This is too true.

From PJTV (Pajamas Media) and AlfonZo Rachel:

Way to go, AlfonZo!

This video shows/explains/demonstrates (take your pick), in graphic detail, how Detroit, for decades a city run by liberals, has fared under the control of the political left, from lefty mayors to the UAW.

Is this what we want for the rest of the country as well? Lets just keep electing Obamas, Pelosis, Reids and the rest of that ilk, and find out….

In this case, the usual suspects are the liberal-owned Democrats and the usual target is our nation’s ability to defend itself.

Several weeks ago we resolved to try and get away from politics for awhile, since it’s all pretty much the same thing every day now, the leftists on their side of the aisle leading Republican politicians, and America, down the road to hell by the nose, but it’s just so difficult not to comment when one feels offended, as an American and a patriot, by what some of those we’ve elected to govern us are doing and what, just as important, others are not doing to prevent it!

So,

Either the GOP has few genuine conservatives in it anymore, or those it does contain are so spineless or corrupt that all they do is take up space that might be better used by men and women with the guts and resolve to embrace the conservative cause.

Patriots who are willing and able to place America before their self seeking need to be reelected.

Well, here are the usual suspects on the left side in action.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday said no budget cuts will be off-limits as the Pentagon looks to tighten its belt.

“We need to challenge all past assumptions, and we need to put everything on the table,” Hagel said in his first major policy address, according to prepared remarks.

In other words…

Speaking at National Defense University at Fort McNair, Hagel defended his review of the military’s strategy, which he ordered shortly after taking over at the Pentagon.

He said the military must look at change “that involves not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but, where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.”

…fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.

That, as we’ve learned over the past 4 years, 2 1/2 months, is, in Obama Administration speak, synonymous with dismantling, to the fullest extent possible, yet another institution that has kept America safe and strong, dragging us still further down to defenseless, third world s–thole status.

They (no, LOL, not as in “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you” they, but they as in the far left wingers now inhabiting the Democratic party and their most efficient tool to date, President B. Hussein Obama) have eroded our economy in every sector, plunging the nation into debt, attacked American morality on all levels from the sanctity of marriage to institutions like the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments and the freedom for religious medical venues to reject treating or funding abortion and other abominations that go against their beliefs and now they’re attacking our very rights via an assault on the Second Amendment.

So yes, we should all be just a little worried when a left wing Obama stooge like Hagel uses his status as Defense Secretary to fashion entirely new anythings that are “better suited to 21st century realities and challenges”.

Yeah, yeah, call me a skeptic, but what else could anyone with any common sense be after seeing Obama Administration “have to read between the lines to get to the truth” shenanigans for more than a full term?

At any rate, the entire article can be read here.

Who would have thought, a mere thirty years ago, if that, that great American institutions such as the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts would be victimized by the same left wing political agendas as everything else that comes under attack by the barely disguised, yet somehow unacknowledged by so many people, forces of communism that by now have become entrenched within, and under the umbrella of, the Democratic Party?

Over such an issue as not allowing homosexuals to assume the role of scout leader!

What parent, short of a left winger in need of a little American moral deterioration or a gay male/female who maintains custody of some poor child and wants to bring that child up in the same image, so to speak, wants his or her own child of impressionable age to be given into the “role model” influence of an adult, a “leader”, whose sexual preferences are, at best, an aberration to them?

Don’t get me wrong, here, I’ll say again that I, and the guys here at Hard Astarboard as well, have nothing against two consenting adults of the same gender “making whoopie”, as Seth so tactfully (not!) puts it, as long as they keep it behind closed doors and/or among those of their own “community” and don’t force what are essentially their perversions on the rest of us.

That applies to having them assert their influence on such conservative and character building organizations as the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts, to both of which our (Wolf and I) sons belonged when they were growing up.

Why do these people feel such a need, anyway, to become scout leaders, or is this just another case of the political left sticking their filthy fingers into yet another institution in hopes of still further decaying our American sense of values?

From FOX News

Public School Boots Cub Scouts

A federal civil rights complaint has been filed against the Salt Lake City School Board after a principal booted a Cub Scout pack from an elementary school.

About 30 eight to 11 year-olds were told they could no longer meet at Mountain View Elementary School because the Boy Scout’s ban on gay members in leaders conflicted with the school district’s anti-bias policy.

The ban drew the ire of Michael Clara, a school board member and lifetime Boy Scout. Clara filed the federal complaint on behalf of two Latino parents.

“I believe it is an assault on the founding principles of our country for school officials to attempt to exclude a voice no less legitimate than its own from public school participation,” Clara told Fox News. “A marketplace of ideas devoid of competitive viewpoints engenders an insidious society of conformity, contrary to the fundamental precepts of our Constitution.”

He claims the school district is violating the Boy Scout Act – a law that requires schools to allow access to the Boy Scouts if they allow access to outside groups.

SNIP!

On March 16 two Latino parents contacted Clara after the principal informed them the Cub Scout pack would no longer be allowed to meet at the school.

Three days later the school board member received a telephone call from the principal confirming that directive.

“(He) confirmed that the Cub Scouts were prohibited from meeting in the building because they will not allow gay scout leaders,” he said.

Clara, who describes himself as a Christian conservative Republican who supports gay rights, said he was very concerned by the ban.

“Why on Earth would we want to remove something positive from the school,” he asked. “Where does this end? It’s a form of discrimination in the name of intolerance.”

The Cub Scouts had been meeting at the school for three years – but since their eviction – meetings have ceased.

What is happening to this great country? How are such people as this principal even promoted to such positions in a country that was founded on sensible morality, and Judeo-Christian principles?

This sleazeball certainly illustrates the fact that there are two different meanings between principal and principle!

Back in June, 2005, Seth did a post about Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbuck’s. The post was quite favorable, as Schultz, a supporter of Israel, put his money where his mouth was in that support via monetary largesse.

For some reason I can’t get the link to stick, so I’ll have to do some work on that when I have more time. The post was pretty in depth as are the majority of Seth’s older posts (and once he’s back, hopefully that won’t change), so to move along for now…

It was quite disappointing to read that Schultz is a vociferous supporter of same sex marriage, something we at Hard Astarboard are totally opposed to.

We have absolutely nothing against a couple of consenting adults of the same gender doing whatever it is they want to do behind closed doors, nor of their living together if that’s what makes them happy, but…

…when it comes to making a mockery of traditional marriage by making it legal for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be married, well, that’s a problem for us, as is allowing a same sex couple to adopt a child.

There is, after all, a limit to the amount of tolerance we, and like minded persons, can come up with.

Howard Schultz, it seems, also has issues with tolerance, in fact, he has zero tolerance for people who support traditional marriage.

From Examiner.com

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage: we don’t want your business. After saying Starbucks wants to “embrace diversity of all kinds,” he told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company.

According to a report by Forbes, Schultz seemed a bit intolerant of any Starbucks shareholders who embrace opposed gay marriage for moral or religious reasons. During the meeting, shareholder Tom Strobhar (who founded the Corporate Morality Action Center) pointed out that after the company voiced its support for a referendum backing gay marriage in Washington state, a boycott by traditional marriage supporters caused a drop in sales revenue. Schultz told him “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company” if he did not agree with the company’s pro-gay marriage stand.

So, if Mr. Schultz wants to make his belief in gay marriage part of what his business is about, he’s just lost our business as well…

The left-hand feedback on Wayne LaPierre’s speech (see our last post)Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren
was predictable, but to see that the New York Post headlined on the speech with reference to NRA’s executive VP as an “NRA Loon” was beyond the pale — I’d always had the impression that they were a conservative paper with conservative views, Murdoch’s tabloid-style New York publication and basically a cheerleader (full of puns!) for the right thinking element here.

For them to call LaPierre a “loon” in response to his expressing an opinion that should have been not only expressed, but implemented as policy a long time ago…

…“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,”…

…guarantees that I’ll never buy that rag again. It sounds to me as if they are trying to expand their readership to include anti-gun liberals in the rotten Big Apple.

As Last Resistance so correctly says:

Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren

After Jared Loughner killed six people and injured fourteen others with a gun in Arizona at the beginning of 2011, liberals demanded to know why Sarah Palin, on whose shoulders they placed the blame for the massacre, would not weigh in on the issue. Her silence was outrageous.

Then something like a week later Palin did voice her opinion on the matter, and those very same outraged Democrats became outraged again. “Why is she sticking her nose in the matter,” they demanded.

Now, in the aftermath of this recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, liberals summoned their outrage that the National Rifle Association was cowering in silence rather than joining liberals in their fantasy world in which sentient guns have malice in their hearts and murder on their agenda.

Yesterday the Trinity Episcopal Church of Newtown tolled its bell 26 times, one for each victim of Adam Lanza’s dementia.

A little over an hour later, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, gave a press conference in which he suggested having armed police officers at every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.

The NRA has even offered to train school security officers and develop and develop security plans–for free.

But liberals, never content to let their outrage be mollified, went from being outraged over the NRA’s silence to being outraged over the NRA’s “poorly timed” statement. The NRA has been Palin’d.

There is also criticism over the NRA’s proposal, of course, and substantial criticisms are fair. But they go something like this: “Put cops in every school? Are you insane?”

Well, what is more insane: to ask gun owners to turn in their guns to the government, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee did, and expect not only that good people will comply, but that people intent on killing will comply (“Aw, gee, I really wanted to shoot up that mall today, but the government’s asking me to turn in my gun, so nevermind”); to expect the government to outright confiscate guns, as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested; or to have trained professionals at the entrances of schools?

Better question: Why do Democratic politicians, who receive the taxpayer-funded protection of armed security, want to keep women and children from being protected by armed security?

Perhaps it’s because liberals, who control the Democrats and are totalitarian thinkers, would rather have as many of these tragedies as possible occur so they have what they see as ammunition for more anti-Second Amendment rants…

Well, usually they are.

At least when it comes to the kind of pork that originates with animals that say “oink”.

However, when it comes to the kind of pork that constitutes the blatantly irresponsible allocation of the taxpayers’ money, the same Barack Hussein, like the rest of his commie “progressive” ilk, revels in throwing around copious quantities of the stuff.

And why not? When it runs out, they can either borrow more from overseas or simply raise taxes! Brilliant!

All this gross overspending needs to justify itself is a stated purpose that sounds compassionate, like disaster relief, for example. For that matter, it can fall under the heading of welfare, food stamps, anything at all that has to do with helping underpriviledged, downtrodden, unemployed, disabled or whatever, and it’s…justified.

Unfortunately, the politicians over there on the left use these fine, upstanding remittances as cover for opening the floodgates of taxpayer largesse to recipients, bureaucracies and other lucky entities that have little to do with the targets of the legislation enabling these payouts.

They’ll “spend” billions of dollars on a hundred million dollar need, squandering and more squandering, and then when the Republicans object to the unnecessary overspending, the Dems and their tame media will announce that the “uncompassionate” Repulicans want to deny those in need, let them starve, let them suffer, etc, when all the folkson the right are trying to do is have the money handled more responsibly for the sake of the above mentioned taxpayers.

And we’re not talking merely being gouged by overpriced goods and services, we’re talking using a lot of the money “stealthily” to bribe voting blocks and repay campaign favors.

Political Outcast provides a perfect example.

President Obama is requesting $60.4 billion in disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. If you’re opposed to disaster relief funding, then that means you want disaster victims to continue to suffer as much as possible. Conservative representatives in Congress would only vote against such legislation because they’re cold and heartless individuals. This is generally what liberals and big government Republicans think of those who are not in favor of the federal government giving handouts to storm victims.

But we’re not cold and heartless. It’s been shown time and time again that conservatives are actually more generous with their money than liberals are. Liberals prefer having their money taken through taxes to fund government programs that only make people poorer and more dependent on government. Conservatives give more of the their money away to charitable organizations that actually do help people in need.

It’s unconstitutional for the government to extract money through taxes and then give that money to other people or businesses no matter how good the government’s intentions are. But another reason these “relief” bills are bad is that politicians use them as excuses to stuff a bunch of money for pork projects that buy off their constituents. The NY Post reported:

“The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.”

Some of these things don’t have anything to do with helping Sandy victims, yet they’re all part of Sandy relief package. How is giving $150 million to fisheries in Alaska supposed to help someone in New York who lost his home? How is spending money to fix up Gitmo going to help a business in New York whose building got destroyed by the hurricane? Or spending millions to help repair damages at the space center in Florida?

This is why conservatives are opposed to this kind of legislation. Would it end up helping some people and businesses in New York? Perhaps, but at the expense of the taxpayer. But now, it’s little more than a mini-bailout for politicians’ buddies. And if you’re opposed to it, that means you want children to suffer and be homeless.

Well put!

Well, I certainly hope that all those stupid, stupid people who helped to reelect Obama are pleased with themselves and that they don’t have the collossal moxi to complain when the fruits of their applied mulletheadedness come back around to bite them where the moon doesn’t shine.

Let’s see, now, where to begin.

How about here?

A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

Here’s an excerpt from the interview. Click the audio tab below to hear even more from this compelling conversation:

“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

“Well unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees — well unfortunately we know what happened and I can’t wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”

As the employer says, his is just one small company…

And from Michelle Malkin

President Obama promises to move the country forward with his recycled pledge of five million green jobs. But in the real world, small businesses are struggling to stay afloat as they deal with the fiscal wreckage of this administration’s disastrous venture socialism. Here’s the tale of just one Colorado company victimized by the Obama Department of Energy (DOE).

Colorado Distribution Group is a privately held storage and shipping company based in Denver. Thanks to hope-a-nomics, its warehouse is saddled with nearly 7,000 pallets of federally subsidized solar panels (one-third of which are completely spoiled and unsalable), along with related detritus such as broken glass and stray module parts.

While $22,000/month in storage costs go unpaid, the panels consume up to a third of the company’s warehouse space. Legal costs have forced CDG to slash payroll and lay off at least three employees. A source with knowledge of CDG’s woes told me this week the company is facing pressure by the Department of Energy to drop its petition to recoup those costs. The feds want CDG to swallow a $1.4 million tab to dispose of the bum solar panels.

In July, according to Dow Jones, CDG asked a Delaware bankruptcy court “for permission either to sell or collect rent on the property Abound Solar Inc. has at its facility, saying the situation is threatening its ability to stay in business.” Like many private enterprises in the Age of Obama’s Brass-Knuckled Politics of Revenge, fear of retribution holds back many from coming forward publicly about such attempted shakedowns.

CDG serves industries ranging from automotive to food and beverage, electronic, medical, furniture, clothing, sporting goods and telecommunications. Founded in 2005, CDG handles distribution, fulfillment, transportation, logistics and inventory management using a high-tech data system. For the past three years, the company warehoused solar panels manufactured by Fort Collins-based Abound Solar.

Yes, Abound Solar. Also known as: Colorado’s own Solyndra.

In June, less than a year after fellow Obama green boondoggle Solyndra went belly up, Abound filed for bankruptcy. As I reported in March, the financial outlook of the $400 million DOE loan guarantee recipient was based on false hope and imaginary change. Obama’s envirocrats ignored bright red flags from Fitch Ratings about Abound’s substandard technology and failures to meet basic efficiency targets.

Abound borrowed $70 million against its $400 million Obama DOE loan guarantee; taxpayers will lose up to $60 million on the loan after the bankruptcy proceedings are complete. Nearly 125 Abound Solar employees lost their jobs. Screwed-over companies like CDG that did business with Abound are not alone. At least one other warehouse in Colorado is storing the costly panels. And an untold number of related contractors and businesses have been stiffed. “I did a lot of machining for Abound,” one business owner told me this summer, “and they went under owing me a fair amount.”

Recently released internal documents show that customers demanded replacements for the panels after experiencing “low performance,” “under performance” and “catastrophic failures.” Credit and technical advisers at DOE complained about having “major issues” with the Abound Solar deal and expressed concern over the “transaction pressure under which we are all now operating.” The documents fly in the face of Obama’s denial — just days before Election Day — that his White House played any role in this fiscal disaster.

The investigative work of Colorado’s Todd Shepherd at CompleteColorado.com, Amy Oliver at the Independence Institute and Michael Sandoval now of the Heritage Foundation exposed Abound’s crony ties to the Obama administration. Like Solyndra, Abound had a deep-pocketed bundler with ties to the White House. Progressive activist and billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, a repeat visitor to the Obama White House, owns an investment firm that invested considerably in Abound and donated nearly $500 million to the Democrats between 2008 and 2012.

Criminal and civil probes into Abound Solar’s alleged malfeasance — there are reports that the firm knowingly sold faulty goods — have been launched in both Colorado and on Capitol Hill. The stench of pay-for-play abounds. While Obama giddily promises his cronies and sycophants that “the best is yet to come,” small-business owners are fighting for their lives. Where’s their “fair share”?

And in the tax arena…

The Congressional Budget Office officially reported on Wednesday that the federal budget deficit in fiscal 2012 (which ended on Sept. 30) topped a trillion dollars for the fourth straight year even though federal taxes paid by individuals increased by 4 percent during the year and federal income taxes paid by corporation increased by about 34 percent.

The increase in corporate federal income tax payments was largely due to changes in the tax rules that corporations were required to follow.

“The federal government incurred a budget deficit of $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2012, the fourth consecutive year with a deficit above $1.0 trillion,” said the CBO.

“Revenues from all major sources increased in 2012,” CBO reported. “Corporate income taxes accounted for about 40 percent of the increase in total revenues, rising by $61 billion (or 34 percent) and increasing from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent of GDP. The growth in corporate receipts resulted largely from changes in tax rules in recent years, particularly those that dictate how quickly firms may deduct the cost of their investments in equipment.”

Individuals also paid more taxes in 2012, according to CBO. “Receipts from individual income taxes grew by $41 billion (or 4 percent), and remained at 7.3 percent of GDP in 2012. More than half of the increase came from withheld taxes, which rose by $27 billion (or3 percent).”

At the same time, defense spending declined in 2012. “Defense outlays fell by $19 billion (or 3 percent) in 2012 after rising at an average annual rate of 6 percent over the past five years. Most ($17 billion) of that decline was attributable to the reduction in the number of U.S. Army personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Defense spending was 4.2 percent of GDP, down from 4.5 percent in 2011.”

At the same time corporate income taxes were increasing by about 34 percent, economic growth was lagging. In the fourth quarter of 2011, real GDP grew at 4.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. But in the first three quarters of 2012, it grew by 2.0 percent, 1.3 percent and 2.0 percent.

The national unemployment rate in October was 7.9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated to his first term, it was 7.8 percent.

When calculated as a share of GDP, the last four fiscal years have seen the four highest deficits since the end of World War II in fiscal 1946. (Prior to 1974, federal fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30.)

“As a share of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the deficit declined—from

8.7 percent in 2011 to 7.0 percent in 2012—but it was still the fourth highest as a share of GDP since 1946,” said CBO.

And…AHEM!…On the Second Amendment front…

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty passed in its second session. The Media was silent over its passage.
According to the UN’s press release,

Concluding its two-week session today, the second United Nations conference to review the 2001 Programme of Action on trafficking in small arms and light weapons adopted a consensus outcome document that highlighted the international community’s renewed commitment to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade.

The document’s adoption represented a major achievement for delegations, who had failed to agree on a final outcome at the first review conference, held in 2006. “We accomplished something great today,” said U. Joy Ogwu ( Nigeria), President of the Conference, formally known as the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

According to the text, Member States renewed their pledge to rid the world of the scourge brought upon it by the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread in many parts of the world. They also committed to mobilizing the necessary political will and resources to implement the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, with the aim of achieving clear and tangible results over the next six years, through 2018.

Further by the text, States emphasized that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to sustain conflicts, exacerbate armed violence, undermine respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law, aid terrorism and illegal armed groups, and facilitate increasing levels of transnational organized crime, as well as trafficking in humans, drugs and certain natural resources.

Ahhh yes, the cries of terrorism and drugs and boogey men for the passage of the treaty. This comes from member nations who knowingly promote these kinds of things. Even the United States is now in the midst of a scandal involving gunwalking, known as Fast and Furious, and at least one man arrested has come forward and said that Fast and Furious was all about arming drug cartels in Mexico, never about tracking them.

All countries signed the declaration and further documentation can be found here.

Read the entire article and, if you cherish the rights given us by the Second Amendment, understand that what is happening in the U.N. Smallarms Treaty talks is the Obama Administration conspiring — yeah, that’s exactly the right word, conspiring — with that incompetent, blundering, corrupt international agency… to allow them to reach into our homes and gun cabinets and take away our right to keep and bear what they find in them.

The language used purports to be concerned solely with criminals and terrorists, but the reality is that once they’ve got us on this “slippery slope”, the abounding interpretations will favor the far left, those people who would prefer that the government holds all weapons, effectively controlling the rest of us. Every liberal agenda begins with this same kind of language and ends with extremities we certainly wouldn’t have countenanced had we known where it all was really heading.

Thanks again to all the anti-America, politically ignorant/reality challenged and all others who have now given Obama a “mandate” to continue bringing this great country down the road to ruin…

It’s so amusing as to border on the pitiful that the Democrats, for whom every kind of election fraud from bundling and registering dead people to slipping illegal aliens into the polls should be “up in arms” over some highly unlikely theory that the Republicans are the ones engaging in election cheating.

They’ve actually invited the kommie and terrorist championing United Nations, that corrupt body of left wing global weaselhood, in to monitor our elections to ensure that the GOP doesn’t cheat.

From The Hill:

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers from its human rights office around the country on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places. It’s part of a broader observation mission that will send out an additional 80 to 90 members of parliament from nearly 30 countries.

Liberal-leaning civil rights groups met with representatives from the OSCE this week to raise their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, warned this month in a letter to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

What a bunch of….

Well, however,

The request for foreign monitoring of election sites drew a strong rebuke from Catherine Engelbrecht, founder and president of True the Vote, a conservative-leaning group seeking to crack down on election fraud.

“These activist groups sought assistance not from American sources, but from the United Nations,” she said in a statement to The Hill. “The United Nations has no jurisdiction over American elections.”

Neil Simon, director of communications for the OSCE’s parliamentary assembly, agreed the U.N. does not have jurisdiction over U.S. elections but noted all OSCE member counties, which include the United States, have committed since 1990 to hold free and democratic elections and to allow one another to observe their elections.

The observers, from countries such as Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will observe voting at polling places and other political activity.

The entire article is here.

Apparently, being a state full of people who have some spine, Texas spoke their peace on the matter.

Like they say, (Yeeeee Hawwww!) Don’t Mess With Texas!

These reports really grabbed my attention.

From World Net Daily:

Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.

ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”

been arrested… for… praying in front of the White House.

…knowing their members could indeed be arrested…

Is this America, or is it a communist country or, for that matter, a Muslim country, where Christians know they can be arrested for praying?

Or is this Obama’s America?

How does this grab you?

A retired Army chaplain says homosexual sailors have been able to choose their bunkmates on board Navy ships as a consequence of the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Col. Ron Crews (USA-Ret.) served as an Army chaplain for 28 years and now serves as a spokesman for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. When asked by The Washington Times to write an op-ed on the consequences of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he was quick to point out that “toleration does not cut both ways.”

“The Department of Defense is continually bringing forth homosexual soldiers and military personnel to do press conferences and talk about how wonderful it is,” Col. Crews notes. “And then they allow military personnel to march in a gay pride parade in San Diego. But yet those who hold biblical values are silenced.”

The Chaplain Alliance spokesman adds that homosexuals are now demanding and receiving special privileges in the military, including one egregious example aboard Navy ships.

From a Washington Times article linked in the above report:

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

Yes, friends, welcome to Obama’s America…