About Me

Name: Edward Rourke
Email: erourke48@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

True Cost of Illegal Immigration

Posted by Edward Rourke on Thursday, December 25, 2008 3:39:37 AM
   The debt exploding governmental power grab from all these bail outs is greasing the skids toward socialism.  The colossal amount of money involved has over shadowed an equally pressing and immediate danger to our economy and to our society in general.  That is the ever increasing cost of illegal immigration.  The rapid increase in the combined cost of these 2 things is threatening to bankrupt the nation. 
    Illegal immigration is tolerated by some (including many Republicans aka RINO's) because it is said that they perform the function of doing necessary jobs that Americans won't do.  It is also said that they use their money to purchase consumer goods helping to spur the economy.  The problem is these arguments fall flat when measured against the true cost of illegal immigration.
    First of all is it true that Americans won't do jobs currently being performed by illegals?  No it is not.  Generally speaking Americans won't take jobs that pay below market wages like illegals will.  However this, like the rest of the economy in general, is largely a measure of supply and demand.  Take away the army of illegal immigrants and you'll find that businesses will still have to fill these jobs.  These businesses would have to raise salaries in order to attract workers.  In the case of the Agriculture Industry this would have the effect of causing an increase in the price of consumer goods it the marketplace.  This however would be money well spent.  the cost to the US economy from illegal immigration is far more than an increase in the price of lettace.  Keep in mind that one of the supposed benifits, that illegals use their money to buy consumer goods, is not quite accurate because they tend to send a portion of their money back to their home country.  Americans doing the same job at a higher wage would be buying even more consumer goods with their increased salary, all of which would be staying here.
    However the hit the economy takes due to illegal immigration goes much deper than this.  The added costs illegals add in the area's of law enforcement, education, and health care are literally blowing the doors off the budget.  The higher cost to law enforcement is do to the fact that illegals have a higher rate of running into trouble with the law.  They also tend to have large families with low incomes who are not home owners.  This means they are stressing school budgets where ever they are in large numbers.  No where however is the budget busting power of illegal immigration more prevalent than in the area of health care.  Their shear numbers are threatening to swamp the system.  Also, because so many illegals are uninsured, they are driving up health care premiums of the insured to cover the difference.
    Democrats view the issue slightly differently than Republicans.  Democrats view illegal aliens as future constituants, regardless of the costs.  For this reason don't expect Barak Obama and the Democrats to slow down the tide any time soon.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teaching To The Test IS Teaching

Posted by Edward Rourke on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:33:43 PM
    Teachers Unions criticize standardized tests all the time.  They say things like "teachers end up just teaching to the test".  I say so what as long as the test fairly demonstates the students knowledge of the subject.  Teaching to the test is simply teaching in my book.
    I just read a good article in the Dec. 8 edition of Time Magazine ( I know, I know, but trust me it was good ) on how to fix American schools.  The article focuses on Michelle Rhee, Superintendant of the Wash. DC School System.  Her mission has been to use standardized testing to measure students progress and to hold teachers and administrators responsible when students don't meet the standards.  Obviously she has met plenty of resistance from teachers unions and administrators alike.  Rhee wants to purge the DC School System of all incompetent teachers and administrators and replace them with educators who are competent and who's salaries are merit based.  I wish her luck, but her task is going to be even more difficult than it seems on the surface. 
    Rhee is a Democrat but doesen't like the Democrats status quo approach to education.  Despite her reservations, Rhee voted for Obama because she hoped that he was serious about education reform.  Sadly on this front she will be disappointed.  Obama's idea of education reform is getting more of the Liberal agenda cramed into the curriculum.  Remember Obama had previously worked on education reform hand and hand with self proclaimed Marxist Bill Ayers.  Also most if not all of the worst schools are in the big cities which are predominatly run by Democrats.  Obama is the most Liberal Democrat ever to be elected President.  It is highly unlikly that he will go up against fellow Dems on education.  Add to this that the biggest teachers union the NEA contributed $50 million to Obama's campaign it would seem the status quo is well protected. 
    One thing missing from this article is the problem of how teachers become teachers in the first place.  My suggestion would be to eliminate the requirement of a "teaching degree".  If a person graduates college with a degree in English, Science, History, Math, etc. and it turns out they are excellent at teaching their respective field of expertise, why would we not let them teach our kids?  It would seem that people who are truly passionate about particular fields of study would make better teachers anyway.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"W" The One Who Kept Us Safe

Posted by Edward Rourke on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:14:20 PM
    We've heard all the incessent criticism's of the left.  The media portray's him as an idiot.  We hear that we have lost the respect of the world and that Europe is laughing at us.  The left mistakenly believes that this will be the legacy of George W. Bush.  The fact is that the Bush legacy will be that his War On Terror is what was reponsible for keeping us safe since 911.  Bush took the fight to the terrorist's and faught them on our terms.  He put captured terrorist's in Gitmo and information aquired from them helped save lives.  The Patriot Act and stepped up Intelligence Operations has kept us safe from those who hate us.  Obama ought to tread lightly.  If he proceeds as promised to break down the anti terror barriers that Bush put in place and then we are attacked, the American people will turn on him in a big way.  The American people will say as one "At least George W Bush kept us safe", and that will trump everything else.  I honestly hope Obama reconsiders his positions opposing Bush safeguards such as the Patriot Act and Gitmo etc.  I have no desire to be proven right if it is at the cost of the lives of innocent Americans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breaking The Facade of Climate Change

Posted by Edward Rourke on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:24:54 AM
    It is amazing to me how many people are willing to ceed their liberty away to the envirnmental extremist's.  Especially since an open mind and a little critical thinking easily exposes how they are full of hot air.  I suppose it's the power of propaganda.  Repeat something, anything, long enough and loud enough and people will believe.  For many, Environmentalism and Climate Change has become a religion.  All non believers are heretics and should be punished for their sins.  A big part of the game they play is convincing people that what they say is irrefutable.  Non believers are flat earthers on the lunatic fringe.  How many times have we heard Al Gore say that "the science is in" or talk about a "consensus" amoung scientist supporting the theory of man made global warming.  However this is simply dogma.  there is no such thing as "consensus" in science.  Science only proves theories by constantly attempting to disprove them.  The propaganda campaign has been a successful one.  Arizona Sen. John McCain and California Gov. Arnald Schwarzenegger are outspoken supporters of the theory.  At the Governors Global Warming Summit Barack Obama said "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change".  How arrogant to think we actually have the power to change the climate.  It is obvious that those of us on the side of common sense are up against alot.
    The tide on the issue may finally be turning as more and more scientist step foward in the name of science to publicly speak out.  The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its Minority Report listing the names and comments of 650 dissenting scientist from around the globe.  Many were former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change.  The 650 is up from the 400 dissenters the committee reported on a year ago.  Compare that to the 52 scientist who authored the IPCC Summory for Policy Makers.
    These 650 scientist strongly oppose the notion that science in any way supports the theory that CO2 emissions is reponsible for anthropogenic global warming.  Word is finally beginning to get out but it's going to take time to seep into the publics conciousness.  Ground temperatures have only increased about 1degree C over the last 100 or so years.  Most of that can be explained by the heat holding properties of urbanization.  Changing peoples minds won't be easy however.  The Climate change movement is well funded to the tune of $50 billion a year; yet any dissenting scientist who might pocket a modest check for industry research is dismissed as a tool for big business.  There is also the problem of the media who love to sensationalize the most outragous claims by global warming alarmists like Al Gore. 
    It is imperative that Conservatives break down the facade that climate change is about science.  It is a political movement with a political agenda.  It is why it is being trumpeted by a political body like the United Nations.  It is no coincidence that so many former Communist's from Eastern Europe and Russia have jumped on board the movement.  Climate Change is the vehicle they hope to ride back to Socialism.  Through Cap and Trade the government would have controll over all industry.  We must not allow the government to gain tyrannical power such as this.  Americans need to be made aware of the true cost Cap and Trade will have on both the economy and their freedoms.  This is one battle we can't afford to lose.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Blago" Dems Gift to Conservatives by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:25:57 AM

    Political scandals in in the state of Illinois happen so often their almost not news worthy anymore.  This one however involving Rod (Blago) Blagojevich is really getting interesting.  The thing that strikes me most is how quick the Democrats and the MSM decided to throw a Democrate Governor under the bus.  They can't get rid of this guy fast enough.  Compare that to their normal behavior which is defend defend defend at all costs.  Haven't you noticed how the MSM keeps repeating the same mantra that Obama  has not been named in THIS indictment.  Is it really that far fetched to think that Blago has some embarrassing information about Obama on some other issue, say something involving Tony Rezko?  Obama has been his own worst enemy in fueling speculation in this regard because he has been positivly Clintonic with his non-denial denials when answering questions about the scandal.  Let's face it, common sense tells us that any politician hailing from a place as corrupt as Chicago would almost certainly have some baggage he would prefer to keep under wraps.  Logic would also dictate that the Governor would know about any skeletons that Obama had hidden away in his closet.  Thats the way it works in places like Chicago.  At any rate, despite the pressure Blagojevich is not going quietly into the night.  This of course means that Blago could be the gift that keeps on giving long after this Holiday Season is gone.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Chicago Way by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Friday, December 12, 2008 1:27:40 AM
    That cauldron of corruption that is Illinois politics strikes again.  Foulmouthed Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been caught on tape attempting to sell the Marxist elects senate seat.  This is exactly why so many of us had great reservations about electing a president directly out of this cesspool.  There are conflicting statements from B. Hussein Obama's top advisor David Axelrod as to whether or not the Marxist elect had spoken to Blagojevich.  Obama has attempted to distance himself from the scandal by stating "I had no contact with the Governor or his office".  Sounds pretty straight foward but after living through the Clinton years you know how adept Democrats are at parsing their words.  Taken literally Obama could be saying that he didn't shake hands with the Governor while standing in his office. Certainly leaves alot of wiggle room doesn't it?  Does Obama not have a cell phone?  A blackberry?  A computer from which he can communicate?  Today Obama revised his statement saying "no one on his staff discussed making a deal with the Governor's office".  So now there was contact but no talk of a deal.  So what did they talk about?  When did they talk and for how long? Did Obama himself have any conversations with any one associated with the Governor's office?  His revised statement still leaves enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.
    Barack Hussein Obama is not named in the indictment but one question begs to be answered.  Was he involved in a cover up?  The American people have a right to know if their newly elected Messiah has been in any way corrupted by this incident.  WHAT DID BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?  No stone should be left unturned.  US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Valarie Plame/Scooter Libby fame is in charge of the investigation.  One can only hope that he is as tenacious in pursuing this case as he was in the previous one.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Bipartisanship Needs To Be Recipricated by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:21:47 PM
    The time has come for we conservatives to promote a true  bipartisan spirit towards the new administration.  Therefore I feel we should extoll upon Barack Hussein Obama the same level of cooperation and respect that he and his sycophants afforded George W. Bush the past 8 years.  That is to say I think we should afford him no cooperation or respect at all.  The first thing I am going to do in this regard, as you might have already noticed, is that I will almost always refer to the new president by using his full name Barack Hussein Obama, or in the interest of brevity B. Hussein Obama.  I will do this for 3 reasons: 1. Because it is his name, 2. Because he is apparently ashamed of it, and 3. Because his drones think it makes him sound too Muslim.  The next thing I'm going to do is to always refer to B. Hussein Obama as a Marxist.  Again I do this because: 1. He is one, and 2. It sends the Obamaphants into spasmatic convulsions of rhetorical spin.  Mention to one of his disciples that B. Hussein Obama is a Marxist and you'll get a 45 minite dissertation about the origin of the IRS and how the tax code always taxed the rich more.  So basically their position is this, don't worry about the new Marxist administration because we have always been a Marxist country all along.  It is true that from the very inception of the IRS in 1913 liberals have always saught to raise taxes on the rich.  One of the main problems has always been how do you define rich.  Any push back by conservatives against this trend has always been condemned as tax cuts for the rich.  Liberals never see tax cuts as the best way to grow the economy, which it surely is.  Either way the battle has always been defined as which was the better way to raise the revenue necessary to run the government.  Rarely if ever has anyone actually admitted, as the Marxist elect has, that the stated goal is to redistribute wealth.  Only unapolagetic anti-capitalist Marxist like William Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama talk like that.
    Next we conservatives must go after everyone in the Obama White House just as everyone in the Bush administration was savagely attacked.  I think Joe Biden is a great place to start.  VP has always been a favorite place for liberals to attack Republican administrations.  Agnew was corrupt, Quayle was dumb, Cheney is evil, you get the picture.  It's easier for the simpletons when you can sum up the oppositions politics with one word.  Coming up with a one word definition for Biden is difficult because liberals have kinda played out words like dumb and idiot.  So I've decided to simply refer to Biden as a retard.  The examples of Biden's low intellectual prowess are too numerous to mention.  But come on, you have to admit calling the word JOBS a three letter word, now thats retarded.
    Conservatives must brace themselve for this coming thugocracy.  Anyone who opposes the administration will be under constant assault.  The Obamamedia will gleefully report any and all of these thugish attacks.  We must be willing to fight fire with fire every step of the way or we will get beaten again in the next election.  With the media, our school systems, and the courts firmly entrenched on the left, we have alot to overcome.  We must be willing to show issue by issue how our liberty and freedoms are being eroded away on every single policy inititive.  If we fail, the consequences will be far worse than lost elections
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bruce Springsteen, Singer Songwriter Useful Idiot

Posted by Edward Rourke on Monday, November 10, 2008 7:37:09 AM
    Of one thing we can be certain, the mere fact that one is born in the USA does not a political genius make.  When Bruce Springsteen plaintively  wailed " I want my country back" to a Ohio audience at a show to promote Barack Hussein Obama, what the heck was he talking about.  I suppose Bruce was harkening back to the good old days of the Clinton administration.  Ah yes I remember it well, cigars, stained dresses, groping incidents in the Oval Office. The one thing that can never be denied is that Bill Clinton was a class act.  But really now, have things been that much worse for Bruce under Bush?  What kind of lifestyle changes do you think Bruce had to make over the last 8 years.  If you guessed not one, not even in the least, then you'd be correct.  The War on Terror, the Patriot Act, not even those horrible Bush tax cuts have prevented Bruce from putting on concerts, making CD's and DVD's, or stopped him in any way from continueing to amass his ever expanding great wealth.  Nor has it prevented Bruce from traveling the world or experiencing all of the finest things life has to offer.  Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge Bruce for anything his talent and success has allowed him to enjoy, but I'm just trying to figure out where he's coming from.  Here's a guy who came from middle class roots who made it big completely on his own merits and without any government intervention whatsoever, and he's out there supporting a Marxist.  I'm just curious as to why that is. 
    Does Bruce Springsteen even realize that B. Hussein Obama is a Marxist?  Personally I don't think Bruce, like most useful idiots, has any idea what Marxism is.  What I do believe is that he simply see's B. Hussein Obama as someone who is born to run from Iraq.  What he doesn't see however, is that we will be in grave danger if our enemies perceive us as weak militarily and we are led by someone whom they view as malleable.  As the US de-emphasizes it's military, reducing our presence throughout the world, undoubtably hot spots will begin to flare up.  How we choose to handle these flare-ups will certainly cause animosity from one side or the other, or perhaps even a third party with a vested interest.  New sources of terrorism could potentially arise virtually out of thin air.  Alas I don't suppose Bruce Springsteen ever lets his mind get muddled with complicated thoughts such as these.  Nor will he ever take the time to try to understand how B. Hussein Obama's tax plan and energy policy will end up severely hurting the middle class through lost jobs and higher energy costs.  The bottom line is this, though Mr. Springsteen may believe in Obama's promised land, his Marxist policies will bring us nothing but badlands.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Mourning in America by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:25:26 AM
    It's mourning in America.  Freedom, patriotism, and the American dream, all the things that made America great, are being ushered out to make room for the coming Marxist Utopia.  It's mourning in America, and as the sun sets on this great land, concealed in the growing darkness just beyond the horizen lies the specter of totalitarianism.  The tenants of American society that have kept this beast safely locked away lay dead or dying at the feet of Lady Liberty.  The Constitution, representative government, capitalism, all lie bleeding in the street in the name of hope and change.  Now Liberty herself lay in peril.  Marxism and single party rule have long been a blight on governments throughout history.  It's mourning in America, and amidst the increasing shroud of darkness the beast grows hungry, and my heart fills with dread.  For when the ravenous monster of Marxist totalitarianism devours Liberty, what will be left?  Just the scraps tossed out by a giant monolithic government to all the dependent waifs.  The American dream died today and with it went my patriotic heart.  It's mourning in America and I am very very sad.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can You Really Vote Marxist? by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Monday, November 03, 2008 11:55:48 PM
    The idiology is one that pits Americans vs. Americans.  A class warfare which vilifies an entire segment of our society.  It targets that segment of society which is most sucessful, produces the most jobs, and which already pays a disproportionate amount of the overall tax burdon.  Yes all we need to do is punish the evil rich.  This is the Obama tax plan.  Wealth redistribution in the name of fairness resulting in an expanded dependent class.  This alone would qualify Obama as a Marxist, but there's much more.  What do you suppose Obama means when he says he intends to introduce policies which promote social and economic justice?  In a 2001 intervue Obama said that he didn't believe that the Warren Court was radical enough as it pertained to wealth redistribution.  Does that sound like a person who believes in represntative government?  How radical do you suppose would be radical enough for Obama?  Obama's friend, the former terrorist and present day Marxist radical, William Ayers has said many times over the years that the key to bringing about the end of capitalism is through "reform" of our educational system.  What sort of "educational reform" do you suppose Obama and Ayers worked on together with the Annenberg Challenge which Obama chaired.  You see when Obama said to Joe the Plumber "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody" he was only repeating something that has always believed. 
    Obama says he's for the middle class but he has repeatedly opposed any new domestic drilling for oil or the constuction of new refineries. Also I wouldn't hold my breath about ever reaching the point where Obama would feel we could safely build more nuclear reactors.  That adds up to less jobs and higher energy costs both of which hurts the middle class.  Obama admits his policies will bankrupt the coal industry and that electicity prices would "necessarily skyrocket".  Are the people who will lose those coal jobs rich?  Doesn't the middle class use electicity?  In 2007 Obama said we may have to introduce price incentives on energy to change behavior.  What do you think he meant?  Can't you see how leftists incrimentally take away your freedoms. 
    None of this should be a surprise when you consider all of Obama's past associations not the least of which were Jeramiah Wright and William Ayers.  Communist Party USA has endorsed him, Hamas has endorsed him, Luis Farrakhan refers to him as the Messiah.  The signifigance of these connections and associations become clear when you realize how perfectly they fit together with his rhetoric.                
    Finally what are we to make of Obama's proposed civilian security force, which Obama say's will be well funded and as powerful as the Army.  In the former Soviet Union the KGB had civilian operatives embedded throughout Soviet society so they could quickly aquire information about subversives when necessary.  The Soviets found this to be a great way to keep all opposition silent and forcing them into the shadows.  Obama has repeatedly said that on election day the United States will be fundamentally transformed.  Should we not at least seriously consider what exactly he means by that.  It seems that in their zeal for change many Americans are willing to trade in their freedom for Obama's vision of a Marxist Utopia. To the misguided and the ill informed this vision appears to be enlightened thought.  However the reality is that it is the marriage of capitalism and our unique experiment into represenative government which seperated us from other societies and spurred the U.S. on to greatness.  It is that very marriage which Obama's Marxist Utopia intends to destroy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe the Plumber "Game Changer" by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:49:50 AM
   Whether we're talking about the rivelry between Hamilton and Jefferson, or the vile personal attacks Lincoln had to endure, the tactic of vicious personal attacks to destroy an opponent has had a long history.  The political left turned this tactic into an artform with it's personal destruction of Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950's because he attempted to purge Communists from the Federal Government.  Since then the left has tried to replicate it's success in destroying McCarthy again and again.  Nixon, Reagan, Bork, Thomas, Starr, Cheney, and of course GW Bush is just a short list covering the last 30+ years of the lefts employment of this tactic.  Over the past month Sarah Palin has been the current target because the left fears the way she connects with eaveryday average Americans. These attacks have been very effective in shaping public opinion about conservative politics.  Though I vociferously condemn these attacks as baseless and unwarrented I do realize that in the world of politics these are the slings and arrows one must sometimes endure.  After all anyone who enters the political arena does so knowing full well that at times they will be criticized.
   Enter Joe the Plumber.  Just an average working guy trying to carve out a living on $40,000 a year with hopes of one day achieving his dream of buying the buisness from his employer.  Joe somehow managed to illicit from Obama the biggest gaffe of the entire Presidential Campaign.  Barack Obama, according to the polls was way ahead.  The media had all but ceeded the race to him. To them it was all over but for the formality of the election.  So who is this Joe Schmo, this nobody, to come along and upset the coronation.  The left collectively went to their playbook and they all came to the same conclusion.  There was only one thing for them to do....destroy him.  Discredit him through personal attacks.  Throw him into the same meatgrinder that they would throw any conservative politician they found dangerous.  So they set about to vet him out the way conservatives have been hoping the media would vet out Obama.  But no matter how much they try they can't change the fact that Joe the Plumber has brought down the vail of secrecy that had been shielding Obama's true agenda.  To spread the wealth around, to redistribute wealth, no matter how you say it it's still Marxism.  All of Obama's talk of middle class tax cuts and creating jobs from the bottom up has been exposed as just a smoke screen.  What really matters is Obama's version of what is fair, and let's face it folks capitalism isn't cutting it in Obama's view.  The disturbing lesson to be learned hear is that anyone who gets in the way of Obama's utopic vision of what's fair must be destoyed.  Not just politicians but everyday working guys like Joe must be smashed beneath the wheels of big government if they dare to speak out against the Messiah, Barack Obama.  It has always been the way of the left to wipe out all dissent.  Mark my words, one of the first things that will come up under this new Marxist world view that Obama calls "change" will be the Fairness Doctrine.  With this an Obama administration will strike at the heart of talk radio to kill one of the last refuges of the free marketplace of idea's.  After that, could government control over internet content be far behind?  I pray the county comes to it's senses and we never have to find out.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Fear B. Hussein Obama II by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:09:15 AM
   In my previous blog I examined some of Obama's questionable associations.  Now let's take a look at how often Obama has been less than truthful to obscure his past.  His outright lies about his association with the Association of Community Organizations of Reform Now (ACORN) is the most recent example.  ACORN is a pro Democratic Party organization currently being investigated for voter fraud in 14 states.  On his websight Obama has denied any connection with the group.  However the truth is that  the Obama campaign gave over $800,000 to Citizens Service Inc. an ACORN affiliate back in Feb.  Then there's the fact that Obama taught classes that trained future leaders of the group.  He also represented ACORN in a 1995 lawsuit against the State of Illinois involving Motor Voter registration.  Then there is the $190,000 he helped dole out to ACORN with his friend and confidant William Ayers while they were both paid board members of the Woods Fund.  Yes that's the same William Ayers that Obama had claimed was just a guy who lived in his nieghborhood.  Ayers the former Weather Underground terrorist bomber remains unrepentant to this day.  On Sept. 11, 2001 Ayers was quoted in the NY Times as saying "I'm not sorry for what we did, I wish we could have done more.  The troubling thing about Ayers is that though his tactics may have changed his revolutionary thoughts have not.  On numerous occasions he has expressed a desire to bring down the capitalistic system, the very system that is responsible for the wealth and prosperity of our nation.  When Ayers met with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez he expressed his belief that the means for bringing down capitalism was through "reform" of the educational system.  I read that to mean indoctination into Marxism.  This is why so many find it exceedingly disturbing that Ayers hand picked Obama to chair the Annenberg Challenge to dole out money to various William Ayers education reform programs.  Obviously William Ayers's idea of education reform is radical socialist re-education.  Any reasonable person would conclude that Obama shared those views.  When you add to all this that Obama's political career was launched in the living room of William Ayers, that Ayers has conducted fundraisers for Obama, and that they frequented the same events and gave numerous speeches together, it's obvious that they were more than just passing acquaintances.
   Of course how can we forget the infamous Jeramiah Wright saga.  At first Obama wanted us to believe that in 20 years of attending Wrights' United Trinity Church he never heard any of the vile, racist, anti-American, and anti-Semetic remarks that routinely spewed from Wrights' mouth.  Then in Philadelphia Obama gave a speech on race that Chris Matthews said was the greatest political speech in 40 years.  In that speech Obama said that he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community.  Then several weeks later Obama did in fact disown Wight when, at the National Press Club, Wright reiterated some of the very same vile comments.  Notice how easily Obama changes his story to meet political expediency. 
   Obama has also lied repeatedly about his vote on the Infant Born Alive Ptrotection Act while he was a Illinois State Senator.  On the committee level he absolutly did vote against a bill that had the exact same wording as the bill that passed the US Senate 98-0.  The bill would have assured medical aid to children born alive after a botched abortion.
   So what should we take from all this.  Voters need to ask themselves if they can believe Obama when he says that no one who makes under $250,000 will see a tax increase.  Also, do you believe that we can add over a trillion dollars of new spending, paid for by taxing the rich, and still grow the economy?  If your still saying "yes we can" then welcome to Fantasy Island.  Actually Obama let his pants down a little bit when he told Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher at a rally in Toledo Ohio "If we spread the wealth around I think it's better for everybody".  You see Obama's tax plan is all about Obama's version of fairness and has nothing to do with growth.  Obama's plan is all about central planning and redistributing wealth.  This is pure Marxism.  Is it any wonder why Obama has been so deceitful about his true intentions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Fear B. Hussein Obama by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Monday, October 13, 2008 5:59:21 AM
   The first thing that scares me about Barack Hussein Obama as a national candidate is the length in which he and his followers have gone to hide his past.  SAT scores, college transcripts, records from his work on the Annenberg Challenge, the Woods Fund, and from his work as a lawyer for ACORN, are all tightly guarded secrets.  If he published any papers as the president of the Harvard Law Review they too have been purged from the record.  As a matter of fact there is scarcly any known writtings attributed to Obama before he published his first memoir.  He also chose to hide his stance on many issues by voting present numerous times while in the Illinois State Senate.  Yet despite this, his followers (I call them followers because thats what they are), continue to heep praise upon him with a cult like passion. 
   What we do know about Obama is that he has never stood up to the most radical elements of his own party.  This is because he himself is, in all liklihood, a radical.  This is not hyperbole.  A quick run through of his past associations tells the story.  First there was the nurturing influence from communist writer/poet Frank Marshall Davis which turned him into a Saul Alinsky activist.  Then there's his infamous association with the racist and anti-American Jeramiah Wright and his United Trinity Church for 20 years.  Then there is of course his close working relationship with Marxist radicals William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.  There are others like Father Phlager, PLO supporter Rashid Kahlidi, and Luis Farrakhan whom he either has close personal relationships with, or as in the case with Farrakhan, they have shown great admiration for him.  Farrakhan, who endorses Obama, has gone as far to say that "Barack is the messiah and you must follow the messiah".  The left wing media is openly supporting Obama and has let him get away with excuses like these relationships are merely guilt by association.  Some have even suggested that it is racist to bring up any of these associations.  But does not looking at ones past give us insight into the character and judgement of a person?  Is it not important to know the character and judgement of a person who is seeking the most powerfull office in the world?  Speaking of judgement, when someone is as wrong about something as Obama was about the Surge, shouldn't they at least have the guts to admit they were wrong?  If we had a fair and honest media wouldn't they be holding Obama's feet to the fire on this?
   Then there's Tony Rezko, the man Obama helped funnel 10's of millions of dollars to for phoney housing renovation projects while he was in the Illinois State Senate.  Rezko was finally convicted of Fraud but not before he helped facilitate Obama's purchase of his dream home.  This and his other associations is termed by Obama as distractions from the real issues.  However If you are one who believes that national security and the economy are the real issues, then Obama's Marxist leanings and tendancies is all you really need to know to judge how his administration will govern.  Why do I fear him?  Because this is the man who says he will bring fundamental change to our system.  Of this I am truly afraid. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Slide Toward One Party and Tyranny by Ed Rourke

Posted by Edward Rourke on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 9:12:58 AM
  It has been going on for quite some time now.  It stated out slowly, almost imperceptually so.  The "it" is a confluence of events that have chipped away at our two party system pushing it to the brink of extiction.  Changing demographics, widespread voter fraud, and a pervasive apathy of the electorate have combined to push the two party system to the breaking point.  We have now reached the tipping point where the Democratic Party will dominate American politics for years to come, perhaps even forever.  The result of a one party system will ultimatly be tyranny.  This is because there will be nothing to check the Democrats socialist agenda and the massive government expansion that will follow.  Government mandates and less freedom will be the inevitable result.  Socialist one party systems never turn out good.  As a matter of fact they usually turn out very very bad.  Think China, the former Soviet Union, Sodam Hussein's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, and Nazi Germany just to get a feel for what I'm talking about.
  How did we get to this point?  Well for one thing birth rates remain high for minorities and low income people regardless of race.  These are exactly the groups that make up a big part of the Democratic constituancy.  Another reason is lax immigration policy.  In recent years new immigrants to America also tend to vote Democrat.  The changing demographics this has caused is most readily seen in a state like Virginia.  Traditionally a conservative Republican stronghold, Virginia is looking very much like it will swing to the Democrats this year.  This changing demographic has been exacerbated by massive voter fraud.  Far left leaning groups like ACORN and Project Vote have literally flooded the system with thousands of duplicate and faked voter registration forms.  A large majority of the prospective voters on these forms identify themselves as Democrat.  This is voter fraud on a massive scale.  The Board of Elections in many states have dicovered this fraud and are doing their best to get it under control.  However with the problem as pervasive as it is many will undoubtably fall through the cracks.
  As for the apathy of the electorate, This I feel is the direct result of the dumbing down of the population by way of of a failed educational system.  Our public schools have turned into indoctrination centers for the left.  A dumbed down population is far more easily indoctrinated into the socialist agenda.  Then the media with their left wing bias serves to reinforce that agenda everyday.  How else can one explain the publics general acceptance of the sky is falling hysteria of global warming extremism.  Real science along with a little bit of critical thinking is enough to blow away most arguments that climate change is caused solely by man.  However it is critical thinking that is most lacking in today's society.  Instead we get a what's in it for me attidude from way too many today.  This plays right into the Democrat's there's a government solution for everything philosophy.  
  We are rapidly sliding toward a new one party system and with it will come the inevitable tyranny.  High taxes, less choices, more government mandates, and less freedom is what this new system will bring us.  If that's not the definition of tyranny then I don;t know what is.  All the things that brought us to this point continue unabated as we speak.  The stranglehold the Democrats have on government will only deepen over time(can anybody say Politburo).  Sometime in the future I predict that working Americans who thought they had a friend in the Democratic Party will look for an alternative.  Alas by then it will be too late.  There will be no place left to turn. 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Amendment to Protect "We the People"

Posted by Edward Rourke on Friday, October 03, 2008 4:00:40 AM
  We the people.  The first three words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.  A government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Never before in the history of government had the people been given so much power to govern themselves.  It is something that most Americans today are justifiably proud of.  Voting for our elected representitives is one of the great privledges of our system.  Yet sadly, many Americans are unwittingly willing to give up this most important power to govern themselves through elected representation.  This is because we have been conditioned to view the Supreme Court as the final arbitor of every aspect of our lives.  This was not always the case.  Those elected to the execitive and legislative branches are also sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Even if we are to assume that the Supreme Court is the final arbitor on all things constitutional, it doesn't mean that they are always right.  As Mark Levin aptly states in his book Men in Black, "they are not Gods".  Just because someone dons a black robe it doesn't mean they are infallable.  Dred Scott (upholding slavery) and Plessy vs. Ferguson (seperate but equel) are but two of the most infamous examples of this.
  One of the reasons who we elect  as President is so important is because the persons  the President will nominate to the Supreme Court will likely be of the same political stripe.  This makes a Supreme Court Justice every bit the political animal that a President, or a Senator, or a Congressman is.  However it is the unelected Supreme Court alone, with their lifetime terms, who have the final say over our legislative process.  This means that everytime the Supreme Court strikes down a a law that was passed by the peoples elected representitives by definition the will of the people has been thwarted.  This is not to say that there are not times when the will of the people (or at least some of the people) is unconstitutional, as was the case with slavery.  However the Supreme Court should always act with great restaint.  Whenever a law is stuck down the people should sit up and take notice whether or not it is the Supreme court which is overstepping it's constitutional authority.
  I believe that if we truly are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, then it is the people who should be the final arbitor of what is or is not constitutional.  Remember, as I've previously stated, the legislature is already sworn to uphold the constitution.  Look at it this way.  If a President vetos a bill on constitutional grounds his veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house of the legislature.  However if the President signs that same bill into law and that law is struck down by the Supreme Court there is no recourse for the people.  I realize that the founders of the constitution thought it was important to have a completely independent judicary.  However I don't believe that they ever intended for the Supreme Court to have the unfathemable power over our government it enjoys today. 
  I believe it is time to consider a constitutional amendment to check the power of th Supreme Court.  I propose that this amendment would allow the Legislature to revisit any legislation deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  If 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature vote in favor of the bill within 30 days of the ruling then the ruling shall be overridden.  This amendment would have no effect on the vast majority of Supreme Court rulings.  However should the Supreme Court err in a most egregious way the people would at least have some recourse. 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »