Monday, January 31, 2011








Dear Sir:

1. I demand the immediate arrest of CURT OLDS - THE GUEST DIRECTOR of the Missoula, Montana production of THE MIKADO under the provisions of U.S.C. 871 for repeated DEATH THREATS and solicitation of assassination of PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE Sarah Palin under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 871 - This is a serious felony that carries a penalty of five years in prison, $250, 000 fine and three years probation.

2. Please be advised that I personally, along with countless members of this Montana community, witnessed this sickening act of hate, solicitation for murder and treason. After the play was finished I heard countless cries for law enforcement to step forward and arrest the CURT OLDS, the author of the death threats against Sarah Palin.

3. Please be advised if the U.S. Secret Service does not take IMMEDIATE action to arrest CURT OLDS, I will personally file felon charges against you at the nearest U.S. Attorney for failure to stop a clear and present threat against the life of a Presidential Nominee.

Sincerely, Ronald (Ronbo) Barbour






The number is 406-728-2791 and the cellphone is 406-360-9451.


Sunday, January 30, 2011


EXODUS: Obama Admin to Evacuate U.S. Citizens From Egypt Starting Monday

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Ms. Jacobs (missed her first name), speaking on CNN said that the U.S. government is chartering planes to evacuate Americans from Egypt, with the first flights scheduled to depart on Monday.

Jacobs urged those with tickets for commercial flights out of Egypt to use those tickets. She also said the State Dept. was bringing in more consular officials to help Americans in Egypt.

Jacobs asked people to not go to the airport yet. She said details would be announced later today.

Jacobs did not say anything about whether the U.S. embassy and consular offices would also be evacuated.


Alexandria, Egypt

The news of Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution rocked the Egyptian Internet. The blogosphere was full of calls urging people to take to the streets on Jan. 25 and bring down the regime of Hosni Mubarak, just as massive protests toppled the 25-year regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

For too long, despotic Arab governments have been reassured by the submissiveness and compliance of the people. The events in Tunisia have changed everything.

Initially, I didn't want to participate in the protests. Regime change could mean an Islamist takeover. I was also skeptical that the calls for demonstrations would turn out to be anything but empty words. In my experience, such demonstrations are usually attended only by the few dozen people who organize them, all hard-core political activists.

On Tuesday, as I followed the news of demonstrations in various Egyptian cities, I got a call from a friend, an activist and blogger, who criticized my lack of enthusiasm. She told me that she was going, even though she was sick and would have to leave her child alone at home. I was embarrassed by my hesitation and decided to join her.

We agreed to meet at the Bibliotheca Alexandria. There, we joined the demonstration at Port Said Street, one of the city's major internal roads. Instead of the usual traffic jam, the street was packed with thousands of demonstrators, mostly young people. The scene will stay with me forever: There were demonstrators as far as I could see. As we marched on, demonstrators urged the residents of surrounding buildings to join us, and in many cases they were successful.


At first, it seemed that we were going to walk to the end of Port Said Street without being harassed by police. Some security personnel were accompanying us peacefully, while the armored vehicles of the riot police kept their distance.

We felt relatively safe as we chanted slogans demanding the departure of the Egyptian president, shouting that a plane is waiting to take him out of the country like his Tunisian counterpart. Cheers emphasized the unity of Egyptians—Muslims and Christians—against the regime.

But as we were about to reach the area of Sidi Gaber, specifically the Jesuit Cultural Center, we were besieged by riot police. As some demonstrators lay on the street to prevent the police vehicles from making progress, the police fired live ammunition in the air and threw tear gas grenades. My friend and I ran to the entrance of a building for shelter from the bullets, batons and tear gas. When we found a way to escape safely, the demonstration had already been dispersed.

After about an hour and a half, we joined the demonstration near the Alexandria Sporting Club, where it had been reorganized. But there we were once again confronted with an armored vehicle, which shot a number of tear-gas grenades at us. We fled though alleyways until we got to Safia Zaghloul Street, where the demonstrators intended to march to the governor's headquarters. But I had to take my friend home since it was late.

Tuesday's experience ignited something profound in us. It made us feel that only our own hands can bring change. The streets are the place to protest—real change won't happen from behind computer screens.

Social-networking sites are important—these are the only means we have to broadcast our thoughts and organize ourselves. Not surprisingly, the fact that Facebook and Twitter were instrumental in organizing these demonstrations agitated the authorities. So they did what dictators do: They shut down Twitter, as well as the websites of Al-Dostour and Al-Masry Al-Youm newspapers. Facebook, YouTube, Gmail and Blogspot have also been shut down intermittently.

This is the first time that the regime has so blatantly censored the Internet. These extraordinary measures show that the government is losing control. And the violent approach used to confront the demonstrators is evidence of further weakness. Mr. Mubarak may hang on. But Egypt will never be the same.

Mr. Amer, an Egyptian blogger, recently served a four-year prison sentence for views expressed on his blog.



Tunisia is a small nation of 10 million people scrunched between Algeria and Libya in North Africa. Egypt is a nation of about 80 million people—by far the largest in the Arab world. It is far more strategically important, sharing a border with Israel, looking straight across the Red Sea at Saudi Arabia, and of course exercising control over the Suez Canal, the main route for shipping oil and other goods to Europe. And as the most populous Arab nation, it is a major center of Arab culture. So when the Egyptians saw tiny little Tunisia rise up and overthrown a dictator, they asked: why not us, too?

On Tuesday, Egyptians poured into the streets for the first round of protests that have not abated since. The Wall Street Journal carries a moving account of the protests by Egyptian dissident Kareem Amer, fresh from serving a four-year prison term for criticisms of the government, and of Islam, on his blog. Originally skeptical that anything could be accomplished, Amer concludes: "Tuesday's experience ignited something profound in us. It made us feel that only our own hands can bring change."

And it's really starting to look like they can. This is a fast-moving story. The regime shut down the Internet and cell phones, then put some of them back up again. This morning, the news was that Egyptian president-for-life Hosni Mubarak had ordered a military crackdown on the protests. But the latest report in the Washington Post makes that seem very unlikely.

On Friday, the troops had appeared steadfastly neutral. Late Saturday, however, they were doing nothing to move demonstrators out of the streets, despite an earlier announcement by security services that anyone remaining in central squares or major roadways after 4 pm would face arrest.

Asked if they would enforce the curfew, soldiers said they would not.

"We are with the people," said Ahmed, a 20-year-old conscript.

Soldiers accepted fruit, water and soda handed out by protesters in Tahrir Square and smiled as protesters chanted, "Go, Mubarak, go!" Children were hoisted up on tanks in the middle of the square to have their photos taken with troops as the hulking remains of the National Democratic Party headquarters building, home to Mubarak's ruling organization, burned in the background.

"These soldiers are Egyptians, too. They are suffering just like we are," said Khalid Ezz el-Din, a 50-year-old businessman who had come to the square to demand Mubarak step down.

Shortly afterward, a convoy of tanks rolled into the square, with as many as 20 protesters riding on each one. As the soldiers smiled and flashed peace signs, the protesters shouted "We are one!" and "Down with Mubarak!" Others held aloft a banner reading, "Game over, Mr. Mubarak."

Game over, indeed. The Washington Post quotes Ahmed Mahmoud, described as "a 50 year-old purchasing manager," who "said that for the first time he felt proud to be an Egyptian. 'I always wanted to run away from my country,' he said. 'This moment is the first time I feel like a human being.'"

All of this follows a speech to the nation in which Mubarak announced that he had fired his entire cabinet and promised reforms, while paying lip service to "more democracy and freedoms." The result is a combination that may well finish off Mubarak's rule. In effect, he granted the moral legitimacy of the protesters' demands—yet no one believes that Mubarak, after thirty years of oppression, will actually implement any of these reforms. So immediately after the speech, protesters flooded back into the streets chanting "the people want to change the regime."

Did they just come out in favor of "regime change"? It turns out George W. Bush was right when he asked, rhetorically:

Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?

It looks like they aren't.

Last week, after the uprising in Tunisia, I linked to an article from Amir Taheri, who speculated that we could be seeing the emergence of a new "Arab street"—that Arab liberals not only exist but have now found their voice and their courage.

Until the recent events in Tunis, the "Arab street" seemed a force against progress toward political freedom and social and economic development....

The "street" would come to demand that someone's freedom be canceled—not that its own freedom to be expanded.

Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution" offers a new "Arab street."...

The old "Arab street" consisted of the rent-a-crowd elements recruited in the poorest districts of capital cities....

As revealed in Tunisia, the new "Arab street" consists mainly of urban, educated, middle-class elements and industrial workers.

It is positive in tone and spirit. Far from being xenophobic, it demands a place in the modern world.... It has cast aside tired ideologies such as pan-Arabism, Islamism, and Baathism. Instead, it is calling for democracy, human rights, and economic development....

It is too early to tell whether other Arab countries can reproduce the Tunisian experience. But there is no reason why they shouldn't.

It looks like they are.

A good overview in the New York Times describes the new Arab street that has so far been driving the protests.

For decades, Egypt's authoritarian president, Hosni Mubarak, played a clever game with his political opponents.

He tolerated a tiny and toothless opposition of liberal intellectuals whose vain electoral campaigns created the facade of a democratic process. And he demonized the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood as a group of violent extremists who posed a threat that he used to justify his police state.

But this enduring and, many here say, all too comfortable relationship was upended this week by the emergence of an unpredictable third force, the leaderless tens of thousands of young Egyptians who turned out to demand an end to Mr. Mubarak's 30-year rule.

Now the older opponents are rushing to catch up....

Even the Muslim Brotherhood may have grown too protective of its own institutions and position to capitalize on the new youth movement, say some analysts and former members. The Brotherhood remains the organization in Egypt with the largest base of support outside the government, but it can no longer claim to be the only entity that can turn masses of people out into the streets....

The roots of the uprising that filled Egypt's streets this week arguably stretch back to before the Tunisian revolt, which many protesters cited as the catalyst. Almost three years ago, on April 6, 2008, the Egyptian government crushed a strike by a group of textile workers in the industrial city of Mahalla, and in response a group of young activists who connected through Facebook and other social networking Web sites formed the April 6th Youth Movement in solidarity with the strikers.

Their early efforts to call a general strike were a bust. But over time their leaderless online network and others that sprang up around it—like the networks that helped propel the Tunisian revolution—were uniquely difficult for the Egyptian security police to pinpoint or wipe out. It was an online rallying cry for a show of opposition to tyranny, corruption, and torture that brought so many to the streets on Tuesday and Wednesday, unexpectedly vaulting the online youth movement to the forefront as the most effective independent political force in Egypt.

But inevitably there are other forces that are trying to jump onto the bandwagon of the Egyptian protests and exploit them for their own purposes. Mohamed ElBaradei is an Egyptian political figure with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political party, and he was last seen running interference at the UN for Iran's nuclear weapons program. He has made a big show of returning to Egypt to join the protests, while giving interviews to Western newspapers in which he declares that the Mubarak regime is "on its last legs."

The Muslim Brotherhood itself, after initially holding back, has now openly joined the protests, raising the possibility that Islamists will try to take over the protest movement—just as the Ayatollah Khomeini took over the Iranian Revolution against the Shah in 1979.

So it's fitting that one of the figures of that revolution—former Iranian president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr—is offering advice to the protesters in Egypt on how to avoid an Iranian-style outcome.

People should stop looking for leaders to take over, and recognize that everyone can develop leadership skills in practice through taking responsibilities, engaging in debate and working with others in the movement....

In this first peaceful revolt of the 21st century in an Islamic country, Islamic intellectuals have an important role in identifying, developing, and introducing an Islamic discourse of freedom instead of power so that human dignity and rights are respected and defended for all regardless of religion or gender....

[A]ny new government must resist the temptation to create its own revolutionary guard. If contemporary Iran is any indication, such organizations can all too easily morph into an econo-military mafia that becomes part and parcel of the new elite. The solution is rather to reorganize the existing forces of security so they are subject to civilian democracy and the rule of law.

That the Egyptian uprising can go wrong is not news. What is news is that we don't know. What is news is that finally there is another alternative. For decades, the only alternative in Arab politics has been a secular dictator versus Islamist radicals, and the US has always been compelled to side with the first in order to keep the second out of power. The big news out of Tunisia and Egypt is the spontaneous emergence of a third option, a relatively liberal and enlightened constituency whose main demands are political liberty and an end to the corruption and bureaucracy that offers young people nothing but the dead end of economic stagnation. The really big news is that this is the faction that now holds the balance of power and is driving events.

Jack Wakeland sums up the promise of the new Arab uprising.

"What is going on in Egypt? Are Arabs figuring out that dictatorship is the cause of their never-ending stagnation?

"It is easy to assume that because Tunisia and Egypt are Muslim, Muslim radicals are waiting in the wings as the only organized political faction in the country, ready to take over. But that is the story of the Arab world of the 1990s. What we have yet to see is the story of the Arab world of the 2010s.

"The fears about Muslim radicals are reasonable. It is quite possible that the US invasion of Iraq and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon have changed nothing in the Arab culture. We have seen one spectacularly discouraging story in a Muslim culture that neighbors Arabia: the decision by Turkey's ruling party, backed by volunteer groups, to take the side of Hamas in Israel's conflict with the Arabs of Gaza. But what about the trend of the 1990s and 2000s in Persia that led to the Green Movement's rebellion against clerical dictatorship in Iran?

"Is Turkey's political trend the cultural trend in the Arab World for the 2010s? Or is Iraq's, Iran's and Lebanon's?

"An Egyptian scholar now at the University of Notre Dame quoted by the New York Times [in the article already linked to above] observed that this time political militancy has a different face:

"'The [Muslim] Brotherhood is no longer the most effective player in the political arena,' said Emad Shahin.... 'If you look at the Tunisian uprising, it's a youth uprising. It is the youth that knows how to use the media, Internet, Facebook, so there are other players now.'

"Will this youth movement turn decisively towards the West, whose prosperity and promise of a better life has inspired it—or will it end up turning backwards towards the old culture of Arab nationalism and Islamic militancy?

"Well, we're about to find out.

"The issues at stake are wider than the War on Terrorism as it has been prosecuted to date. If the Arab people decide to quit their heroic warrior delusion and join the rest of the civilized world, not only will the war be over, but we'll all be more prosperous.

"Westerners might even be received in a gracious and friendly manner as friends of the future for the Arab people."

We are still very, very early in this process. But the potential for a new future has suddenly opened up.

We here in the United States will not have much impact on these events—especially with President Obama in the White House. His statements and actions so far have been calculated to be so safely equivocal as to be irrelevant, and he is widely seen in Egypt as just another unprincipled backer of the regime. He will eventually come out in favor of the protesters—but only after they've already decided the outcome of events for him. In the meantime, he will vote "present."

In any case, as one protester says in response to President Obama, "Tell America that we get to choose our president. We choose him, not them." The Egyptians will decide that question, and a great deal more—as will young people across the Arab world. Stay tuned.—RWT

One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38

Subscribe now!

Copyright © 2011 by Tracinski Publishing Company
PO Box 8086, Charlottesville, VA 22906





Investors have their eyes on Egypt as civil unrest in the North African country has progressively escalated into a full blown crisis with international repercussions. Beyond the obvious and inexcusable human cost, the protests against Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year reign have hit the sovereign debt and equity markets, and are working their way through the oil and gold markets.




Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton


No doubt the minions of the Leftwing will justify the scene on the basis of it being 'art' and 'fiction,' just as they did when Hollywood produced a movie about the assassination of George W. Bush, who was a sitting President at the time of the film's release.

However, what if the subject of the play had been, say, the beheading of Barack Obama? Or the rape of Michelle Obama? What if a Hollywood production depicted Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being blown apart by the bomb of a terrorist?

Would the 'civil' Leftwing justify such depictions in the name of 'art' and remind the country that, after all, it is 'only fiction?'

Such an assertion is laughable. The Left, the mainstream media, the talking head pundits on TV, and Democrats in Congress would be calling for endless investigations into to whether or not the producers of such horrid depictions were co-conspirators in a homegrown terrorist plot.

Yet so far, no one from the Left has yet to decry the film depicting the assassination of George W. Bush, nor has there been one bit of outrage from the Leftwing concerning the despicable and highly suspicious addition to an innocent play which subjected children to a call for Sarah Palin's beheading.





Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt

Haaretz ^ | January 30, 2011 | Aluf Benn

Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara.

America's general weakness clearly affects its friends. But unlike Carter, who preached human rights even when it hurt allies, Obama sat on the fence and exercised caution. He neither embraced despised leaders nor evangelized for political freedom, for fear of undermining stability.

Obama began his presidency with trips to Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and in speeches in Ankara and Cairo tried to forge new ties between the United States and the Muslim world. His message to Muslims was "I am one of you," and he backed it by quoting from the Koran. President Hosni Mubarak did not join him on the stage at Cairo University, and Obama did not mention his host. But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom.

Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation, and focused his policy on demanding the suspension of construction in the settlements....

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Saturday, January 29, 2011

BBC: Egyptian Tanks Surround US, UK Embassies

This could be a huge, huge problem. This is similar to 1979 when the Islamic rebels took the US Embassy and held hostages for 444 days.

The BBC is reporting that Egyptian Army tanks have allegedly surrounded the embassies of the United States and United Kingdom. This comes after Israel evacuated its entire embassy staff via helicopter. This is coming in through their live blog, and further details appear scarce. The BBC is quoting an al-Jazeera cable:

2125: Tanks have surrounded the US and British embassies in Cairo, Al-Jazeera reports.

Revolution Today In Egypt - Revolution Tomorrow In America?

My good friend Alan Caruba writes an excellent analysis of the reasons behind the current Egyptian revolution that seems certain to overthrow a national socialist dictatorship.

The article at "Warning Signs."

I submit to a candid world that many of the same offenses against the public have been done to Americans by their oppressive federal government.

I say America needs to follow Egypt down revolution road.



The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police. On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Friday, January 28, 2011

I understand Agent Downs of the SS wants to contact Ronbo

It's like this Comrade Secret Service Agent Tad Downs:

I'm calling your bluff.

Put up or shut up.

Media information: SS Agent Tad Downs

The number is 406-728-2791 and the cellphone is 406-360-9451.

For your information: I live in the open. I live under the proud name of Ronald Gene Barbour. I have no weapons other than a laptop computer whose maximum effective range is the Planet Earth.

So arrest me. I'm sure you people can find any number of charges to file against me and you own the courts, but be advised the Fifth Amendment states very clearly that I have the right to remain silent.

The agents of the U.S. Secret Service should read this document, the Constitution of the United States of America, a document that they have allegedly have swore a sacred oath to support and defend.

But we know the truth...SS agents are the lap dogs of the traitor-president Obama and the Leftist ruling class that oppresses America.

Admit the truth Agent Downs: The law...The Republic means nothing to a raving psychopath like you. I would compare you to a NAZI soldier in WWII who will only obey ORDERS from his superiors. I would remind you, Comrade SS Agent, that the law has long established that such a defense falls on deaf ears in an honest court.





Stanley Ann Dunham and the Left's Exploitation of Women

By Robin of Berkeley
Reader Advisory: Sexual Content

Obama's mother, the oddly named Stanley Ann, died of cancer about fifteen years ago. There's little known about Stanley Ann, aside from the details provided by Obama and his handlers. Of course, the truth about Obama's past is shrouded in secrecy.

But what can be pieced together about Obama's mom from the information at hand? For one, Stanley Ann was given her strange name by her strange father, Stanley Dunham, who desired a boy instead. Dunham was a volatile, hard-drinking man, who was expelled from high school for punching his principal. Mental illness may have run in the Dunham family; as a boy, Stanley discovered his mother dead of an apparent suicide.

We can make some inferences about Stanley Ann's childhood based on how her parents raised young Barry. Stanley Dunham designated the purported Communist, bisexual pedophile, Frank Marshall Davis, as Barry's mentor. Not only was Barry left alone with Davis, but Davis and Dunham would booze and tell dirty jokes in the boy's presence. Given the poor judgment Dunham exercised, he likely raised his daughter in the same reckless manner.

As for Stanley Ann's mom, Madelyn Dunham, she was the main breadwinner of the family; however, she, like most women of that generation, deferred to her husband. Thus, she allowed him to choose their daughter's peculiar name.

Madelyn also permitted Frank Marshall Davis to carouse and smoke pot with her husband, even to mentor the impressionable Barry. Of course, Obama demonstrated no warmth towards his grandmother whom he dismissed as a "typical white person."



The American Muslim population will more than double to 6.2 million over the next two decades, according to new estimates from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Attributed largely to immigration and higher fertility rates, the increase will bump the percentage of American Muslims to 1.7 percent of the population by 2030, placing the group at about the same size as American Jews and Episcopalians. If trends continue, by 2030 the United States will have a higher Muslim population than any European country other than Russia and France.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...



From David Rosenberg's morning report:

A long-standing colleague and reader sent this off to me yesterday and it blew me away. Read on:

Obama’s State of the Union:

“Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.”

Herbert Hoover, May 1st 1930, US Chamber of Commerce Meeting:

“While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.”

Herbert Hoover, October 22, 1932, campaign speech in Detroit:

“It can be demonstrated that the tide has turned and that the gigantic forces of depression are today in retreat. Our measures and policies have demonstrated their effectiveness. They have preserved the American people from certain chaos. They have preserved a final fortress of stability in the world.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“But now that the worst of the recession is over...”

Herbert Hoover, June 1930, to a delegation requesting a public works project:

“Gentlemen, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“The steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession...”

Herbert Hoover, State of the Union, December 6, 1932:

“The unprecedented emergency measures enacted and policies adopted undoubtedly saved the country from economic disaster...



Thursday, January 27, 2011


I will allow my favorite Confederate, J.D. Longstreet, to make the case.

States Seek to "Nullify" ObamaCare

States Seek to "Nullify" ObamaCare
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
Eleven months ago I wrote the following:

“The American people have told the government we do not want ObamaCare in any form. As evidence of this, look at the number of states that have already amended their state constitutions to ban any kind of government healthcare mandates handed down by the federal government.

If you know your American history then you already know this has happened before in the US. Just before the American Civil War broke out into a shooting war, the southern states began passing “nullification” laws, within the states, which nullified federal laws and mandates placed on those states by the federal government of that day. Simply put a nullification law means those states will NOT adhere to, or abide by, those federal laws and mandates. Need I remind you of the next step taken by those states?The American Civil War did not have to happen. It DID happen because the arrogant US Congress of that day refused to listen to the people of the southern states telling them, flat out, they would leave the Union if the Congress continued to govern against the will of the southern people.

States all over the nation are frantically attempting to get the attention of the federal government by passing modern day nullification laws.”

Today, eleven months after I wrote the words above, ten states are seriously investigating the possibility of nullification of the ObamaCare laws in their states.

Just yesterday republican lawmakers in the Idaho State House introduced legislation, which would resurrect the nullification measure in the state of Idaho. At the same time, Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming are all looking at the same thing.

Ok. You say nullification is not constitutional, right? So what? Consider: There are fifty states -- and one federal government.

Americans have forgotten and most, today, were never taught the simply fact that the federal government was created by the states to act as an agent of the states—and not the other way around. SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, it has gotten all twisted around and large portions of Americans now believe they have no recourse when the federal government acts in ways that do harm to the states and the people of those states.

State sovereignty is real. Forgotten, and in most cases, buried way back in the dusty collective memory of this nation… but it IS there and it still has a pulse and it is still viable.

I have spoken to people over the years that actually believe the US constitution forbids secession by a state or states. It does not.

The original Articles of Confederation forbade any state from seceding -- unless ALL states seceded -- which would have, effectively, ended the “United” States as a single country.

The founders went out of their way NOT to address state secession when the current US constitution was drafted.

When my confederate ancestors concluded it was time to withdraw from the Union, they looked for any hint in the constitution that would forbid them doing so. Finding none, they went their separate way. They were dragged back after an invasion of their country by US armed forces and forced back into “the Union” at the point of a bayonet.

I am convinced that not only were my confederate ancestors right then, but the states investigating nullification, today, as a way to tell the federal government, “enough,” “no more,” are correct in doing so.

Look. This is serious business. I have read “smirking” reports in the mainstream media concerning the states and nullification. I expect you have seen them and heard them, as well. Here’s the truth about that: Those same kinds of reports by the press were made in the mid 1800’s and we all know what happen in April of 1861.

I don’t think the folks in the mainstream media, living their sheltered lives in the metropolitan areas on the east coast and the west coast, have any real idea of the American rage sweeping the nation between their respective coasts. They certainly give no evidence of it, if they do.

I am not beating a drum for the break-up of the United States. I am trying to make the point that if the people of America are not allowed to live and breath free, that break-up will happen whether anyone beats a drum for it, or not! Fanning the flames of a prairie fire is not required for a little grass fire to become a huge firestorm. It requires only a spark – and sparks are flying all across this land.

Media folk may snicker at the folks in the aforementioned states if they choose. But remember, it has happened before on this very soil.

Americans have a proud history of raising their hackles, baring their fangs, and striking back at a government that overreaches. The government of King George tried it. The US Congress, in the early 1800’s, tried it. The Lincoln administration tried it, and all met with massive resistance. Now, the US government, under the leadership of a socialist executive branch, is trying it, yet again. Is there any reason to believe that the same resistance to tyranny, that lies in the heart of every red-blooded American descendent of those early patriots, will not sound the call “to the barricades” just as mightily as did their forefathers? I think not!

Dismissing state sovereignty movements and nullification movements within a disgruntled America has always led to conflict, disunion, and ultimately, a nation at war with itself.

The warning signs are all there -- if our so-called leaders in Washington care to acknowledge them. The price for ignoring the ominous signs abounding across America today will be immeasurable.

Like the proverbial snowball rolling downhill gaining momentum and size as it goes, resistance against the overreach of the liberal-socialist agenda in the government of the US is growing, exponentially, into a force that will not be denied.

Americans WILL live FREE!

J. D. Longstreet



Making Obama a One Term President

By Richard Baehr

We are slightly more than 21 months away from the 2012 presidential election. The election in 2012 will be not a simple referendum on Barack Obama (for which an approval score is a proxy), but a choice between two candidates. While many potential GOP candidates are exploring a run, it is not possible at this point to even select a favorite from the bunch, since the field is so uncertain, and some candidates designated by some pundits as second-tier would diminish the prospects of others considered as first-tier if they ran. An example of this would be if Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin both ran, or if Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence both ran.

If the GOP candidate who emerges is the strongest general election nominee, the odds on President Obama's reelection are very different from if the GOP nominee is popular within the party but has limited appeal to the over 60% of voters who are not Republicans. It is not at all surprising that President Obama has made direct and indirect appeals to independent voters with his actions and speeches since the November rout, when independent voters broke sharply towards the GOP. While enthusiasm from the conservative base or the liberal base is critical for turnout and grassroots activism, most elections are won by candidates who have broad electoral appeal.

In an article in American Thinker, Paul Kengor made the case that President Obama is practically assured of victory in 2012 since his approval ratings seem to have a floor of 40%. In fact, Obama's approval number is now 10% higher -- just over 50% in an average of the many surveys that track the approval score.



Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.


So the celebrated DC wit and Washington Post columist Dana Milbank is boycotting Sarah Palin for the month of February, and encouraging everyone else to do the same. Here’s the case he makes. Well, it’s certainly true that there is a media obsession with Palin. It’s worth noting, though, that this is most pronounced on the Left. The Democrats want Palin (or Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Bachmann) to be the head of the Republican Party because they think that makes the party less palatable.

Certainly, Palin enjoys publicity. But she has been on the receiving end of some extremely nasty stuff, particularly Andrew Sullivan’s lunatic ravings about her son Trig’s parentage and, most recently, the blame laid at her door for the Tucson atrocity.

I’ve argued here before that Palin, for all her qualities, has made some serious mistakes and at this stage remains a flawed candidate for national office. That means she should not be obsessively covered by the media as if she were president. After all, she might well never run for the White House. At the same time, she has a significant following and a real contribution to make to her party and to the country. She deserves to be listened to.

So, rather than sneering fascination or a haughty boycott, how about a middle way in which what she does and what she says is reported on and analysed on its merits?

To this end, Telegraph Blogs has declared February “Sarah Palin Month”. Our US correspondents will cover the former Alaska governor throughout February in the fashion she deserves – and, moreover, other bloggers will make sure that ..........

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing talk straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid. Remember: Freedom is never free!

It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games.



A call to protest ignites a call to arms

L A Times ^ | January 26, 2011 | Barbara Ehrenreich

Why are Americans such wusses? Threaten the Greeks with job losses and benefit cuts and they tie up Athens, but take away Americans' jobs, 401(k)s, even their homes, and they pretty much roll over. Tell British students that their tuition is about to go up and they take to the streets; American students just amp up their doses of Prozac.

The question has been raised many times in the last few years, by a variety of scholars and commentators -- this one included -- but when the eminent social scientist Frances Fox Piven brought it up at the end of December in an essay titled "Mobilizing the Jobless," all hell broke loose. An editor of Glenn Beck's website,, posted a piece sporting the specious headline "Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Calling for Violent Revolution," and, just two weeks before the Tucson shootings, the death threats started flying. Many of the most provocative comments have been removed from the site's comment section, but at one time they included such charming posts as: "Bring it on biotch [sic]. we're armed to the teeth." Or: "We're all for violence and change, Francis [sic]. Where do your loved ones live?"

If the dozens of Beck fans rhetorically brandishing their weapons at Piven were all CEOs, bankers, hedge fund operators and so forth -- i.e., the kind of people who have the most to lose from mass protests by the unemployed -- all this might make more sense. But somehow, and I may be naive about these things, it's hard to imagine a multimillionaire suggesting that "folks buy battle carbines with folding or collapseable [sic] stocks and 16[-inch] barrels so they can be more easily hidden under jackets and such.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Tea-Party backed Congressman Allen West, R.-Fla., has stirred a bees nest with negative comments about Islam. West, appearing on the “Shalom Show,” told producer Richard Peritz that Islam was the “antithesis” of America’s founding principles.

At the outset of the 11-minute interview, Peritz asked West how he was going to deal with members of Congress he disagreed with, especially Rep. Keith Ellison, D.-Minn., who is a Muslim.

“Well I think it’s most important that I stand upon the principles [of the] people that elected me to go to Washington, D.C., and represent them on Capitol Hill,” West responded. “So that when you run into someone that is counter, or someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established, you’ve got to be able to defeat them intellectually in debate and discourse, and you just have to be able to challenge each and every one of their assertions very wisely and very forthright.”

According to various media reports, Ellison released a response to West’s comments; saying he was surprised as West had never expressed those views to him directly. Ellison disagreed with West's assertion that his religion precluded him from representing the principles of America.


“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

-Sir Winston Churchill


Bill Aimed at Protecting S.C. From Foreign Law Introduced in Legislature

COLUMBIA, S.C. – A legislative initiative aimed at preventing “a court or other enforcement authority” from enforcing foreign law in the Palmetto State was introduced today in both the S.C. House and Senate by Rep. Wendy Nanney (who drafted the bill) and Sen. Mike Fair respectively, who say the bill will preempt violations of a person’s constitutional rights resulting from the application of foreign law.

Legislators and other proponents of the bill say America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems. Yet foreign laws are increasingly finding their way into U.S. court cases, particularly in the area of family law, involving divorce and child custody where, for instance, Islamic Shariah Law has been invoked in several U.S. states.

According to Christopher Holton with the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy (CSP), “There are numerous examples in dozens of states in which parties to such a dispute attempted to invoke Shariah.”