Bush was Right about Iraq!

by 1dragon


As I watched the last of the U.S. active military force pull out of Iraq on August 19, I could not help but notice the famed “Indianhead” patch that unit was wearing on their uniforms because long, long ago, I wore that patch, the emblem of the Second Infantry Division.

Most people are likely unaware that 30,000 of the Division are in South Korea, some sixty years after the truce was declared, ready to repulse the first wave of attack if North Korea is crazy enough to try again. Let’s just say it. George W. Bush was right! He was right to invade Iraq and remove a psychopathic dictator from control of that nation, a man who had spent eight years at war with Iran, who had invaded Kuwait, and who, if the Israelis had not blown up a nuclear reactor being built there, would have had a nuclear weapon with which to threaten the entire region.

Continue reading

King Obama The Rock Opera

H/T 1dragon

You will not have many opportunities to hear and sing a song at the same time that is so profound. It’s still playing in my head colliding with my still three functioning neurons.

Thank You Lenin and the Castro’s for making my day.

Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, I’m J.C.

Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad from Terror Surveillance List Before Attack

Big Government

H/T 1 dragon

More hope and change… Talk about the gang that can’t shoot straight? How many more times are we going to hear the system works great?  It’s time for ‘Janet Off The Planet’ to get the hell out of Dodge. Erick, Obama’s Pot Holder must be on the same mule.   Replace her with Colonel Allen West. Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

Faisal Shahzad was removed from the national terrorist surveillance list before the Times Square attack.

Rich Terrel

(CBS News)

Confessed terrorist Faisal Shahzad was removed from the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list sometime after Barack Obama came into office.

CBS reported:

Continue reading

Those Who Would Inflict Harm Upon Us And Can’t Be Called Islamic Terrorists, Party of Four, That’s Party of Four please, Party of Four

An excellent read by Alan Ceruba in today’s Canada Free Press. In a single page he covers the incompetence of the current administration in taking the Islamic threat seriously.

While the Narcissist-in-Chief is happily playing at the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, he goes covert to not disturb the crowds. He,  for security reasons, change costumes. He is either roaming the park as Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Dumbo, and the long legged member of the seven dwarfs. Sleepy.

Lost  on me is the continued assertions by the msm and the clueless among us who try to tell us  that our actions caused them to hate us.  A Woeful misunderstanding of history at best. Christianity has always f0ught Muslims who attempted to force Islam upon the world since the Seventh Century. It’s their sworn duty, non believers the infidel must submit or die.  Perhaps those that continue to propagate these illusions believe their will be a place for their disinformation in the future.  Not likely.

We have fought them seven times in the past losing once. We must win this time because the stakes are enormously high. There is no room for failure. Not now, when we have one in the White House and in the Pelosi run progressive congress.  Random thought’s while visiting the passing charade, I’m J.C.

U.S. Anti-Terrorism Policy: Get Lucky

h/t 1dragon

Canada Free Press

“I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”

That’s what President Obama said in his Cairo speech, an early effort to reach out to Muslims throughout the Middle East and the world. The problem is, he is dead wrong. Muslims were not here     prior to or during the Revolution. They did not participate in the Civil War though for centuries they were notorious as slave traders. During World War Two they were on Hitler’s side.

And, over the weekend, a naturalized American, formerly from Pakistan, is alleged to be the man who tried to kill a lot of Americans in New York’s Time’s Square.

So, while not “always” having been part of America’s history, Muslims are currently leaving their mark on it in the twenty-first century.

Continue reading

Why Was It Unconstitutional For President Harry Truman To Take Over the Coal and Steel Industries, With President Obama Being Held To A Different Standard?

by Jim Campbell

Harry Truman Museum:

American Daily Review:

The American Presidency Project:

When President Harry Truman was told by the Supreme Court of the United States of America that his attempts to seize the coal and steel industries were Unconstitutional, why is Barack Hussein Obama being held to a different standard?

Does he believe he is above the law?  Is he betting that the current leadership, under Nancy Pelosi would never begin Impeachment Proceedings?  What will Republicans do when they eventually gain control of both houses?

On the issue, does he believe he’s above the law?  The answer goes without saying as was recently demonstrated during the vote on the health care fiasco.  Also his take over of Banks. the Auto Industry, and seventeen percent of the GDP by nationalizing our health care industry would certainly qualify.  Is he safe with his bet on Nancy Pelosi, seemingly so.

What will Republicans do when they once again gain control of both houses or make substantial gains in November? It would be most prudent to make President Obama a lame duck, making no more legislation possible during the next two years.

The country would not be well served with another Impeachment when there is so much very important legislation to be implemented, cutting taxes, and useless programs, while putting our country back on the road toward real growth in the private sector.

Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

On June 2, 1952, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court declared in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the president lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. Writing for a badly divided majority, Justice Hugo Black held that the president had no authority under the Constitution to seize private property on the grounds of national security. Since the Congress had not otherwise authorized the president to seize the steel mills, the president could not do so.

When President Truman attempted to deal with striking coal workers, in United States v. Pewee Coal Co. 341 U.S. 114 (1951) as justification for the government’s claims of unfettered executive power.  Judge Pine issued his opinion at 4:45 p.m. on April 29. “There is no express grant of power in the Constitution authorizing the President to direct this seizure. There is no grant of power from which it reasonably can be implied. There is no enactment of Congress authorizing it,” the court declared. H/T dragon1

Continue reading

Class Warfare’s Next Target: 401(k) Savings


February 19, 2010


If this article hadn’t been written by Newt and appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, I would have thought it a parity from the Onion.  Both House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash must be terminated with extreme prejudice at the polls for even considering such a Marxist take over. It’s clearly unconstitutional, yet the current set of trolls in congress don’t appear to care about the Constitution.  This bill will go nowhere fast.  It’s probably run up the flag pole to misdirect us from more relevant issues. I plan on making a public comment. Not thinking we will hear much more about it.  Random thought while observing those breathing rare air who believe they are our masters continue with displaying clearly psychotic behavior.  LOL, J.C.

You did the responsible thing. You saved in your IRA or 401(k) to support your retirement, when you could have spent that money on another vacation, or an upscale car, or fancier clothes and jewelry. But now Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.

BusinessWeek reports that the Treasury and Labor departments are asking for public comment on “the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.”

In plain English, the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

Absolute proof they live in an echo chamber

They will tell you that you are “investing” your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.

This “conversion” may start out as an optional choice, though you are already free to buy Treasury bonds whenever you want. But as Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker Web site reports: “‘Choices’ have a funny way of turning into mandates, and this looks to me like a raw admission that Treasury knows it will not be able to sell its debt in the open market — so they will effectively tax you by forcing your ‘retirement’ money to buy them.”

Moreover, benefits based on Treasury bond interest rates may be woefully inadequate compensation for your years of savings. As Denninger adds, “What’s even worse is that the government has intentionally suppressed Treasury yields during this crisis (and will keep doing so by various means, including manipulating the CPI inflation index) so as to guarantee that you lose over time compared to actual purchasing power.”

This proposal follows hearings held last fall by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., of the Ways and Means Committee focusing on “redirecting (IRA and 401k) tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute,” as reported by InvestmentNews.com.

The hearings examined a proposal from professor Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research in New York to give all workers “a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government” in return for requiring workers “to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.”


Rich Terrel Rich is a VERY talented political satirist and artist. I recently found him his art is featured though out my site. Want some great pictures click     on his name above.


Voting Female

Dancing Czars

Lisa in Texas

What the Beck!!! His river of de-nile!

The Diary of a Mad Conservative


Is there no irony that Obama the “supposed” constitutional scholar doesn’t get that this legislation will be  tied up in the courts forever? As he has told us, if you can’t get your agenda passed using the congressional route use the courts.  This guy is acting like a kamikaze pilot to me.  I am forever hopeful that there will be one or two Democrats, even Senator Lieberman who will vote no on this governmental fraud.  There must be at least one Democrat with a conscious, that has seen what the people don’t want and will refuse to walk the plank with the radical fools and retire.  Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.
January 15, 2010

NRO (National Review Online)

The silver lining in the health-care-reform nightmare that is taking place in America might be the unconstitutionality of certain aspects of the bill. According to this morning’s Wall Street Journal, “constitutional-law scholars say that if the health-care overhaul becomes law, it could give courts an opportunity to test the limits of congressional authority in areas that haven’t been examined since the New Deal era.”

Preeminent legal scholars have written and made this point before. Here are some very useful links compiled by Manny Klausner.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason University’s Ilya Somin asks whether Congress has the authority to enact a health-insurance mandate using its power to tax. The answer is likely no.

Check out also, Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett’s post called “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional.”

Also, Richard Epstein recently published a detailed analysis of the Senate version of the bill, “Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional.” Epstein concludes that there is “little doubt that its central arrangements are unconstitutional, and will face serious legal challenge for years to come.”

Epstein notes that “that the Fifth Amendment affords regulated health-insurance companies protection against the taking of property without compensation and without due process of law” — but “the Reid Bill emphatically fails this test by imposing sharp limitations on the ability of health-insurance companies to raise fees or exclude coverage.”

Epstein’s analysis also ran in the Wall Street Journal, “Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility — The health bill creates a massive cash crunch and then bankruptcies for many insurers.”

Overall, it seems obvious that there are serious constitutional problems with Reid’s bill. Yet, can we trust the courts that gave us rulings such as Kelo to deliver justice this time around?