," stated the report.

Cap and trade legislation, already passed by the U.S. House and being considered in the Senate, is one of the most hostile pieces of legislation we have ever seen in this country. It is directly contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution, American business, American freedom and the American taxpayer.

It will raise our electric bills by 40% or more, destroy thousands of jobs, threatens development of new power plants, may bankrupt the coal industry, will raise the price of gasoline by 77 cents a gallon, …all to maybe reduce global temperatures by 9/100ths of one degree over the next forty years.

No matter how you look at it, this legislation would be devastating to American strength and prosperity…for no good reason.

Czars, the Progressive’s expansion of their anti-American agenda

My study of the Progressive movement includes their desire to eliminate the separation of powers and use "administrative law" that will take complete control over America. Czars fit perfectly into this unconstitutional agenda. Bob Ellis has the details:

There just seems to be no end of the river of anti-American, anti-freedom radicals that Barack Obama is filling our government with. As I said recently, we couldn’t imagine a greater collection of officials hostile to the American way of life if we were conquered by a hostile nation and our government replaced by enemy officials.

Just a couple of days ago I wrote about President Obama’s black red "Green Jobs" czar Van Jones who came up through the ranks as a racial radical arrested in the Rodney King riots, embraced communism while in jail, formed a socialist collective which championed the ideas of Marx and Lenin, and has now seized on on the environmentalist movement as a vehicle for his extremist ideas.

Before that I examined the death-culture advocates Obama has filled the Justice Department with, America-hater Harold Koh (recently confirmed as State Department legal advisor), and terrorist sympathizer Rosa Brooks.

Now Kathy Shaidle at Newsreal points out that President Obama’s "Science Czar" John P. Holdren is cut from the same ultra-Leftist anti-freedom mold as the rest of the Obama Administration.

According to DiscoverTheNetworks.org, Holdren is Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, sees capitalism as a threat, dreams of eco-disasters, and opposed President Reagan’s military buildup (that defeated the Soviet Union).

He is also a Malthusian who said it is vital "to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth." No doubt this means pushing abortion at every opportunity, and even curtailing basic human rights if that doesn’t satisfy, a la communist Chinese population control.

He also called for "a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States," which no doubt means to cripple our economy. Holdren must be ecstatic over the U.S. House’s recent passage of the devastating cap and trade global warming tax which will destroy jobs and raise the cost of living for all Americans.

Will the Blue Dogs do more than bark at government health care?

The Blue Dog Democrats are barking at Pelosi:

Herseth Sandlin and 39 conservative Blue Dog colleagues sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 9. In it, they said any health care reform bill must be accompanied by means to pay for it. It must work to lower cost and increase value, it must not create financial hardship for small businesses, it must reflect bipartisanship and it must address challenges in delivering health care in rural communities.

Herseth Sandlin also said legislation should reduce or eliminate a long-standing disparity in Medicare reimbursement among regions of the country. South Dakota is among 17 states where health care providers receive lower reimbursement, she said.

"The bottom line for me is South Dakota has lived with plenty of inequity the past number of years. This is our opportunity to address that inequity," she said.

The Blue Dog letter apparently galvanized House leadership. Pelosi spoke to the caucus Tuesday, and House leaders have held marathon sessions with Blue Dogs in recent days.

Why would anyone think that government health care should be expanded after it crisis that has been created with Medicare and Medicaid? And then throw in the Indian Health Service as another indication of the government’s inability to provide services. Time for the Blue Dogs to do more than just bark.

Those who benefited from high oil prices

Remember a year ago when the oil companies were evil because they were benefiting from high oil prices? Well now that we have lower prices, the real beneficiaries are known, farmers and the ethanol industry:

Lower gasoline prices, while a boon for drivers, were a gut punch for ethanol producers and promoters of the high-ethanol blend known as E85.

In Minnesota, the nation's leader in E85 pumps, sales fell off by more than half this spring compared with the year before, a disappointment to E85 producers and the farmers who supply them with corn to make the fuel. It's also a letdown for those who hoped the blend would provide a cleaner alternative to gasoline and accelerate the move away from fossil fuels.

Heidelberger’s hatred toward men & fathers

First we have a report on the every expanding welfare state of America:

Federal stimulus money is headed for South Dakota. Overall, the Rushmore State will get $3.2 million from a federal grant, part of the Economic Recovery Act. In Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County will be asking for almost $1.9 million.

Some of the local agencies that could be seeing some of that money will be the St. Francis House, Lutheran Social Services, Volunteers of America and Goodwill.

However, in tough times its not just big agencies that are hurting. As unemployment rates continue to be on the rise, some people are finding themselves in trouble when it comes to hanging on to their home. Those who need financial assistance typically go to the Minnehaha County Human Services Department and now they'll have more money to tap in to.

Action News spoke today with Kayla Severson, a young lady in her mid 20s with a 2 year old son who came for assistance. When she was asked what it's like to have assistance when she needs it she sad awesome, then said "knowing i have some place to go, knowing i have help with rent and a place for my kid is great, i really can't describe the feeling."

What about the kids father? The report does not mention him. The Progressive left hates men and would rather see women dependent on their welfare state. Cory Heidelberger gives us more insight into the Progressive’s hate men agenda with this analysis of Thad Wasson:

In a 2007 Mount Blogmore post on SCHIP, Wasson comments, "All of this talk about uninsured children makes it seem as if they appeared out of nowhere. Most have two parents and it is the Fathers responsibility to provide care for his children." The red meat blogger in me says, "Yes! Please! Run more rank fundagelical patriarchy against Stephanie!" The good neighbor in me says, "Please, spare us."

Cory goes on and says this:

And before he starts making big speeches, he might want to practice answering questions about sexual equality and public policy.

Sexual equality…like Sotomayor’s belief the Latinas are more qualified to be judge than white men? And that public policy should be created by Latina judges? The only problem is that the constitution stands in the way. And that is why the Progressives hate America’s founding principles.

And where did this hatred toward men come from? I found this in Mitchell’s High School History book:

While many Americans embraced the new morality, others feared that the country was losing traditional values. They viewed the consumer culture, released ethics, and changing roles of women as evidence of the nation’s moral decline. Man of these people, especially in rural towns, responded by joining a religious movement known as Fundamentalism, a name derived from a series of Christian religious pamphlets title "The Fundamentals."

Fundamentalist Beliefs Fundamentalists believed that the Bible was literally true and without error. They rejected the idea that human beings derived their moral behavior from society and nature, not God. In particular they rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which said that human beings had developed from lower forms of life over the course of millions of years. Instead, they believed in creationism.—the belief that God created the world as described in the Bible.

The textbook goes into the Scopes trial in an effort to demonize those who believe in the Bible. And note the reference to "changing roles of women as evidence of the nation’s moral decline". This is how the radical left attacks both men and Christians. The textbook instead promotes the Progressives as good, but leaves out their anti-American agenda that wants to destroy the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The founding principles stand in their way to establish the administrative laws of a welfare state that is to span our lives from cradle to grave.

On Monday two Mitchell school board members took an oath of office that included protecting the constitution. I gave them this insight about Progressives that was not found in the high school history textbook:

More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson, who was president of Princeton and of the American Political Science Association before becoming President of the United States, was the first Chief Executive to openly criticize the Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that in a 1911 address he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface."

After which I reminded the school bard about their oath and the fulfilling it meant doing something about the American history textbooks that are being used by Mitchell schools.

And Progressive RINOs like Pat Powers refuse to understand this:

Wilson above all others deserves credit for the notion that the Constitution is a "living" or "evolving" document. As he wrote in 1908, "Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin." Insisting that the Constitution does not contain any theories or principles, Wilson argued that the Constitution has a "natural evolution" and is "one thing in one age, another in another." "Living political constitutions," he wrote, "must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

I wonder what Pat Powers’ Educrat wife would say about that?

Federal Reserve serves the plutocrats

Perhaps it is the Federal Reserve’s servitude to the rich that causes pat Powers to defend the biggest attack on American free markets:

A bill in the House of Representatives sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas calling for a full audit of the Federal Reserve has attracted 260 co-sponsors – far more than needed to ensure passage.

Yet, the legislation remains in the House Judiciary Committee where few support it. And last week, the Senate, on a procedural vote, killed an amendment requiring Congress to inspect the books of the Fed, which has already conceded it has no intention of revealing to the people how billions in bank bailout dollars have been spent so far – even after the fact!

My guess is that unless Congress asserts its constitutional authority as the most powerful branch of the federal government and the one specifically charged with coining money and regulating its value, Paul's bill will die a slow death in committee.

That's because there has been a silent coup in America – with the Federal Reserve, a tool of the rich and powerful international bankers, used to usurp the power of the people.

Ginsberg provides insight into the thinking of Sotomayor

Limbaugh points out the Progressive agenda of the Planned Parenthood and the feminazis who lead it, which then gives us insight into the thinking of Sotomayor:

The Sunday New York Times published a recent interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, and after expressing her annoyance over a 1980 decision that forbids using Medicaid tax dollars for abortions, Justice Ginsburg said this. I want to quote it: "Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, The Sunday New York Times published a recent interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, and after expressing her annoyance over a 1980 decision that forbids using Medicaid tax dollars for abortions, Justice Ginsburg said this. I want to quote it: "Frankly, I had

That was the original purpose. I think in Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg's case, when she says that she thinks Roe was about "population growth, particularly growth in populations who don't have too many of," she's probably thinking about aborting conservatives. But the problem with that is it's the liberals that are aborting each other, or themselves, their future generations. Now, what's astounding about this is that a matriarch of modern liberalism was candid about the underlying objective of the abortion movement: That is to rid society of entire populations deemed "unworthy." Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an early proponent of this. It's called eugenics, and her aim was to wipe out the African-American population.

Other infamous world figures acted upon similar instincts using other means to achieve their objectives: Concentration camps, mass gassings, so-called ethnic cleansings. Planned Parenthood is no different. Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood is no different than any of the people that use concentration camps, mass gassings, so-called ethnic cleansings. And what's just ironic as it can be is that the primary supporters of Planned Parenthood are liberals. But here comes Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg just out of the box admitting what this is all about. Now, it is all about "a woman's right to choose." I mean, that's the umbrella under which it all happens. But the thing about this group, Planned Parenthood... You put up an adoption center next to an abortion clinic and what will happen is the Planned Parenthood people come out and try to keep every pregnant woman possible from going into the adoption center.

There's money involved and all of that. Now, Justice Ginsburg has not yet stated which American population she would like to see wiped out using Medicaid, taxpayer-funded abortions. The New York Times interviewer didn't ask. Perhaps she assumed that New York Times readers already know what population of Ruth "Buzzi"... I'm mentioning this now because we got another one of these type people being investigated today at confirmation hearings. Sonia Sotomayor is probably right down the path with justice Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg on this issue. Well, see, to somebody like me who can read the stitches on the fastball and read between the lines, Justice Ginsburg's remarks tell the real story. They ought to dispel for all time any notion that the abortion movement is about privacy or choice or freedom, and it should also tell you why they are so damned... (I must say this) insistent that Medicaid -- that's poor people medical care -- money be used for abortions. I'll tell you why liberals reacted so strongly to my term "feminazi." My term feminazi hit waaaaay too close to home.

Read the Background Material...

• New York Times: The Place of Women on the Court
• CNSNews: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don't Want to Have Too Many Of'
• NewsBusters: Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many Of'

Palin not progressive enough for either party

Rush Limbaugh responds to the "Palin is not well read enough" elitists with this:

RUSH: Okay, and I hear this from a lot of people on our side, too. Primarily women, primarily women. And I think many of them have been in Washington too long. "Lord knows she's attractive." That's the rub. That's the rub. Well, it's not the whole rub, but it's part of what grates on 'em. Trust me, my friends. Trust me. When your poster chick is Barbara Mikulski, you get the drift. When your poster chick is Nancy Pelosi. I don't care, pick one. But this whole notion of... I'm sure Obama's well read, too, right? And Obama's running around apologizing for the United States every chance he gets. What's the point of being well read...? This is an effort to say she's unsophisticated. She's not properly refined. She's not from the schools of thought that everybody in Washington considers to be important.

Now, I have no clue what she's going to do. I don't know anybody who does besides her. We got a Washington Post story that says she's going to go out and campaign for conservative Democrats. When I watched her speech when she announced she was going to leave the governorship of Alaska, I didn't hear the word Republican mentioned once. If I'm Sarah Palin and I'm conservative, the Republican Party's been just as mean-spirited to her as the Democrats have. A lot of them have. A lot of Republican Party, a lot of the so-called conservative media have been. I don't know if she's going to campaign for conservative Democrats but if she believes that conservatism is the way to go... But one thing that does slightly worry me about this is this whole third-party business. Yeah, it's remote but it's still a possibility out there, and there are a lot of people pushing a third party, and that's...

Third parties, they lose. They just lose. Third parties never end up with a congressional or Senate candidate winning. It's not the way to go but we'll save that for later if that actually begins to transpire, or we see it beginning to transpire. The bottom line is she and her political... You ought to read Willie Brown in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. Willie Brown says she's just outsmarting everyone. Her instincts are good. American Thinker, I think Thomas Lifson wrote about it, too, Willie Brown analysis of this. That she's just steps ahead of everybody strategically and doesn't fit any cookie-cutter mold, which is exactly what's necessary.

Candidate brings concerns of the New World Order

Pat Powers has a post that announces a GOP candidate for Congress that he would consider a paranoid black helicopter hillbilly. Excerpt:

"It is with great humility and honor that I, Thad Wasson am announcing my candidacy for the U.S. House on the Republican ticket. This a decision based on many prayers and consultation with my wife, Michelle, and the future of our three children Hannah, Henry, and Vivien.

For the past 60 years this nation has slowly given away her sovereignty, from joining the United Nations to NATO to trade alliances from NAFTA to the WTO. This has lead to military conflicts that never end and the loss of a manufacturing base that we as a nation need to survive. Forward to the year 2009, when there is no talk of American greatness or American prosperity or American pride. It has been replaced with global initiatives and one world solutions and a common good. The current Democratic agenda is set on solutions which result in government control.

I will strive to bring back the American dream – Freedom from an oppressive government, freedom to succeed and freedom for this country for decades to come.

Watch the South Daktoa GOP turn their back on a true conservative.

Greenpeace blocked access

What happened:

Eleven people accused of scaling Mount Rushmore and hanging a banner warning about global warming are expected to appear in federal court in October for trial.

Trial dates have been set for Oct. 19-20 for the 11 climbers, who are members of the environmental group Greenpeace. They have pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges of trespassing and climbing in a prohibited area.

The prosecutor said each charge carries a penalty of up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The group said three of its members hung the 65-by-35-foot banner on the national monument while other activists blocked access to the site.

So they took control over Mount Rushmore? And that is only a misdemeanor? And just being a member of pro-life groups makes you a terrorist?