trial in NY City?

Congrats to Hussein & the circus they want to bring to the USA when they try those 9/11 terrorists giving them the benefit of the protection of OUR Constitution,on trial in NY. This administration calls the terrorists/enemy combatants of the worst terrorist attack in US history,just misguided criminals! What theyre really doing is finding a back door to put the CIA,President Bush,& our military interogation practices on trial The downside is that the confessions of guilt,without Miranda rights being read,they could actually walk! Can you believe this frickin BS? Meanwhile,they have a platform to become potential martyrs,spewing anti-American lies and propaganda,while using 'discovery' to expose all our intelligence.Meanwhile,the wounds of all the 9/11 families get ripped open for years,& we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on them & the security of NY City. Excellent job,Buurrrack & your evil minions!

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal


You have 2 families, Joe Legal and Jose Illegal.
Both families have ( 2 ) parents, ( 2 ) children and live in California


Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted.


Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."


Joe Legal ... $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week = $52,000 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.


Jose Illegal ... $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week = $31,20000 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays for Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage ... $1000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00.


Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal makes too much money to be eligible for Food Stamps or Welfare so Joe Legal pays for food... $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.


Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal is now in the hole -$4,769.00.


Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy, which entirely pays his rent of $500.00 per month = $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays and gets a part time job after work to make ends meet.


Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.


Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.


Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get free government sponsored lunches.


Joe Legal's children go home after school. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program which, again, is provided free of charge.


Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe Legal paid for them, and Jose Illegal did not pay.



ARE YOU MAD YET?
*********************

The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is
that they would hate to have to live under the laws they've passed.

The Rights and Obligations of Liberty

The Rights and Obligations of Liberty
"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass." --George Washington
In a recent discussion with a colleague, I lamented the fact that too few American citizens understand their obligation, before all others, to support and defend our Constitution, much less, engender the ability to do so. She responded that, though she considered herself a conservative (mostly because she identifies closely with some conservative principles), understanding our Constitution was not her "passion."

My friend holds degrees from the nation's finest academic institutions and is professional in all her endeavors. However, like most Americans under 50 years of age, she never had a basic civics course and consequently has a difficult time articulating even the most fundamental constitutional principles.

The fact is, as Americans, we not only enjoy the rights affirmed by our Constitution, we have obligations to understand the mechanics of that affirmation in order to sustain it for our generation and those to come.

No matter what our calling, our occupation or our passion, we have a debt and duty as citizens to both learn about and support our Constitution, and we are obliged to do so above and before all other pursuits, for without constitutional Rule of Law, there are no other pursuits.

Of course, because ignorance is institutionalized by most government education systems, including those of "higher learning," and because ignorance is apparently considered virtuous by some social subcultures, there is little probability that a too large portion of Americans will ever comprehend this obligation, much less honor it.

Fortunately, in the words of Samuel Adams, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

But, what of those like my well-educated colleague, who is among America's "best and brightest", who are, however, uninformed about their obligations as citizens of the greatest experiment in human history? What of those who, as one consequence of enjoying the highest standard of living on the planet, tend to take our legacy of liberty for granted and have become complacent about its attendant responsibilities?

George Washington noted at the conclusion of the American Revolution, "The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of its attainment, and the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity."

These days, most Americans believe that liberty is their birthright. They enjoy the (relative) personal freedom of our great society but forget the corresponding personal responsibility. For most of us have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost.

In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story wrote, "Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence."

Likewise, John Adams noted, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know..." He added, "Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, [are] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties."

To that end, James Madison wrote, "What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support?"

James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of George Washington's original Supreme Court justices, put it most concisely: "Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge."

Unfortunately, this wisdom has fallen upon deaf ears. The popular support of the current Democrat hegemony is evidence aplenty of just how uninformed the majority of Americans are regarding their Constitution and the Rule of Law.

That most erudite of contemporary economists, Walter E. Williams, wrote this week in American Idea, "At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. ... Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution."

However, writes Williams, "The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. ... The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not."

Williams concludes, "We are losing what's made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we're moving toward greater government control of our lives."

Indeed, I was speaking with another colleague recently who is a Slovak national -- he was a "Young Pioneer" raised under Communist tyranny in Czechoslovakia. He has spent five years undergoing the rigors required to become a U.S. citizen (I suggested he should have simply walked across the Mexican border instead), yet he questions his pursuit of citizenship now that the U.S. is rapidly devolving into the sort of tyrannical regime he left behind.

Natural-born Americans have never experienced such a regime, and so we proceed headlong into that authoritarian abyss like so many lemmings following the ignoble piper, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.

Of such pipers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."
Regarding the wayward affections for socialism of Obama's minions, Washington wrote, "[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "it expects what never was and never will be."

But, ignorance is bliss -- at least until it runs head-on into reality, and reality is just around the corner.

Samuel Adams assured us that, "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

It is for this reason that The Patriot launched the Essential Liberty Project on Constitution Day last. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009...ntial-liberty/

Essential Liberty is the most cost effective means for educating Americans of all ages and all walks of life about the proper context for understanding our Constitution and the liberty it preserves and safeguards.

We have created through Essential Liberty a foundation to accomplish the most important task we have ever undertaken. Our mission is based on the principles outlined in the Legacy of American Liberty and will utilize a whole series of educational tools to accomplish this mission.

I will continue to write concerning the Essential Liberty Project in the next couple of months, as we move to full throttle for 2010.

We must never forget our debt of obligation to those generations of American Patriots who have extended, at great cost in their fortunes and lives, the legacy of liberty to us, and we must remain steadfast and irrevocably committed with our fortunes and lives to extend that legacy to our posterity.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

A Little GUN History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, thecriminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has change d drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns.............We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'..

During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

McCain Slams Obama for Breaking Donation Vow

Sen. Barack Obama bought his eye-popping, prime-time TV extravaganza with $4 million and something else: “It was paid for with broken promises,” says Sen. John McCain.

McCain is slamming Obama for breaking pledges to abide by campaign finance reform and accept public financing for his campaign.

“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises,” McCain said Wednesday evening. “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s campaign “is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations,”McCain said.

Obama’s June flip-flop on financing drew sharp criticism from some quarters but not generally from the mainstream media. Conservative direct-marketing guru Richard Viguerie told Newsmax the shift is part of a larger pattern.

“The facts of life are that Senator Obama makes decisions that help advance his career, and promises and relationships are to be discarded if they interfere with his ambitions,” Viguerie said.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public system of financing presidential campaigns. That system, which is designed to reduce the influence of huge campaign contributions on presidential politics, would have limited Obama to the same $85 million that McCain received when he accepted public financing.

When Obama announced his decision in June to reverse course and reject public financing, his aides confided privately that it could mar Obama’s image as a reformer offering a new brand of politics.

At the time, Obama blamed his decision on McCain and the GOP. “We’ve already seen that [McCain] is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.

Viguerie rejects that explanation as “nothing more than a small and transparent fig leaf.”

Obama’s decision to reject public financing was a sharp reversal from earlier promises:


In early 2007, in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, Obama stated that he wanted to work out an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing.


Obama also stated on a questionnaire, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” according to The New York Times,


On Feb. 26, during the Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama said, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we have a system that works for everybody.” The McCain campaign maintains that Obama’s operatives never joined them in substantive negotiations before Obama’s announcement that he would not accept public financing.


On April 27, Obama told Fox News host Chris Wallace: “I have promised that I would sit down with John McCan and talk about can we preserve a public [financing] system.”

Obama’s reversal on public campaign financing, and the huge amounts of cash he is raising from unidentified or untraceable donors, inevitably will lead to a major scandal, McCain has warned. Obama has raised close to $200 million from donations of $200 or less, the level at which donors’ names do not have to be reported to the SEC. McCain has released the names of all of his donors, including those who contributed less than $200.

“Senator Obama has unleashed a force which we will pay a very dear price for sometime in the future, if not now,” McCain told The Washington Times on Oct. 22. “Because it’s very unlikely we can track down and document the contributions that he refused to reveal.”

Independent 527 groups, named after the section of the tax code that allows them to participate in political activity without being taxed, have almost gone unnoticed in this year’s election. Several reasons have been cited for their reduced impact:


The downturn in the economy has reduced the donations given to the independent groups that mount 527 campaigns.


McCain, a staunch advocate of campaign-finance reform, is a long-time critic of the influence of so-called soft-money, which may have discouraged some contributors.


The FEC fined several 527 organizations for their activities following the 2004 election, and the prospect of legal entanglements may have made them less attractive vehicles for influencing elections.

At the time Obama opted out of public financing, his advisers expected he could raise $200 to $300 million for the general election. Obama’s actual fundraising figures have far exceeded that amount. His campaign raised more than $150 million in September alone, which has allowed him to outspend McCain in some key battleground states by a margin of 2-to-1.

Indeed, it now appears likely that Obama will raise and spend more money than President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, combined, spent in 2004. And those figures do not account for the massive assistance Obama has received from groups such as ACORN, the AFL-CIO and other unions, abortion-rights, and other organizations.

Obama’s use of the Internet is sure to revolutionize campaign financing, experts say. But whether it will also trigger a push for reform remains to be seen. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC charging that a host of Obama donations come from fictitious figures or foreign sources, or exceed the legal limits.

All of which means that the burgeoning controversy over Obama’s fundraising practices may dog his administration from the very outset, if he wins the election

paint the porch?

Paint the porch?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A blonde teenager, wanting to earn some extra money for the summer, decided to hire herself out as a 'handy-woman' and started canvassing a nearby well-to-do neighborhood.
She went to the front door of the first house, and asked the owner if he had any odd jobs for her to do.
'Well, I guess I could use somebody to paint my porch,' he said, ''How much will you charge me?'
Delighted, the girl quickly responded, 'How about $50?'
The man agreed and told her that the paint brushes and everything she would need was in the garage.
The man's wife, hearing the conversation said to her husband, 'Does she realize that our porch goe s ALL the way around the house?'
He responded, 'That's a bit cynical, isn't it?'
The wife replied, 'You're right. I guess I'm starting to believe all those dumb blonde jokes we've been getting by e-mail lately.'
Later that day, the blonde came to the door to collect her money.
'You're finished already?' the startled husband asked.
'Yes' the blonde replied 'and I even had paint left over, so I gave it two coats.'
Impressed, the man reached into his pocket for the $50.00 and handed it to her along with a ten dollar tip.
'And by the way, ' the blonde added, 'it's not a Porch, it's a Lexus.