Found this video posted on a hate-filled, left-wing, socialist, Obama loving forum that a friend sent me the link to. This forum is titled "Websites that must be banned" Here is the link to it, http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=1808&page=18 I am glad that a few good people with freedom in thier hearts are willing to post there.





Here are a few excerpts of what people are posting on this forum,

The government should censor the entire Internet. Only information constructive to the cause of the people and progress should be permitted.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. ~ Stalin

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." Joe Biden

This from a real genius who calls himself RedBlade and posts a picture of Che,
All rightwing gun blogs should be removed from the net..

More from the Che lover,

For struggle, Solidarity and Socialism ! I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Obama, Our laws and his will, according to him. We will not overthrow the government with violence .We shall stand, remain and be the law of his realm for ever. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead for Obama to deliver them from evil.

Soon enough bro, we gonna cut the bacon off the back of these fat ass whiteys.

The people who post crap like this are the first to cry "racist" if anyone says anything other than praise for the messiah Obama!

Does that give you an idea of the type of people that worship at the alter of the messiah Obama?

Check this out,

A call from Opinion One

Received a call from a place called "Opinion One" this morning. It was an automated call that asked me if I would participate in a poll, if so please press 1. I normally hang up when I get junk calls like this but out of curiosity I complied and pressed 1.

Next I was asked to press 1 if I am a liberal, 2 if I am a moderate, or press 3 if I am a Conservative. This was an easy one for me and I immediately pressed 3. I was instantaneously disconnected!

My first thoughts on this were, Who is paying for this poll, and I thought, the results of this poll are rigged as they do not want to asked Conservatives the questions.

Point of this is that I am sooooo glad I am educated enough to distrust polls.

Maxine Waters, (and the rest of the democrats) are Socialists!

Obama economic plan DESTROYED by CNBC's Rick Santelli

Blame government, not the market

Meltdown melodrama
Thomas Sowell

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us. What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market’s “greed.” That makes great moral melodra­ma, but it turns the facts upside down. It was precisely govern­ment intervention that turned a thriving industry into a basket case. An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: “Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable busi­nesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century.” That was what the market was like before the govern­ment intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew. The Community Reinvest­ment Act of 1977 directed fed­eral regulatory agencies to “encourage” banks and other lending institutions “to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.” That sounds pretty inno­cent, and in fact it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans. The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Depart­ment of Housing and Urban Development imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibili­ties under the Community Reinvestment Act. What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mort­gage loans were being made to low-income and moderate­income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required “innovative or flexi­ble” mortgage eligibility standards. In other words, quotas were imposed — and if some people didn’t meet the stan­dards, then the standards needed to be changed. Both HUD and the Depart­ment of Justice began bring­ing lawsuits against mort­gage bankers when a higher percentage of minority appli­cants than white applicants were turned down for mort­gage loans. A substantial majority of both black and white mort­gage loan applicants had their loans approved, but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued. It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned. Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would under­mine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based. Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agen­cies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else’s approval. Government regulators refused to approve such deci­sions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statis­tics on loans to low-income people or minorities. Under growing pressures from both the Clinton admin­istration and later the George W. Bush administra­tion, banks began to lower their lending standards. Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other “cre­ative” financial arrange­ments abounded. Although this was done under pres­sures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, peo­ple who were neither could also get these mortgage loans. With mortgage loans wide­ly available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disas­ter. Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more indus­tries, if you believe the politi­cians and the media. Thomas Sowell, a former economics professor and the author of a dozen books, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He grew up in Harlem, served in the Marines and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. He earned his PhD in economics at the University of Chicago. His Web site is www. tsowell. com.

Montana Declares State Rights Under the 10th Amendment

House shoots down federal gun controls
Posted on Feb. 14
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press

HELENA (AP) - Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.

Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.

“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring’s election. Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”

The House voted 64-36 for the bill on Saturday. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.

House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.

“I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,” said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.

That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause’s application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.

The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama’s inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.

Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.

“Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?” asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. “I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.”

The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.

Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.

On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans’ right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Rick Hansen was Worried!

I had a discussion back in December with a gentleman that works for House Republican Research. When he realized that I ran for State Representative in House District 39A, he informed me of the fact that Representative Rick Hansen had called the DFL for help with his campaign. Rick was worried! LOL People had told me that Rick was a weak candidate.

Here is a little tidbit I bumped into this evening,

http://www.mnblue.com/node/2462

I found the above link at this website,

http://www.tpt.org/aatc/aggregator/sources/18?page=5

This is the on the Twin Cities Public Television website! I am sure the democrats would not care to see something like the fairness doctrine applied to this biased web site. And to think that they are tax payer funded! I say this is the first place we cut some spending to balance the budget! You whiny tofu eating liberals can beg for money at the phone banks to fund your biased media. They do not deserve a dime of taxpayer money.

I once said to Rick, "If I lose I will do one of two things. Never run again, or come at you twice as hard." I occasionaly get fired up when I read crap like this. We will see what the future holds!

Floor Debate Time Limit or Gag the Minority?

From the Session Daily,

Some call a proposed change to the House Permanent Rules just a “newer fancier way to gag the minority,” while others say that it will make for better and more informed debate.

This and other potential changes to House rules governing procedure and acceptable conduct were approved by the House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee. The changes are expected to be taken up on the House floor Thursday. But don’t expect passage to happen without debate.

One rule change would expand the committee’s authority to set the amount of time a bill would be debated on the floor, including amendments.

House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm), chairman of the committee, said this change would not place a mandatory time limit on floor debate nor eliminate floor amendments. “We won’t be using a stopwatch,” he said.

But House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R-Marshall), called the plan "a dangerous precedent," saying the floor, oftentimes, is the only place where concerns of minority caucus members can be heard. “If we have a bill that impacts my community, I’m going to stand there and defend my communities and my values.”

There was disagreement as well over the value of amendments offered on the floor. Seifert said when large omnibus bills are considered, there is the potential for more amendments, and emphasized they serve as a tool for the minority caucus to be heard.

Rep. Gene Pelowski Jr. (DFL-Winona) countered that amendments offered on the floor leave little time for member review, and that the committee is the appropriate place for amendments to be considered.

Politics, The Stimulus, and our Future!

A letter form my friend Don Lee.

Friends,

I'm sure you've noticed the debate about the nearly Trillion dollar
"Stimulus" legislation making its way through the Federal
legislature. (a.k.a. Economic Recovery Package.)

I am very concerned about this legislation, enough that I am willing to
do this mass mailing. It's important, and I think your input to lawmakers
will make a difference.

The Stimulus Package will cost $800 billion plus interest. That's
more than the entire Iraq war. It's bigger than the whole economy of
India. The Stimulus money will be spent without a penny of taxation
to cover it. It is pure debt, approximately $2500 of debt for every
one of us - man, woman and child.

This debt will be added on top of the $700 billion bailout enacted
during the final months of 2008, and on top of the one Trillion
dollar deficit projected for 2009 and on top of the $10 trillion
national debt we owe from previous years. This debt is real. It will
either be repaid honestly through higher taxation, or dishonestly by
corrupting our currency through inflation. Add this to the looming
social security insolvency, and the bottom line is that we are lying
to ourselves and our children by making promises we can't keep.
It is a total abandonment of any pretense of fiscal discipline.

If we think our economy is in a "crisis" now, we will lack words to
describe the catastrophe when this bill comes due and we can't or
won't pay it. The results will not be numbers on paper. Our economy
will unravel as "the full faith and credit of the U.S. government"
becomes worthless.

This Stimulus Package is not going to pull our economy out of its
current slump. Rather than being a carefully targeted economic
program, it is a hopeless hodgepodge containing everything from the
rebirth of "the bridge to nowhere" to "stealth" legislation on
network neutrality and socialized medicine. If you don't believe me,
take a look at what the bill actually says. You can see the House
version (600-plus pages) at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:

Also available at: (from jan 24th)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html

The House and Senate versions are being reconciled in conference
committee right now and a final vote will be taken in the next few
days.

This is terrible legislation. We cannot allow our politicians to ram
massive, unscrutinized legislation with enormous cost and dubious
benefits through the legislative process because "the sky is falling".

Please read about this "stimulus". It is Bad News for us and our children.
If you agree with me, please contact your senator(s) and representatives.
Pass this letter on to anyone and everyone.

If you disagree, please convince me that I am wrong, because I think this
legislation is a watershed event that we will seriously regret.

-Don Lee


Links: rep contact:

http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/


Links: the legislation:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:7:./temp/~c111gY1vuJ:: (today's version)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.350:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111MwCl1U:e257646: (medical privacy)


links: analysis:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=199
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html (best case - from Obama office)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2283.cfm

Congress to defer its 2010 pay raise. What about 2009?

Congress to defer its 2010 pay raise WASHINGTON — The No. 2 Democrat in the House says Capitol Hill lawmakers are going to give up the automatic pay raise they’re due next year. Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer says it would be inappropriate for Congress to take its annual cost-of-living pay hike in 2010 while the economy is in such bad shape and so many people are losing their jobs. But lawmakers are going ahead and pocketing the $5,000 salary hike they got at the beginning of this year to raise their salaries to $174,000. — Associated Press