Pelosi


Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Bachmann: A Conservative Call to Acti…“, posted with vodpod

Thanks to RJ at Paul Revere’s Riders for posting this clip. This government has to be brought under control. Get involved. Post your comments. Get involved and do it NOW. Obama’s agenda is an Obammunist nation, followed by a socialist NWO with one world governance. They will live in luxery sucking the life blood from people like the leeches they are. They will not lift the third world to our standard of living but will drive this nation down to the level of Obama’s native Kenya. We must start now and effect a change in 2012 and finish by 2012. Thereafter we must be forever vigilent.

Please pass this video around. Re-post it or e-mail the link.

Advertisements

Thank You Soldiers – Veteran’s Day Song

Thanks to our friend at Theodore’s World for posting this. Thanks to Michael for doing this. Please visit both sites. If you have children in school contact your school district and tell them this is what you want. Not praises to Obama, not education on sex from people like Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe school czar. Let’s get back to the roots of our nation. We can do it despite the people that are seeking to destroy it. Let’s go guys. Have them teach about our founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, the U. S. Constitution, not social engineering. Teach what is right with America, not how we should apologize for keeping the world safe. Coming to the forefront in World Wars I and II.

WANNA SEE SOME LIBERAL HEADS EXPLODE ?

THE VIEW CRITIQUES SARAH PALIN 2012 PRESIDENTIAL AD

It would be great if either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann ran in 2012. Any way it makes a point of what a dud we have with President Pussyboy. Pass this around or re-post it. A thanks to MJ for posting these over at The Mad Jewess. Take a visit.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese war planes attacked Pearl Harbor, the forward base for the United States in the Pacific, effectively drawing the United States into war with Japan.  This picture, widely publicized in the United States, illustrates the extent of the physical destruction.  The sinking battleship is the USS West Virginia.  The crew of the motorboat in the foreground is attempting to save sailors in the water.  The official battle report, submitted on December 11, 1941, can be a useful source document for classroom use.  The sinking of the USS West Virginia resulted in the death of 106 crewmen.

A surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor and on Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands on December 7, 1941. It destroyed much of the American Pacific Fleet and brought the United States into World War II. The attack followed the decision of the Japanese government that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration would not abandon China and Southeast Asia to the Japanese military nor continue to supply Tokyo with vital materials. Early Sunday morning, December 7, Japanese aircraft launched an assault that destroyed or disabled nineteen ships and 292 planes. American deaths totaled 2, 335 and 1, 178 were wounded. Ultimately, though the attack was a tactical success, the Japanese failed to destroy American repair yards, fuel reserves, and submarines. Source for below photo and clip. Visit for other photos, clips and information.

Attack on pearl harbor

Let us not forget those that were either killed or wounded in this sneak attack on the United States.

Let us not forget that we had a second devastating sneak attack on Sept. 11, 2001, by Islamic terrorists. I fear we will have one more before America wakes up and this will come from the enemy within. Systematic destruction of our military and freedoms by liberals in Congress following Obama’s lead toward a NWO with one world governance. Don’t let history repeat itself.

Update:

Visit tparty2010 for another take on this.

Grassfire org ResistNet com Part 1 10 27 09

Grassfire org ResistNet com Part 2 10 27 09

This is

liar-01Obama’s transparent government, Pelosi’s most ethical congress. To put it bluntly they are a bunch of lying SCUMBAGS, both parties. Wake up America before you spend your sunset days, twilight years telling your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren what once was. The time to act is now, not when you wake up tomorrow and it is to late. Visit  America Coast to Coast.

SPformagazinecoverImage1

October 16, 2009 4:0

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

— Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and the Republican candidate for vice ­president in 2008. This article appears in the November 2, 2009, issue of National Review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2ZjhjY2MwMWUyM2M4NTM5YWRjYTcwMTEzZTNjMTc#more

Want to host your very own radio show for free???
Go now to http://www.uswebtalkradio.com

Makes more sense than the total BS coming out of Washington D. C. Source.

Our politicians on both sides just don’t get it. Time for a house cleaning or a change like a dirty diaper on a baby. Start now, make a change in 2010 and finish no later than 2012.

By SARAH PALIN

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

View Full Image

Associated Press .

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

Source

Next Page »