Monthly Archives: November 2011

Mitt Romney Speaks Of Herman Cain… In 1994

I’m quite sure Mitt Romney had no idea he would eventually be running against Herman Cain for the office of President of the United States. Back in 1994, at a Senatorial campaign speech, Mr. Romney references Mr. Cain’s questioning of President Clinton on healthcare reform. Strangely enough, healthcare is still a hot topic 17 years later.

While Obama Fiddles, Europe Is Collapsing

 “Fiddle while Rome burns….” We have all heard that phrase. But IMHO it is quite appropriate now because of two events that are currently occurring.

First event: The Euro and the European Union are in dire straits, about to collapse. Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University (hardly a bastion of conservatism) says that as Great Britain goes, so goes the European Union. The thing that could cause the European Union to collapse would be the withdrawal of Great Britain, and that has started to look quite possible. And, Great Britain has instructed its embassies in the Eurozone (different from the European Union) to be ready to help British citizens through the collapse of the Euro, planning on the basis that a Euro collapse is now just a matter of time. Diplomats have also been told to prepare to help tens of thousands of British citizens in Eurozone countries with the consequences of a financial collapse that would leave them unable to access bank accounts or even withdraw cash.

Second event: With the “crisis” in Europe as a backdrop, what did President Barack Obama do? He took advantage of the unseasonably warm November weather and enjoyed a round of golf and shot some hoops with personal assistant Reggie Love. He then gathered Michelle and the girls aboard Marine One to attend the Towson University-Oregon State basketball game in nearby Baltimore.

So while events that will affect the U.S. (particularly the economy), Europe, and the entire world occur, our Narcissist in Chief is playing golf, shooting hoops, and attending a basketball game. Surprised? Why should we be? Obama has ALWAYS put himself first.

But that’s just my opinion.

Tonight on the Dark Side w/Kira Davis, 11/27…

Tonight on the Dark Side we’ll talk about the news of the week and Black Friday.  Do you have a Black Friday war story to share? Call in tonight.  Also Mr.Davis will call in to talk football to appease all you football fans out there.  I’m sorry! In my world pigskins are for eating…I’m doing the best I can here!

Come over to the Dark Side tonight at 10 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. Pacific.

"Small Business Saturday", Please Don't Become "Buy Local"!

Yesterday was “Small Business Saturday”, an event intended to encourage all of us to inject cash into small businesses. I like this idea, and I like small business. I like the idea of a person taking a risk, striking out on their own, and striving toward independent succcess (and hopefully, independent wealth).

Alas, I can’t help but draw comparisons to another small-business-oriented movement: The “Buy Local” movement.

Embedded within “Buy Local” drives and other attempts to balkanize the economy, is the very core concept of Marxism: The theory of the zero-sum economy, wherein a person who accumulates wealth can only do so through depriving another person of it- so, “buy local” to deprive “big business” of their “ill-gotten” profits.

Those who seek to continually reduce the size of your “economic zone” never stop with “local”, either. Once such people have convinced you to cut back from “Buying American” to “Buying (your state)” to “Buying (your city)”, their momentum carries them into absurd- but damaging- gossip territory: “Buy from Local Business A instead of Local Business B, because (insert reason)”. The reason could be any petty issue: Business A is owned by a “good family”, where Business B has a family member with legal troubles; Business A’s owner lives in this town, where Business B’s owner lives in the next town over; Business A is “struggling” and “needs” the money, where Business B’s owner just bought a new boat. The exact reason is irrelevant. When dealing with people who seek to dictate how others spend their money, any convenient justification will suffice.

It also promotes inefficiency in business: It promotes the idea that a small, local business- regardless of how irrelevant or inefficient it is- is more “deserving” of my money than a large business which must constantly work to make itself more competitive and more efficient.

This mentality also puts franchises in an awkward position: I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen restaurants open in my city, only to go out of business within a few months. Of course, the public blames “the big guys” for “taking money from them”- “the big guys” being fast-food eateries. Nevermind that “the big guys” are franchises- in other words, locally-owned just like the “little guy”- and never mind that they were here first, or that they’re efficiently-run and offer products people want. They’re “evil” and they “steal from the little guys”- proved by the fact that they have TV commercials.

And then there are Farmer’s Markets, and the ridiculous assertion that they “save the environment”, and that somehow “locally-grown” produce is superior, or not “full of pesticides”- as if New York lettuce is safe, but Pennsylvania lettuce will kill me- and to “save myself” (and the children, naturally), I’m expected to substitute my 20-minute trip to the grocery store for a three-hour ordeal involving overpriced lemonade, a horrible band (a local band, of course, rather than one I’d actually want to hear), no parking, and like any other local event, dog poop on the sidewalks.

Oh, and let’s not forget the common conceit that events such as this “bring money into the city”- forgetting that the miniscule amount of tax revenue the city will recieve, is completely dwarfed by the cost of overtime for the several police officers present (because it’s not safe to sell cucumbers in a city of 17,000 people these days).

So, “Small Business Saturday”: Please, Please, Please don’t degenerate into the socialist failure that is “Buy Local”. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to do to you what I do to “Farmer’s Market Thursday”, and avoid you like the plague.

The FairTax Series: America's Road To Prosperity, Part 1

This is the first of a 5 part series I am writing based on the book “The FAIRTAX: The Truth”. In the series I take a 300+ page book and condense it down to a virtual “cliff notes” version designed for the novice political reader. I designed the series for those who are not very knowledgeable about politics or the tax structure and how it affects all Americans. I encourage eveyone reading the series to buy the book and get the full effect of the policies in place today and see how the FAIRTAX will change the dynamics of government financing.

A couple of years ago I began hearing about a new concept in taxation. This new concept is called The FairTax. I didn’t pay much attention because I thought “how is any tax fair?”, when some pay and  some don’t. At first I dismissed it as another scam to throw me off the track of an out of control government looking for another way to hoodwink me into paying more of my hard earned money into their grand spending plans.

I have long since grown tired of paying so much of my money into ever growing but useless government programs that pay people to sit on their butts and spend my money. Welfare expenses keep going up as more and more people find ways to game the system by having babies, faking injuries, working for cash under the table, etc. The ultra-rich hide their money in “foundations” or overseas to avoid the taxes I have been paying for 45 years. All of them, rich and poor are getting over on the other working stiffs who are too stupid, too honest, or unwilling, to do these things. These money pits keep growing as the amount of available income to tax drops.

One of my pet peeves with income tax is those who don’t pay any. While I was paying 32% in my working years the local drug dealer was paying nothing. The local prostitutes who hang out on street corners in the bigger cities or work out of high priced hotels were paying nothing. The welfare cheats who sit around finding ways to game the system for their own benefit have no intention of doing anything to benefit society, or themselves for that matter. The illegal aliens who were working for cash were paying nothing. I had noticed the illegal aliens especially. They were everywhere and driving much nicer vehicles than I was, or am now driving (I don’t hang out where the hookers hang out). I was paying a 25% income tax, a 7.5% social security/Medicare tax, plus state taxes, and being told the government couldn’t afford for me to retire while those not paying taxes lived the good life. I struggled, they flourished. That is when The FairTax began to make sense to me.

I heard Neal Boortz one day talking about this new plan on his radio show. I listened with interest and thought it sounded good but never really did any more to learn about The FairTax. In the last election cycle, the 2010 mid-terms, I kept bumping into Carol Chouinard and she kept handing me literature about The Fair Tax. I took the information and looked it over without really spending a lot of time educating myself on this new concept. Interesting but, ehhhh!!!!

One day I was going through a stack of papers that had accumulated over a few months, actually several months, and found the literature Carol had given me. As I read through the brochures and leaflets I began to realize that this was not the run of the mill scam to get more of my money. This was an idea that made sense to me once I really looked at it.

Carol is the local guru on The FairTax. She lives in Rogers County, 2nd Congressional District, State of Oklahoma. She travels throughout Eastern Oklahoma, or anywhere else for that matter, presenting The FairTax to any group or person who will give her a chance to enlighten them. I ran into her again the other night and we got to talking about political issues and The FairTax came up. Well, I was complaining about the current debt ceiling debacle and how to deal with it. Carol began to explain some more about how The FairTax was the answer to much of the problem.

As I listened to her a light bulb came on in my head, and the squirrel began to spin the cylinder. The things I had read came back to me and began to make sense. I began to remember about the way our tax system keeps hard working honest people in bondage while those who don’t mind cheating skate by without paying anything, only taking from those of us who do things the right way. Carol gave me a book about The FairTax. It is the second book called FairTax: The Truth. The first book, The FairTax, came out in 2005. This book was published in 2008 so is 3 years old as I start this article. Much of the information I will include in future articles about The FairTax will come from updates from the FairTax web site as I want to give you the most up-to-date information and statistics available.

One solution I see to our fiscal problems in this plan is the title, The FairTax. From everything I have read and the research I am doing, this plan solves many of the financial problems we face as a nation, the issue of money paid in taxes. I find that this plan is aptly named. I often hear Democrat and sometimes Republican politicians, especially those in Washington, cry about how “the rich” get over by not paying enough taxes. Yeah, like the politicians pay “their fair share”. Remember the hullaballoo a few months ago about Senator John Kerry, the one who parked his multi-million dollar yacht, $7 million yacht to be exact, on the far side of the bay because the state taxes on that yacht were cheaper there than on his side of the inlet? $500,000 per year cheaper to be exact. So much for Washington’s multi-millionaire insiders being concerned about paying their fair share of taxes. Hmm, I wonder where I am going to park my $7 million yacht. Oh, never mind, I don’t have one.

I also hear many “poor” people make the same statements, “the rich need to pay more taxes”. The problem with the “poor” complainers is that most of the ones I know don’t pay any taxes at all either. Most of the “the rich need to pay more taxes” crowd, at least the ones I know personally, are on the dole. They are drawing welfare, food stamps, social security disability, state aid, etc. Many of them either don’t work at all or work part time. They pay nothing and spend much of their time complaining that they don’t “get enough help from the government”. They have cell phones for themselves and their children, several have big flat screen HD televisions, complete with the latest game consoles, cable TV service, cigarettes, and are usually well stocked with beer in the fridge. Actually, I need the “rich” people to continue to be “rich”. They are the ones who will hire me, hopefully, so I can make a little money. Poor people never seem to hire me for anything.

In the spirit of “transparency”, my wife and I both have cell phones, we have cable TV service, and one 37 inch flat screen HD television set. Before you say “AHAH!!!” let me offer a caveat to this. We don’t get any help from the government and are not exactly in the “rich folks” category. I am retired but not old enough to draw social security, my wife works a full time job, and we have a small Mom & Pop business that gives me a little work and usually provides us very little in the way of profit. As a matter of fact, if the business doesn’t make a profit in 2011 we are going to have to shut it down. I work part time for a friend when he needs help on a project but the rest of the time I spend working on and around the house. We have a 1976 Chevy pickup that my father-in-law gave to us when he became unable to drive. We have a 1995 Ford Escort that my mother-in-law gave to us when she became unable to drive. We also have a 2004 Dodge PT Cruiser with over 100,000 miles on it (it was a demonstrator model). We don’t owe any money on our cars, and live in a 101 year old house with a $60,000 mortgage. Not exactly Beverly Hills here, closer to Green Acres, but we don’t get any government assistance either.

To get back to the point of this article, our nation cannot keep going the way it is financially. We cannot continue to borrow and spend, drive businesses out of the country, and raise taxes on the “rich”, those making $250,000 per year or so, the small to medium businessman/family who provide the bulk of the jobs in this nation. We have to do something to bring the jobs back to the United States. We need to make it feasible for those who hide their money to use that money to provide jobs so those who desire to work but can’t find a decent job can get back to work. Giving people unlimited unemployment pay is not the answer to prosperity, it is a handout not a hand up. Many of those drawing that unemployment would work if they could find a job. Some of them are lazy bums that are looking for a handout but most, and I do mean MOST, are honest hard working people who just want to provide for their families.

The FairTax is a method to accomplish this task of financial recovery and prosperity. In the next installment of this series I intend to delve into how our current tax structure is designed to inhibit rather than enhance prosperity. I will cover the costs of enforcing and complying with the current tax code and how it affects every person in America, tax payer and non-taxpayer. The FairTax books are a treasure trove of information about how our financial system works, or doesn’t work, and what We the People can do if we will stand up and demand that the politicians change the way they do things. Other installments will cover more aspects of The FairTax plan and how we go about getting it implemented by politicians that are more concerned about themselves than We the People. Elections are only 11 months away, so let’s get to work changing our future. God Bless America!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 25, 2011

America: Future of Freedom or Future of Tyranny?

This is an open letter to those in America who still support, and will vote for, Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2012. It is also for those who will blindly support Republicans because they aren’t Democrats. Please take time to read through this and really think about what I say. Don’t read this through the eyes of politics or party line rhetoric, read this as an American citizen.
I remember a Republican president and a Republican controlled Congress giving us the Patriot Act for our “protection”. They also gave us the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security has given us the TSA. Have you been on an airplane lately? To fly these days you have to be either photographed virtually nude or felt up by a guard who fondles people for a living. Now stay with me here, think about this. While they are busy strip searching an 89 year old, wheel chair bound, diaper wearing, woman in an airport, they are allowing millions of people to just walk across our southern border.

There is even less security on the Canadian border and Muslim terrorists have easy access to Canada. So the TSA keeps you safe on an airplane while they allow these same people, terrorists that now can’t get on an airplane, access to your homes, your churches, your shopping malls, your children’s schools. Think about this for a minute before you continue. Terrorists don’t need airplanes any longer. Our government is so focused on air travel that a terrorist can’t get on a plane with a box cutter, but they can walk across the Mexican border like they are out for a Sunday stroll in the park. And what do terrorists bring with them on these strolls? I bet it isn’t bundles of marijuana. Both parties speak of “fearing” a nuclear attack with a suitcase bomb but neither party is willing to close the main source of access for that attack they “fear”. How safe does this information leave you feeling?

Do you know what Homeland Security has “prevented” in the last few years? I know of two much bally-hoed “attacks” prevented by the federal government in recent years. Both were thwarted by alert FBI agents, who just happened to have recruited the bomber, supplied all of the information and access necessary to carry out the attack, AND supplied a dummy bomb to the would-be terrorist. This link is to a story about the Dallas incident. This has happened under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, no partisanship here. The government arrests these poor morons and trot the “terrorist” out like they have “saved” us. And the “Times Square Bomber”, a legitimate attempt, was thwarted by alert citizens not government officials.

Let’s go back a bit farther now and talk about jobs with all of the unemployed rank and file union workers who paid dues to the union, dues that got funneled back to the Democrat Party. Your jobs were shipped overseas primarily under Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled Congresses. Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress raised corporate taxes, and gave us NAFTA and GATT; free trade agreements that made it cheaper to build items in Mexico, China, India, and who knows where else. The labor is cheaper, taxes are lower, and they can ship products back here without paying import taxes.

Republicans were all too happy to jump on board with this also. Your elected government and union officials are at fault for this, not the employer. Union hierarchy are living just fine while you sit on unemployment and scratch day to day in the hope you can hold onto the house you bought while times were good. Check into the financial status of James Hoffa and the other top union leaders. How are they doing? Are they living on unemployment? I would be curious to know if they actually pay taxes on their income or if they are exempt, as are Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel. Who benefitted from the housing bubble and its ultimate bust? Don’t take my word for it; go look at how all of this has affected you and then look at who did what. These people, in either party, are not doing you any favors.

Bill Clinton made a bid for your 401/IRA retirement accounts and barely lost that one because there were enough Republicans opposing it. He wanted to “nationalize”, that means seize, your retirement account and lump it in with Social Security to help those who have less than you do. You work and save for 40 years so the government can give those savings to people too lazy to work, people unwilling to work, and illegal aliens. That little surprise has boiled up again. It’s not on the radar yet but is there just the same. Obama is hatching Phase 2 of this little plot against your future, kind of like Obamacare is Phase 2 of Hillarycare.

Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins came up with the brilliant idea of giving the president complete control of the internet through “kill switch” legislation. Iran and China already have this in place. How is that working out for their citizens? Here we have a “moderate” Democrat, disguised as an Independent, and a “moderate” (RINO) Republican openly plotting to give the president, any president, the right to take away internet access whenever he wants to do so. Drop that in with the mix with “net neutrality”, which is their fall back position from complete control, and you have the makings of tyranny. Democrats are openly supporting the “occupy Wall Street” bunch and some are calling for the suspension of elections, and even the suspension of the Constitution, to solve this mess we are in.

Do you really understand what that means? Do you really understand what these people are calling for? Do you see how the Republican leadership in Congress is dealing with this? Go look at the last 10 years in Venezuela. Look at how Hugo Chavez gained a dictatorship. Look and compare. Don’t take my word for it, go look it up and see for yourself.

Lobbyists, many of whom are former members of Congress or various administrations, are paid big bucks to get legislation passed that is beneficial to their clients. They buy influence with politicians of both parties. For you parents out there, do you punish your child for doing wrong or do you punish the one who put them up to it? One problem with our nation is that we have grown to make excuses for our child and blame others who were also involved. “The ‘instigator’ is at fault not my baby”, or “it isn’t MY senator, MY Congressman, it is the ‘evil corporations’. “ No, it isn’t the “instigator’s” fault; your kid didn’t have to throw the rock he was handed through the window. No, it isn’t the “evil corporation” and your member of Congress could always refuse the bribe money. Now we find out that Congress is immune to insider trading laws. Martha Stewart sat in prison, Nancy Pelosi sits as minority leader of the House of Representatives. How nice!!!!!

Those who are on some form of government assistance are also in danger. What the government gives it can take away. Look at what they have done since the 9/11 attacks. We are finding ever increasing control by one government agency or the other. Senate bill S. 679 (Thomas Congressional Library), introduced in March 2011, will give the president, any president, the right to appoint anyone he wishes to any post he wishes. It takes away any Congressional approval and gives carte blanche rights to the president. The “czars” will be even more omnipotent than they are now. No Congressional oversight, no voice of the people allowed. This is a violation of their oath to the Constitution, and to We the People. Go to the link, read the article, and share it with your family, friends, and Congress Critters. A “bi-partisan” Senate has passed S. 679 and sent it to the House of Representatives.

I just saw an article a couple of days ago that says we owe more than we can produce to pay off the national debt. Both parties have done this. We are on a fast boat to dictatorship and many are either blind to it or in denial. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is easy to see if you will take the time to look behind the campaign rhetoric, the partisan political fighting, and the posturing. Go find the true intent of what is being done; behind the scenes, out of the public eye and by both political parties.

There are more of us in this sinking ship of state than you might think. I am not being politically partisan here, I am being an American. When government takes over the ultra-rich will still be ultra-rich. Why do you think they give so much money to politicians? They are buying the future favor you and I can’t afford. Go check out the financial status of those who have been in Congress a while. See if they have “shared the sacrifice” or if they have become wealthy. Don’t take my word for it, go take a close look at how you are being manipulated into slavery.

There are movements out there who are fighting this, help them. The TEA Party is a grassroots group of citizens working to take their country back for the People. Tim Cox of GOOH is recruiting citizens to become citizen legislators to represent We the People, become a candidate if you can, if not help financially or work on a local campaign. John Dummett is running for the Republican  nomination for president. He is a common man that stands for the Constitution and the People, and he needs our help. He won’t get any help from the party machine or the media.

Take a look at your “class” in life. Take an honest look at your life, your income, the taxes you pay and your overall prognosis for the future. Now look at history. Who suffered in the French Revolution? Lots of rich people lost their heads but where did their wealth go? Did the peasants come out wealthy or did they suffer even more poverty? Go back and take a look at the Russian Revolution in 1917 and see how the poor came out on that one. Study the aftermath of World War I and the poverty that ensued in Germany. Look at how Adolph Hitler got control of Germany and how he went about his evil task. It didn’t start in 1939 with the invasion of Poland and Hitler didn’t do it by himself. He had a willing parliament, complicit media, and a desperate populace. Take a stroll through history, look the information up and find the truth. Then look at what your government has done here, just in the last 10 years. Go look at the last 10 years in the history of Venezuela. See how Hugo Chavez has taken complete control of that nation.

I am a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a veteran, and a patriot. I have seen my freedom and the opportunities for my grandchildren seep away one at a time until a nation that was once crowded with opportunity and freedom has become a very lonely place. If you look at history you can see where we are now and where we are headed.

If you are not willing to learn from history you will repeat it. Many who are trying to stop this slide to tyranny will suffer the same fate as those who can’t or won’t see it for what it is. Once our freedom is totally gone it will take generations to get it back, if that can even be done. Don’t wait until it is too late to get involved; help win the battle for freedom we now face.

Look at how both parties and individual members of Congress have affected your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren. Don’t just listen to their words. Look at how they voted and bills they co-sponsored. Gain a true understanding of world history, understand what is happening and learn what you can do about it. We don’t have to travel this road any longer. We the People have the power to once again have a voice in our nation but we have to speak up. We have to know what we are talking about factually, not with partisan political eyes (rose colored, maybe?) for or against either party. When government has control of everything we are no longer free.

The following link goes to an article I wrote that has a lot in common with this one. In it I go more into the foibles of blindly voting for a political party.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 24, 2011

An Open Letter to the Republican Candidates for President

Dear Candidates,

I am tired of attacks on Mitt Romney based on his Mormon beliefs. I am a politically conservative Jew, and as such, I have no interest in the question of whether or not ‘Mormonism’ is really a part of the Christian faith or not. In fact, it disturbs me to hear of such attacks since the Constitution itself explicitly states that there is no religious test for office.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. – Article 6, Paragraph 3 [emphasis added]

If you feel the need to attack Romney please do it based on differences of philosophy, ideas and policy – things that effect all of us.

Mitt Romney has been a gentleman throughout this entire primary season. He has stuck to the issues and has focused on bringing his message to the public. I would appreciate if all of you would do the same.

Sincerely,
An undecided voter

Occupy Wall Street Hates Black People: A Satire (sort of)

Occupy Wall Street is racist.  The whole Occupy movement is racist.  This big movement (BM from this point on) is nothing more than a bunch of spoiled rich White people who have decided they’ve had enough of a Black man in office.  They are filled with rage at the thought of some uppity ni**er coming to Washington and messing with their money.  Oh sure, it was fine and dandy when he was just a figurehead, just a token voted into to office so White America could prove they aren’t racists anymore; but then he started doing stuff.  He killed jobs with a “green energy” mandate that specifically targeted the coal industry for bankruptcy.  He gave stimulus money to his crony capitalist friends and he purposefully left Guantanamo Bay open after promising to go down there and lock the doors for good all by himself.  After an international apology tour designed to reassure our global neighbors that America is not special and will renounce violence from now on, forever and ever – this Black President killed Osama Bin Laden in cold blood.  Obviously White America decided they’d had enough of his rogue President.  As along as he stayed in line he was fine…but making his own plans, without the approval of his masters? Unforgivable.

Oh sure, the BM uses as its cover the idea that they are fed up with capitalist greed and corporate welfare, but that’s just a ruse to detract from their real problem.  After all, Obama’s largest campaign contributors are major corporations such as GE and wealthy Hollywood 1%ers like Will and Jada Smith.  So rest assured, anytime the BMers use the phrase “corporate greed” they really mean “darkie President”.  Its a fact.

We also know this BM is racist because of the horrific, sick signs on display at BM protests around the country.  Many of the signs use vile, racist terms that have not been regularly used since the civil rights era.  If BMers had their way, America would return to Jim Crow and uppity Black folk everywhere would take their rightful places once again at the back of the bus.  The offensive signs that have been popping up at protests around the country show a very white, very racist undercurrent of rage.  Of course we don’t have pictures or footage of these signs, but there have been reports…unsubstantiated, eyewitness reports.  Many of the reports have come from those who identify as politically conservative and say they oppose the BM.  Unfortunately, no one has thought to get a picture of or point a news crew toward these sickening displays of racism, but we know its true, because we know the whole BM is racist, and we know they’re racist because they’re mostly White, and they were nowhere to be found as long as America was governed by White men.

Perform a quick Google Image search of protests from around the country and it becomes glaringly obvious that the BM hates Black people.  Besides a few tokens peppered here and there- in order give them credibility- it is nearly impossible to ignore the fact that these crowds are largely made up  of White people…racist, bigoted White people.  Occupy Wall Street seems to be the most “diverse” of the BMs.  The first Black people I saw in my image search came 3 searches in on the Occupy Wall Street search, and it was a picture of Russell Simmons and Kanye West, noted 99%ers and Uncle Toms.

On top of all this madness there have even been reports of protesters at Occupy D.C. shouting racial epithets at the White House and spitting on members of the Congressional Black Caucus while calling them ni**ers as they walked into the capital building.  Again, no footage or pictures have been found, but there is little doubt the reports are true.  One only needs to look at a picture of an Occupy protest to know that its true.  Truth needs no evidence or facts.  Truth needs no research.  Truth only needs one person to say its true, and then it is.  That’s in the Constitution.  I heard it at an Occupy Denver general assembly.  Uptwinkles!

When will America wake up to the divisive, hateful, vitriolic rhetoric of this terrifyingly racist BM?  When will the media stop covering for these bigots and release their hours upon hours of footage of protesters shouting the n-word over and over again and beating up Black people indiscriminately?  With all the proof that has been laid out its time that sane Americans fight back against this evil rage.  Its time expose the true goal of the Occupy Wall Street BM: to remove that Black man from office and set things right again.

Bigot or Not? I Say Not: The Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

I received an e-mail a few days ago with a story about a lady who owns a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa. She declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians, which has resulted in calls for a boycott, and the usual name calling, from homosexual groups. Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage told the couple that she is a Christian and would not violate her Christian beliefs to provide them with a cake. When interviewed about the incident, Ms. Childress said:

“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions.  I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”

Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple, and stressed this fact by saying:

“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions. They can get their cake anywhere.”

Childress said money is not the issue, adding:

“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle. I was not rude. I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”

The lesbian pair released a statement calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot” and are contemplating filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ms. Childress. More on the discrimination issue later in this piece. The couple ran to the media and started calling a citizen, who I thought had freedom of choice also, a bigot. They threaten legal action, and make a big scene because someone doesn’t want to bake them a wedding cake. How thin skinned can anyone get? They are offended? I am offended that they think they have a right to demand service from any business owner. I am offended that they think a Christian doesn’t have a right to decide who to do business with. If someone doesn’t want my business I just take it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this reaction is typical of special interest groups, any special interest group. It seems everyone has a “right” to their views, and to be pandered to, except Christians. I wonder what would happen if these same women walked into a bakery owned by a Muslim. Would the owner bake them a cake or chase them out of the shop with a barrage of rocks, or simply hang them for their blasphemy? Stoning, in case you aren’t aware, is one of the penalties for homosexuality in the Muslim world. Hanging also seems to be a popular punishment.

Would these women go screeching to the media about Muslim bias against their “lifestyle”? If they did complain, would anyone make a big fuss or would they just keep out of it for fear of “offending” a Muslim business owner? I hope their next stop is at a bakery owned by a Muslim. I would really like to see the result of that visit. That situation would put the media and all of the “minority” groups in a tizzy. Who would they side with?

Where does this nonsense stop? Why is it that everyone has to bow down to the homosexual lifestyle, or Islam, or the NAACP, or any other “minority” group? Does freedom only apply to those with “issues”? I always thought freedom applies to all of us. Does “diversity” of thought include the thoughts of Christians? Does “diversity” of expression include Christians? Does “freedom of speech” include Christians? Apparently not!!!!!

I am also a Christian who believes homosexuality or heterosexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong. Does being against heterosexual couples living together and engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage make me a bigot also? What does one call that bigotry, heterophobia? Do Christians not have a right to live according to their firmly held religious beliefs? We are certainly expected, by Muslims and many judges and politicians, to allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs and customs, even the parts that call for stoning of adulterers or honor killings.

Like most other Christians, including Victoria Childress, I don’t condemn others for their lifestyles, I simply disagree with them. Ms. Childress didn’t say anything tawdry about the couple, according to the article. Ms. Childress just expressed her views politely and let it go at that. Also mentioned in the article was a comment from another bakery owner who would be more than happy to bake the cake. Why is this a problem? It isn’t like these two can’t get a cake anywhere, others are happy to have their business.

Read the next couple of paragraphs very carefully and think about the point they make. Find the irrationality of those calling for a boycott of Victoria’s Cake Cottage. As far as a boycott, what will that accomplish? Ms. Childress seems to be boycotting homosexuals, yet that is unlawful according to homosexual activists. Homosexuals are going to boycott a business that doesn’t want their business. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this? I really can’t help but chuckle at this point.

If it is permissible for homosexuals to boycott Victoria’s Cake Cottage why isn’t it permissible for her to boycott homosexuals? Isn’t a boycott a boycott? Shouldn’t this cut both ways? Aren’t these homosexual groups practicing discrimination against Victoria’s Cake Cottage? They claim she is discriminating against them so they turn around and call for a boycott. If they don’t boycott every bakery equally isn’t that the definition of discrimination?

One of the biggest problems faced by this nation today is this very attitude of “tolerance”. We are told we must accept illegal aliens, who have a “right” to be here. We are told we must accept Islam and Sharia Law, because Muslims have “rights”. Christians are told we must accept a lifestyle that goes against our beliefs because these people have “rights”. I find it problematic that the “tolerance boat”, built by Christians who came here looking for freedom of religion, no longer has room for the Christians who built it. What about the rights of Christians to live our lives according to our beliefs? What about our “rights”?

If we are to be a truly tolerant society the tolerance has to go both ways, and it currently does not. If true tolerance were to be enforced, illegal aliens would be required to understand and “tolerate” my views about immigration. In a truly tolerant society homosexuals would be required to “tolerate” the fact that Ms. Childress and I disagree with their lifestyle and would rather they take their business elsewhere. A truly “tolerant” society would say the Congressional Black Caucus is required to admit white members of Congress. Muslims, in a truly “tolerant” society, would be required to accept that America has a Constitution and that Sharia law is unacceptable as it violates nearly every tenet of that Constitution. Muslims would have to “tolerate” our Constitution, and its Judeo-Christian basis, in a truly tolerant society.

If tolerance is not a two way street then it isn’t tolerance it is bullying. Whites are bullied by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a regular basis. Christians are bullied by CAIR and homosexuals, among other special interest groups. American citizens are bullied by the ACLU, LaRaza and like organizations. Proponents of Right to Work are bullied by unions every day. Tolerance must be equal or it isn’t tolerance. If Victoria Childress and others like her are not allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs then tolerance isn’t anything other than brute force being used against someone these groups disagree with. Isn’t that the definition of bullying? Isn’t that the very thing they are fighting against? Can you spell HYPOCRISY?

I salute Ms. Childress for the way she handled this situation. She was forthright about her stand and refrained from making a big deal out of the situation. She did not “chastise” the couple; she merely chose not to participate in something she finds objectionable. From what I know of this situation she handled herself in a Christian manner with courage and firmness, yet with “tolerance”. She didn’t run to the media, she merely responded with the truth of her beliefs.

I hope that everyone reading this piece will show Ms. Childress their support. If you live in Des Moines or nearby, visit her shop. If not, go to her website and give her words of support. If possible, order something from her bakery and reward her for this stand for freedom of religion. If you live outside of Des Moines order some cookies or something that can be shipped. Let her know you appreciate her courage and her willingness to stand by her values and not be intimidated into surrendering her values or her freedom to live by those values.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 26, 2011
The first thing the lesbian couple did was run to the news media, where they knew they and their whining and crying, “woe is me”, “I’ve been victimized” story would be coddled.

We Survived Another One – The Origin of Black Friday




Tony Branco’s cartoon about “Black Friday” got me thinking (a very rare event I might add). He illustrated OWS protestors being overrun by shoppers. One of the overrun OWS protestors held a sign which said, “Black Friday is Racist!” That sign caused me to do some research. And speaking of OWS and “Black Friday,” this DJ Redman article says it all.

Today, retailers recognize the day after Thanksgiving as the first day of the Christmas shopping season, and refer to it as “Black Friday.” The idea that the day after Thanksgiving marks the official start of the holiday shopping season may be related to the Santa Claus parades, such as the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, held on Thanksgiving Day starting in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The “black” refers to the ink accountants used (before the advent of computers) to record profits, as opposed to red ink indicating losses. Note that, revenue wise, this is NOT the best day. The two days before Christmas (for all of us procrastinators) are the most profitable days. But this source tells a different story. In an effort to make it a day that shoppers wanted to avoid, the Philadelphia Police Department gave that name to the Friday after Thanksgiving. In 1966, “Black Friday” was born. The police hated the day – massive traffic jams, overcrowded sidewalks, lots of shoplifters – all because downtown Philly stores were filled with shoppers taking advantage of holiday sales. It wasn’t until 2004 that the term began to be widely used by retailers.

So where is the racism? Well, this source claims to see racism. “Once again, the racist Republican corporate fascists have conspired together to cast negativity on people of color. You’d think it’d be enough that racist Republicans celebrate the racist holiday of Thanksgiving by “giving thanks” to their bigoted ancestors for stealing from, oppressing, and murdering Native Americans, right? Wrong. They have also decided to use the biggest shopping day of the year, the day after the racist Thanksgiving holiday, to formulate yet another racist conspiracy. In this overtly racist act, they’ve decided to call the day after Thanksgiving ‘Black Friday.'” If you choose to read what this source is saying, I think that you will agree that its rhetoric is ridiculous and “over the top.”


Latest threat to your liberty… bag fees?

Someone needs to let Sen. Mary Landrieu know that the commercials for Southwest are supposed to be funny because apparently she didn’t get the joke.  She thinks we honestly need a bag police:

Airlines would no longer be allowed to charge passengers for their first checked bag under a bill being introduced in Congress ahead of the holiday travel season.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., announced the legislation Tuesday, describing it as way spare passengers from “unfair fees” while encouraging them to ease up a bit on the carry-on bags.

“Air travel can be a stressful experience for many reasons, but unfair fees for basic amenities should not be one of them,” Landrieu said in a statement.

At first glance, this looks like just one more laughable idea coming out of Washington.  But this proposal is a perfect example of the way politicians are trying to make government the solution to every problem in life – and how that is destroying our freedom.

All people are born with a God-given right to liberty – which means a person can do anything he wants with himself and to himself as long as he doesn’t violate the rights of someone else.  After all, if a person’s actions affect only himself, why should anyone else have the authority to tell him he has to stop?

So if a person voluntarily decides that it is worthwhile for him to give an airline $120 to carry his bags to a far off city, and there is an airline who is willing to carry his bag to that city for $120 – what business is that of anyone else – least of all government?  Who has been harmed in this voluntary exchange?

No one is having these bag fees forced upon them.  Nonetheless, Sen. Landrieu is determined to end the horror of allowing consumers the freedom to choose how to spend their own money.  As she said when she announced this legislation:

“Passengers have been nickeled and dimed for far too long and something has to be done about it.”

She’s right.  Passengers who don’t want to pay bag fees ought to do something.  Something drastic.  Something like… choosing to fly Southwest Airlines.  That sure is an awful lot to ask, but hopefully Americans will be able endure that kind of overwhelming hardship.

If flying Southwest is too much of a burden, people can choose to drive… or take a train… or stay home.  These are the kinds of choices everyone has to make in a free society.

Granted, Sen. Mary Landrieu may be sincere in believing that it’s a bad decision to pay bag fees.  In that case she can choose not to pay them.  But she has no authority to impose that decision on everyone else.

The airline industry expects to operate on a 0.7% profit margin this year.  Not exactly windfall profits to say the least.  So if the bag fees are eliminated, they will have no choice but to make that revenue up somewhere else – whether Sen. Landrieu likes it or not.

It’s sad that this basic point has to be explained to members of Congress, but the bottom line is this: if the airlines don’t collect at least enough in fees to cover the cost of operating the plane, they’re going to stop flying altogether.

Sen. Landrieu – like most politicians – seems convinced that government is the solution to all our problems.  But freedom means having choices.  If she is successful in eliminating bag fees, she will also be eliminating a choice for the airlines in how to run their business and a choice for the consumer in how they want to travel.  In other words, everyone will be a little less free.

And in return for giving up that freedom, all that will be accomplished is forcing the airlines to shift their fees to a different aspect of the flight experience.  What a brilliant plan!

The Latest on the Climate Change Hoax

 How much more climate change propaganda must we endure? Liberals’ solutions for what ails the world are based on the belief that carbon dioxide is climate-heating. Yet another study shows this to be rubbish. A study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than originally estimated. This study is another in a long line of revelations showing the scientific fraud at the heart of the global warming movement. Among leading European climate-change scientists, there has been a vast, global green conspiracy to silence scientific opposition to the idea, even to the point of falsifying data. The left’s false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud.

Recently a batch of e-mails from “global warming scientists” have come to light on the eve of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa. Over 5,000 e-mails have been uncovered, and three themes emerge from them:

  1. Climate research scientists are taking measures to conceal rather than freely disseminate data and discussions.
  2. Climate research scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a scientific inquiry.
  3. Climate research scientists admit to each other that much of the climate change “science” is weak and dependent on manipulation of facts and data.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”  &nbsp[emphasis mine]

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

The storm surrounding the leaked e-mails underlines the need for climate researchers to be more open about their research. But the researchers cannot be open. One University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit e-mail discusses not including too much “optimistic stuff” into studies about the extent of man-made global warming. To try to counter the e-mails, environmental public opinion expert Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, says, “the timing of the (e-mail) release really does show the tactics that opponents of regulation at all costs pursue in the face of this meeting.”

American taxpayers, through “assessed” dues, account for 22% of the United Nation’s (U.N.) regular operating budget. China, for comparison, contributes 3% of the U.N. budget.

Newt Gingrich's Record: Uncomfortable But True

I’m going to say something uncomfortable to many of you, but it has to be said:

Newt Gingrich has a history of flip-flopping on issues which rivals that of Mitt Romney.

There, I said it. I’m not the only one to say it, either.

Let’s look at Gingrich’s record:

On global warming: He supported government sponsoring of alternative energy programs. He supported cap-and-trade. He supported ethanol subsidies. “Green” was the fad, people were spellbound by it, and Newt being the clever politician he is, he got behind it, too.

And then there’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When asked about his lobbying efforts on their behalf, he lied. He claimed he never lobbied for them. When proof of payment from them to him was made public, he claimed he worked for them as an historian. Do people seriously believe this? A financial institution hires an historian about as often as the Marine Corps hires an interior decorator.

And then there’s the substance of the “historical analysis” he allegedly gave them (from the National Review link two paragraphs below):

It wasn’t obvious until 2007… Initially, it wasn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Initially, it was things like Countrywide, but the minute you started getting people who could buy houses with no credit, no money down, I mean, these things are insane. And I was cheerfully saying that in my public speeches.

Gingrich contradicts himself here: It certainly was obvious, long before 2007, that a policy of government guarantee of loans without proof of the borrower’s ability to repay was a bad idea (and defies basic common sense). The existence of this program was well-known within government circles and by “policy wonks” (such as yours truly), but largely ignored by the media and the public at large. I have also criticized Herman Cain for the same failure of common sense in this regard.

On government-run medicine, Gingrich’s record rivals that of many prominent Democrats. He was an early champion of the individual mandate, more than a decade before Romneycare. He now excuses himself from the criticism Romney recieves, claiming that his endorsement of an individual mandate was an effort “to block Hillarycare“. Let’s state this another way: Gingrich’s response to a massive government healthcare initiative was to offer a slightly less-massive initiative of his own.

Gingrich was also one of the minds behind Medicare Part D. Newt again excuses himself from criticism for this multi-trillion-dollar giveaway, claiming that it helped reduce the cost of government-provided health care by subsidizing medicines in lieu of more-expensive surgeries, ignoring one of the basic principles of government interference in the market: Subsidizing a product makes it more expensive in the long-run. If the government gives people a dollar to buy an apple, the cost of an apple goes up by a dollar.

Gingrich, in keeping with his long-standing record of favoring greater government intervention in the health care industry, described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as “right-wing social engineering“. Of course, Gingrich changed his tune when he caught flak for saying this, and has spent the last six months crafting an “alternative history” of his 17+ year record of supporting socialized medicine.

Jacob Sullum from Reason made an excellent point on this topic: Gingrich’s rhetoric actually endangers real reforms while giving the public a painless-sounding but totally ineffective placebo of “cutting waste, fraud and abuse”- a rhetoric he (along with numerous Democrats) also applies to other areas of government spending by advocating ‘modernization’, rather than actual cutbacks, as his primary concept for controlling the cost of big-government programs, as if new computers will make big government acceptable.

In sum: I’m frankly disturbed by the recent fascination with Gingrich and the amnesia regarding his record. Somehow, conservatives have developed a belief that intellectualism and con artistry are mutually exclusive. Voters have been lulled by the superficially-impressive nature of his speeches.

This means the Tea Party effort to push out slick salesmen in favor of principled, fiscally-minded, small-government representatives is failing. And “slick salesman” is an apt description of Gingrich’s career: People wanted free medication for Grandma and Grandpa, and Newt delivered. People wanted a house they couldn’t afford, and Newt delivered. Gingrich will give the public whatever they want, and sound convincingly principled while doing it. The fact that Newt also participated in welfare reform and budget balancing isn’t a demonstration of his bona fides, it’s merely another thing the public asked for and got (for a brief period).

The notion that Gingrich is the ideal “not-Romney” candidate is wholly misguided: Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney without running shoes.

Occupy Skew

Not too long ago the Twitter account for Occupy Denver posted this little gem of wisdom:

Captioned by @OccupyDenver: Ah, such hypocrisy in America..."profits over people" is the American motto. #OccupyDenver #Occupy #OWS http://pic.twitter.com/2o2cgCwU

Even my fourteen year old, publicly educated, child could see the flaw in this. They point to a single day event, sponsored and encouraged by private business owners, on their own property, as being similar to multi-month protests on public property with massive public cost and no benefit to even those attending.

Let me beat commentators to the punch. There have been reports of violence at Black Friday events all day today; some by shoppers, by robbers,  Occupy groups, and some by police. All together, they do not total near the violence and damage done by occupiers in the last few months. An estimated 152 million shoppers managed to be better behaved than a couple of hundred thousand Occupy protestors.

I will be the first person to stand up for the right to peaceably assemble, but Occupy has far surpassed any reasonable definition of “peaceful”, and their message, if it is the one above, just keeps proving to have less and less merit. The cost of the Occupy movement has taken it’s toll on cities nationwide and their days are numbered. Luckily, they are killing their own movement with ridiculous “messaging” like the effort above.