Our President

Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen. — Winston Churchill

Today a friend sent me one of those circulating emails that go round and round. This one caught my attention because it referenced a few of the verbal guffaws and failed policies of our President. I found them humorous and disturbing. Humorous because they showed how the supposedly “smartest person to ever occupy the White House” is really a common street organizer in a $1,000 suit. Disturbing because of what his policies are doing to our Republic.

I could probably add many more examples of Obama’s Guffaws, but what’s the sense. This is enough to get you ticked off.

If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Nave Corpsman like Nave Corpseman, would you think him an idiot?

If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety ecords of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America?

If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?

If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?

If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved?

If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 21 months — so you have that much time to come up with an answer.

Every statement and action in this blog is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

It’s Terrorism Stupid

"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." — John 8:31-32

Two people were killed and two were injured, at least one critically, in the shooting attack on U.S. military personnel at 3:20 p.m. local time March 3 at Germany’s Frankfurt International Airport (an airport I have passed through more times than I can count). According to the AP, an armed attacker boarded a U.S. military bus idling in front of Terminal 2 and began shooting. The two killed were a U.S. soldier and the driver of the bus, whose nationality is unclear. The perpetrator is alleged to be from Kosovo, of Albanian ethnicity and 21 years old, according to German media sources. According to news reports, the U.S. forces involved in the attack were on their way to Afghanistan.

Fox News and AP reports: “A gunman shot at U.S. Air Force personnel on a bus outside Frankfurt airport Wednesday, killing two airmen and wounding two others before being taken into custody, authorities said.

Kosovo's interior minister told The Associated Press that German police have identified the shooter as a man from Kosovo.

The attack came as the bus sat outside Terminal 2 at the airport, according to Frankfurt police spokesman Manfred Fuellhardt. The bus driver and a passenger were killed, and one person suffered serious wounds and another light injuries, he said.

A source tells Fox News that the shooter yelled "Allah Akbar" when opening fire on the U.S. military personnel. He then dropped his gun at the scene, ran into the terminal and was subdued.

U.S. Air Force Europe spokeswoman Maj. Beverly Mock said all four victims were airmen. They were all based at the Lakenheath military base in Britain.

A military official in Europe says the airmen were going to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

President Obama said he was "saddened and outraged" by the shooting.

The president says the U.S. will spare no effort in finding out how the "outrageous" act took place and will ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice. He called it a tragedy.

In Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her sympathies were with the victims and their families, and pledged that Germany would do everything in its power to investigate the crime.

"It is a terrible event," she said.”

How dare our President call this a tragedy? A tragedy is when an airplane crashes, a flood or someone contracting cancer. When a Muslim boards a bus loaded with U.S. soldiers, yells "Allah Akbar" and opens file that’s not a tragedy — this is jihadist terrorism. Our President just cannot issue those words when it comes to Muslims, but he can when it comes to Arizona. Where in the devil has he been these past few days? With Libya going up in flames and a terrorist attack on troops under his command he remains strangely silent. I guess he is too busy shooting hoops, listening to Motown concerts at the White House or meddling in the business of Wisconsin. He acted the same after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded 29 in his terrorist attack at Fort Hood and all the time while shooting yelling "Allah Akbar!"

There have been plots against U.S. military targets in Germany in recent years. The attack fits in the category of “armed jihadist assault” similar to what American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki called for in mid-2010 in jihadist Internet chat rooms. Al-Awlaki had been tied to U.S. Maj. Nidal Hasan, who was charged with the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

The attack in Frankfurt appears to have been a soft-target attack. Soft targets are vulnerable to attack due to the absence of adequate security or standoff distance. Areas at airports outside the security check-in points are such targets. STRATFOR has for some time predicted that militants would seek out such targets, especially considering their fixation on airplanes. The recent bombing at Domodedovo International Airport in Moscow, for example, targeted the international arrivals area where families, friends and drivers awaited travelers emerging from the terminal. Such areas are difficult to secure because doing so would require essentially cordoning off the entire airport as was done immediately after 9/11.

The uncle of the alleged attacker claims his nephew was a devote Muslim. If reports of the attacker’s ethnicity are true, this would not be the first time ethnic Albanians have joined international jihad. A number of Albanian individuals were part of the Fort Dix plot in the United States in 2007. U.S. authorities broke up a militant cell in North Carolina that involved an individual of ethnic Albanian origin. In 2009, a U.S. citizen of Albanian descent from Brooklyn, New York, tried to go to Pakistan for militant training. Albanian militants fighting in the Kosovo Liberation Army, however, largely eschewed militant Islam during their fight against Serbia in the late 1990s and in fact allied with NATO against the regime of then-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. Recent jihadist plots, however, indicate that the diaspora in the West has had a considerable number of cases of radicalization. [Source; STRATFOR Global Intelligence]

What baffles me is how can a private pay for use, global intelligence agency have more accurate and timely information than our government? Or is it just a case where our President and State Department is just loath to use the term “terrorist” where Muslims are involved. Our Department of Homeland Security can label returning veterans and anti-abortionists as potential terrorist, but Muslims yelling "Allah Akbar” while they pull the trigger or detonate the bomb draw a pass. Even in the case of the Times Square Bomber Mayor Bloomberg was quick to point a finger at a domestic terrorist like a Timothy McVeigh or a Tea Party member. Within hours he was proven wrong and stupid. Is this just political correctness or does it border on treason?

Terrorists

Why is “Democracy” a Sacred Cow and “Republic” a Four-Letter Word?

“In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself for itself. All power centers in its bosom, and scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive or, still less, to express the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in the making of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and in the execution of them by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost be said to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin and the power from which they emanate. The people reign in the American political world as the Deity does in the universe. They are the cause and the aim of all things; everything comes from them, and everything is absorbed in them. — Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Chapter IV: The Principle of the Sovereignty of the People of America, 1835.

How many times have you heard the phase “we have to fight for democracy”, “they died for democracy” or “keep the world safe for democracy?”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines democracy as:

a.) government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b.) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

They define republic as:

a.) a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president: a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b.) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

Our Pledge of Allegiance states “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Franklin knew what the Constitutional Convention had created and that if we were not careful we would not be able to keep it.

Over the years through lack of education and populous rhetoric the word democracy has replaced republic. Our lives are ruled by 536 people — 435 members of the House of Representative, 100 in the Senate and a President. We make one decision who will rule us every 730 days (731 if there is a Leap Year). We stand in line at a voting booth and cast a ballot for who will represent our interests in the House of Representatives, the Senate (legislature) and every four years to elect the chief executive officer — the person who will carry out the instructions (laws) of the legislature. This also works in a similar fashion for the states.

The idea of a republic is rarely talked about. It needs to be understood. By us talking about democracy is a dangerous thing. It gives people a false sense that they are free to make their own decisions about how the country should be run and the laws that are made. It also give more power to the federal government and the president. The definition between a republic and democracy grows vaguer each passing year as we understand the intent of the founding fathers less and less.

Democratic rule without constitutional protections is a dangerous thing. A lynch mob could be considered democratic if 51% of the mob members wanted to hang you. Our founding fathers had a mortal fear of mob rule. This fear was borne out in the French Revolution.

Every two years we have the opportunity to flush the House of Representatives. We can send them all packing and replace them with a new flock of members. In a similar manned we can flush one-third of the Senate, although it was never envisioned by the authors of the Constitution that senators would be chosen by popular election. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment.

Our founding fathers never intended that there be three equal branches of government. They intended that the Legislature be the first branch, the Presidency the second and the Supreme Court the third. They believed that the final authority of the Constitution should be the people acting through their elected representatives. They wanted everyone to read and understand the Constitution. This was spelled out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.„

This changed in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison when the Court overstepped its original Constitutional bounds and ruled on the constitutionality of a law. It is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review. I had to write an essay on this case in my eleventh grade history class — something the majority of today’s college graduates know nothing about.

Today so many of the laws affecting our lives were made by five unelected people — a virtual oligarchy. The founders said, “well, whose going to protect us against unconstitutional laws?” Their answer was “the People.” They said you must know your Constitution, you must understand the Constitution” The only defense against unconstitutional laws being written is by the individual citizen, who then votes these legislators out of office. This is a big job for the citizens. They must know their Constitution and pay attention to what their elected representatives are doing. This is what keeps the Republic strong. This is also why the Tea Party represents such a threat to the political elite.

In some sense a republic is like a corporation— something I know a great deal about. In corporations you have four basic elements. You have the shareholders (the citizens), the board of directors (the legislature), the chief executive officer or president (the President) and the legal counsel (the Court). The shareholders elect a board of directors who in turn elect or appoint the CEO. The CEO carries out the dictates of the board of directors and has the ability to select members of his team like the chief financial officer (CFO) and other officers who serve at the pleasure of the CEO.

It is the responsibility of the legal counsel to see that the board of directors faithfully follows the articles on incorporation and the by-laws (rules for governance – the constitution). The legal counsel cannot change the by-laws, this can only be done by the board of directors with approval of the shareholders.

If an employee does not like how the corporation is run they cannot go to the legal counsel and ask him to overturn a by-law. The legal counsel may be able to inform the BOD of a possible conflict, but it is up to the BOD to change them if they so desire. If the shareholders do not like how the corporation is going they have the power to vote the BOD out.

I realize this is a simplification of how are republic works, but it does make the point that the real power lies within the BOD and the shareholders, not the CEO or legal counsel. Corporations are not a democracy.

Over the years the United States has drifted more and more away from the original intent of our founders. In the name of democracy and social justice more power has been abdicated by the legislature (and the people) to the oligarchy of the Supreme Court. Even slavery was not abolished by the Court — it was done away with by the legislative process and the changing of the nation’s by-laws by the shareholders.

Rome at its height was a republic and it lasted until the citizens began to vote themselves more government largess. Athens was democracy that did not last as there was a lack of leadership and cohesion to maintain it. It was more philosophical than being able to effectively govern.

That is what is happening in the United States. The citizenry is demanding more government largess and our representatives, anxious to maintain their elite position of power is granting them what they want. More and more laws are being made by the courts rather than the legislature. Special interest groups have more say in our governance than the people and when they do not get what he want they turn to the Courts in the name of democracy.

If the citizenry does not understand the Constitution and is not involved in the monitoring the actions of their elected representatives Franklin’s comment may be more prophetic then he ever thought. So the next time you recite the Pledge of Allegiance you should say ““I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands, one nation not under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for those who have standing in the courts.”

The King’s Speech Takes the Oscar—But it’s More Than a Movie to Me

“In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.” — Alexis de Tocqueville

Last Sunday the King’s Speech won the Oscar for the best motion picture of the year. The film is about King George VI, who ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in 1936 when his older brother Edward abdicated the throne due to his romantic relationship with the American divorcé Wallace Simpson. The film is not about Edward’s abdication or Wallace Simpson, it’s about King George’s battle with stuttering.

This movie is important to John Stossel and me because we are both stutters. Before I get into my story you should read what John Stossel wrote about his experiences with stuttering. Much of what Stossel says in his column on Townhall.com mirrors my experience with this malady.

Stossel writes: Because "The King's Speech," a movie about King George's effort to overcome stuttering, won the Oscar for best picture, reporters have been interviewing me about my stuttering.

Some ask why they don't hear me stutter on TV. Others wonder why a stutterer is on TV in the first place. Here's my explanation. Since I was a child, my stuttering has come and gone. Sometimes I was sure the problem had disappeared -- then it would return with such a vengeance I'd fear saying anything. I'd stay silent in class. I avoided parties. When I was old enough to date, sometimes I'd telephone a girl and try to speak, but nothing would come out. I'd just hang up. Now, because of caller ID, stutterers can't do that.

I never planned on a career in TV. After graduating from Princeton, I was accepted by the University of Chicago's graduate school in hospital management. But I wasn't eager to go to grad school. I hated school. Princeton bored me. I thought that if I took a real job, that would make me appreciate school. I went to every job interview I could get and took the offer that gave me the longest free flight: researcher at KGW-TV in Portland, Ore.

Work turned out to be better than school! And instead of paying tuition, my employer paid me! So I kept working at the TV station.

I never thought I'd have to speak on TV.

I was wrong. One day, my boss told me to cover a fire and report -- on the air. "I can't," I said. "I stutter!" My boss said my stuttering wasn't that bad and ordered me to cover the story.

In truth, my stuttering was pretty bad, but I concealed it by using synonyms for words that I knew would make me stutter (mostly those beginning with plosive sounds -- d, g and b). That made it tough to do consumer reporting because words like "better" and "different" are basic to product comparisons. I got around that problem by using clumsy phrases like "works well," "is superior to," etc. When I did stutter, I'd go to the edit room and cut the blocks out.

Then the station told me to announce election expenditure totals -- live. I thought I might pull it off because many of us stutterers (James Earl Jones, for example) can be fluent when we act or read out loud. But my stuttering returned.

It was a stomach-turning shock when, live on the air, I realized there's no workable synonym for "dollar." (There's "bucks," but that isn't dignified, and it begins with a plosive sound, too.) I was still in mid-sentence -- saying a politician had "spent 95 thousand d-d-dol-" -- when they simply cut me off the air. I felt humiliated. I avoided live TV after that.

I went to speech therapists for help, but I still stuttered. Hypnotists, acupuncturists, psychologists and transcendental meditation gurus promised they could cure me. None of them could.

On days when any live work was scheduled, I'd wake in a cold sweat anticipating the humiliation that might come hours later when people would watch my mouth lock. That fear made me decide to quit.

But then I tried one more stuttering treatment. I heard about a three-week clinic in Roanoke, Va., called the Hollins Communications Research Center. It re-teaches stutterers how to make every sound. Apparently, stutterers, even when we don't block on words, initiate sounds more abruptly, and that often leads to stutters. In Roanoke, they had us sit in little rooms reading words into a microphone, concentrating on beginning each sound gently. When we hit a word too hard, a red light came on. The therapy is tedious, and it doesn't work for everyone, but it worked for me. After three weeks, I felt like a cork had been removed from my throat. Years of speech poured out. People couldn't shut me up.

I'm not "cured" -- I still stutter sometimes -- and I still must practice the techniques I learned. But my stuttering is no longer the obstacle it was. For more information about stuttering therapy, consult the Stuttering Foundation at www.stutteringhelp.org .

That’s John Stossel’s story, now for mine. I grew up in a large extended family in Cleveland, Ohio during the days of WWII. When I was 6 or 7 years-old the family became concerned about my speech. I was developing a severe case of stuttering. The teachers at public grade school I was attending become so concerned they had several meetings with my mother to see what could be done to help me.

One teacher recommended a speech therapist and my mother arranged a visit with him to see if he could help me overcome the stuttering. After he administered a series of tests — including IQ and Rorschach Tests — to determine my intelligence and sanity he found me to be sane with an above average IQ (140) He felt the problem was caused by nervousness and he would treat me by training me to relax and be calm. Nothing he did worked and my parents wasted a lot of money.

The next step was to transfer me from a public school to a Catholic elementary school. This seemed to help as the teaching nuns were a bit more patient with me and I felt more comfortable in this environment. I even sang in the boys’ choir and studied the Latin to become an altar boy. Before taking the test to qualify as an altar boy we moved to the suburbs and I was enrolled in another Catholic school. This is when my stuttering became worse.

It was a new school, with new friends to make and I was fearful to talk to people because of the stuttering. In the new school I started in the fifth grade and finished the year fine. The next year I entered the sixth grade and midway through the year the nuns decides I should be advanced to the seventh grade. This was a rough year. By the eighth grade I was comfortable again and I had made a few friends who overlooked my stuttering.

When I entered public high school I was terrified. Now I would have to change classrooms and teachers every 45 minutes. This made me extremely anxious and I would sit in he back of the classroom, as Stossel did, hoping not the be called upon to read aloud. I did not do well in the ninth grade.

The tenth grade was better and between the tenth and eleventh grade I got a summer job as a surveyor’s assistant. Working in the field was good for me. Like Stossel I could focus on work and the stuttering was not too important. I did well at the job and after graduation I continued in the profession for the next 55 years.

Stuttering did not help me with girls. I was afraid to call them on the phone, as Stossel related, and because of my feelings of inferiority I was very hesitant to ask a girl out. This continued for some years and I gradually began overcoming the fear of talking to girls and finally met my wife to be in 1959. Thank God she did not care about how I spoke, but was more caring about who I was. She was and still is the love of my life, who gave me a great deal of courage to overcome the stuttering.

When we moved to California I took a position as a surveyor with the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans) and was assigned to a great supervisor. I proved to him that I was one of the best and he gave me all the responsibility I could handle including a jump in grade without taking an examination. I did very well with the CDH. I was talented, smart and I worked real hard. You see this is how I could mask the fact I was a stutter. Like Stossel, when you work hard and bury yourself in the job you think you are hiding the fact that you stutter. This is why many stutters do well at work or in their profession — they believe if they give 110% they will be accepted.

In 1964 I passed the professional exams for licensure as a Land Surveyor, one of only two in the entire department. This gave me another credential to use as crutch. Because I was licensed as a professional land surveyor I was asked, by my supervisor, to teach survey classes within the department. Again, like Stossel with his news director, I refused because of the horrific fear I had to speak in public. My supervisor would not take no for an answer and I reluctantly began teaching classes. I can recall driving to the building where the classes were held and my stomach was turning over and over with fear. I discovered that if I really prepared the material I was going to teach the people attending the classes were a lot more interested in what I had to say than how I said it. By the third or fourth session I was doing fine — no fear and very little stuttering. Thank God for that understanding and supportive supervisor. As a B-29 pilot over Japan in WWII he understood fear and he knew what it would take to conqueror it.

After ten years with the CDH I left to go into business with two partners. I now a had a new plateau to climb — talking to clients. For he most part I let my partners do the business development while I handled he back room work. Eventually I became comfortable with clients I knew but there was no way I could cold call a potential client.

After several years in business I was asked to make a presentation at a conference of professional surveyors. Again, I refused due to my fear of public speaking. One again a close friend and colleague convinced me to make the presentation as he felt I could offer something of value. My friend, who was one of the most respected and sought after lecturers in the profession spoke with a pronounced lisp. He had his palate crushed by the butt of a rifle wielded by a Japanese soldier while a POW in WWII. This did not seem to affect him so I was shamed into taking his advice.

I made the presentation with a million butterflies in my stomach and was given a round of applause upon its completion. Afterwards people came up to me and congratulated me on a great presentation. I was learning that much of the stuttering was caused by my own fear and attitude.

As the years pasted I became less and less fearful of my stuttering and for the most part overcame it. I was able to make client presentations, do business development, give lectures and even testify in front of a Congressional committee. Like Stossel I still have occasions of stuttering, but it does not bother me any longer. In fact I am often chided for talking too much. Perhaps I am just making up for lost opportunities to speak.

Stuttering is recognized by the federal government as a handicap under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I never felt I was disabled, although I wouldn't mind one of those license plates allowing me to park next to the store or restaurant. I don’t think they give them out to stutters.

According to the Stuttering Foundation of America More than 68 million people worldwide stutter, which is about 1% of the population. In the United States, that's over 3 million Americans who stutter. Many of these 3 million are children going through what John Stossel and I experienced. They are probably above average intelligence, but doing poorly in school. They are fearful of making friends and lack self-confidence. They may be loners who lack the skills for social integration. If you know anyone like this there is help for them, but the best help will come when they have small successes in speaking with people and have a few mentors along the way.

Emily Blunt, James Earl Jones, John Stossel, Bill Walton, Mel Tillis, Winston Churchill, Marilyn Monroe, Carly Simon, Annie Glenn, Nicholas Brendon, Ken Venturi, Bob Love, John Updike, King George VI — all are famous people who stuttered and went on to have successful lives. I hope the movie the King’s Speech will provide encouragement for many of those 68 million stutters.

The Founder of the Phrase Pro-Choice” Dies

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between. — Mother Theresa

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the abortion advocacy group NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) and long thought to be the creator of the phrase "pro-choice," passed away on Feb. 21.

Sheryl Young, writing for Yahoo News reports: “Nathanson became a "foe" rather than a leader of abortion advocates within a decade of abortion's legalization. He announced he could no longer perform abortions or champion abortion rights. At that time, he had seen ultrasounds of unborn babies (fetuses) as young as 12 weeks' gestation struggling to avoid the abortion procedure.”

“Many people still assume Nathanson turned on the abortion industry because he became a Christian. However, in the early 1980's when Nathanson began denouncing abortion and began trying to reverse the abortion tide, he was, by all accounts, a Jewish atheist. Nathanson did not turn to Christianity until 1996.”

“In 1984, Nathanson made the film "The Silent Scream," showing an apparent in-womb baby's struggle and pain during an abortion.”

“In his 1981 book, "Aborting America," Nathanson asserts that he and others falsified and inflated many statistics about "back alley abortions" in order to convince the government to legalize abortion.”

“After performing more than 70,000 abortions himself, his efforts to rally for life by way of books, interviews and the movie have long been attacked as propaganda by those still advocating abortion. According to a report in the LA Times, feminist leader Betty Friedan once likened Nathanson to an American traitor.”

“In his 1981 book, "Aborting America," Nathanson asserts that he and others falsified and inflated many statistics about "back alley abortions" in order to convince the government to legalize abortion.”

“Nurse Brenda Schaeffer worked with a well-known abortionist. Her story of witnessing not only the abortion ultrasounds, but egregious acts against the unborn and their frightened mothers, at the abortion clinic where she worked was told in a 1996 film called "The Procedure."

“Ex-abortion clinic owner Carol Everett wrote the 1992 abortion industry exposé "Blood Money." Her back cover quote includes the fact that, while working for other abortion clinics before owning her own, she was not trained to discuss any option other than abortion. She was trained just to sell abortions at $25.00 apiece.”

“In 2009, ex-Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson turned pro-life for much the same reason as Nathanson — through the viewing of ultrasounds and evidence that fetuses are human life in the very early stages of development.”

“None of these people have ever been associated with any sort of violence against abortion clinics, nor are they known for writing or saying anything that would condone such acts.”

The abortion industry began in June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped, as she could then obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas' anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site shuttered, closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington

In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. At the time, McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and she later acknowledged she had lied earlier about having been raped. "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.

The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the merits, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion. The district court's decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, regarding a right to use contraceptives. Few state laws proscribed contraceptives in 1965 when the Griswold case was decided, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s.

Roe v. Wade ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. Following a first round of arguments, Justice Harry Blackmun drafted a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness. Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Therefore, Chief Justice Warren Burger proposed that the case be reargued; this took place on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Wade. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.

The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately, in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.

Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women's rights, personal freedom, and privacy. Denying the abortion right has been equated to compulsory motherhood, and some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment: “When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, even if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.”

In letter life Norma McCorvey recanted her position on abortion and in 2005 she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn their 1973 decision with no success. She eventually converted to Catholicism and has become a fierce pro-life advocate.

McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, was published in 1998. She explained her change on the stance of abortion with the following comments: “I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby!”

“I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”

According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) 39,290,477 abortions have been performed in the United States between 1973 and 1999. When looking at the figures posted by the NRLC, which go to 2009 the figure jumps to 53,310,843. The NRLC also sates that the annual number of abortions had dropped from a high of 1.6 million each year in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2009.

53 million is almost as high as the number of people killed in the Stalinist Soviet Union and more than 8 times the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It is one and a half times the total population of the State of California and the total number of people in Finland, Denmark, Slovakia, Switzerland, Austria, Greece and Belgium combined.

I did not research the figures of abortions by race, but past articles and reports have claimed that abortions among the black community are much higher than white, Asian or Hispanic. Margaret Sanger and her eugenics colleagues must be jumping with joy in hell.

Nathanson’s conversion came about when he first saw ultrasounds of fetuses in the womb. He saw them as living and developing human beings, not as lumps a parasitic flesh. (The photo at the right is an ultrasound image of a 14 week fetus) When National Geographic TV shows elephants, lions, dogs, cats and monkeys gestating in the womb people get all teary-eyed over the development of these animals. But, God forbid they show a human fetus gestating and NARL, NOW and Planned Parenthood would have them in court in less than a day claiming a violation of women’s rights under the 13^th Amendment. This is why Planned Parenthood and their liberal supporters fight so hard against states that want to demand a woman seeking an abortion first see an ultrasound of her fetus. This might upset her and cause “mental distress” Yes, the mental distress they are concerned over is called pangs of conscience. Also they might lose the $350 dollars they get for each abortion. Even if the woman doesn’t pay they get the money from the government or misguided donors. Let’s see, if I use an average figure of $100 for each abortion for the total since 1973 would be $ 5,331,084,300 — that’s trillion with a “T”. Quite a good business for the baby killers. Hitler’s SS didn’t get nearly that much from the gold and loot stolen or extracted from the Jews.

Norma McCorvey, Dr. Nathanson, Nurse Brenda Schaeffer, Carol Everett and Abby Johnson saw the evils of abortion. When will the rest of us join them? It’s not about the right to choose, it’s about thou shall not murder.

High Speed to Insolvency–Why Liberals Love Trains

Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard! – George Will

I have written several blogs on the folly of high speed rail. Now George Will has taken up the sword to cut it down. He writes in Newsweek Magazine: “Generations hence, when the river of time has worn this presidency’s importance to a small, smooth pebble in the stream of history, people will still marvel that its defining trait was a mania for high-speed rail projects. This disorder illuminates the progressive mind.”

“Remarkably widespread derision has greeted the Obama administration’s damn-the-arithmetic-full-speed-ahead proposal to spend $53 billion more (after the $8 billion in stimulus money and $2.4 billion in enticements to 23 states) in the next six years pursuant to the president’s loopy goal of giving “80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.” “Access” and “high-speed” to be defined later.”

“Criticism of this optional and irrational spending—meaning: borrowing —during a deficit crisis has been withering. Only an administration blinkered by ideology would persist.”

“Florida’s new Republican governor, Rick Scott, has joined Ohio’s (John Kasich) and Wisconsin’s (Scott Walker) in rejecting federal incentives—more than $2 billion in Florida’s case—to begin a high-speed rail project. Florida’s 84-mile line, which would have run parallel to Interstate 4, would have connected Tampa and Orlando. One preposterous projection was that it would attract 3 million passengers a year—almost as many as ride Amtrak’s Acela in the densely populated Boston–New York–Washington corridor.”

“The three governors want to spare their states from paying the much larger sums likely to be required for construction-cost overruns and operating subsidies when ridership projections prove to be delusional. Kasich and Walker, who were elected promising to stop the nonsense, asked Washington for permission to use the high-speed-rail money for more pressing transportation needs than a train running along Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati, or a train parallel to Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Madison. Washington, disdaining the decisions of Ohio and Wisconsin voters, replied that it will find states that will waste the money.”

“California will. Although prostrate from its own profligacy, it will sink tens of billions of its own taxpayers’ money in the 616-mile San Francisco–to–San Diego line. Supposedly 39 million people will eagerly pay much more than an airfare in order to travel slower. Between 2008 and 2009, the projected cost increased from $33 billion to $42.6 billion.”

“Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute notes that high-speed rail connects big-city downtowns, where only 7 percent of Americans work and 1 percent live. “The average intercity auto trip today uses less energy per passenger mile than the average Amtrak train.” And high speed will not displace enough cars to measurably reduce congestion. The Washington Post says China’s fast trains are priced beyond ordinary workers’ budgets, and that France, like Japan, has only one profitable line.” You can read Will’s full article by clicking here.

Much of what Will says I have already said in previous blogs. It’s just comforting to know that some one at a national level is agreeing with me. High Speed Rail for the United States is a liberals wet dream. Why governors like Jerry Brown want to spend billions of California taxpayer’s dollars on this fiasco is beyond me. Its just another example of a liberal’s good idea that will turn really bad – as most of them do.

Why the Left Hates Black Conservatives

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people." — John Adams

Lately we have seen a great deal of vitriol from the left directed at Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife. Much of this hatred stems from the black community. They seem to think he is some kind of “uncle tom” because he is a conservative. Congressmen like the uber liberal Anthony Wiener of New York are demanding Thomas recuse himself from certain cases pending or might be coming to the Supreme Court.

They claim that because he and fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have attended a conference in San Francisco sponsored by the Heritage Foundation where speakers like Rush Limbaugh and David and Charles Koch were in attendance. They also do not like Thomas because his wife, Virginia, is a consultant to the Heritage Foundation and active in the Tea Party. She is also white.

These left wing attackers seem to overlook the political activities of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose husband Martin was an internationally prominent tax lawyer and lobbyist. Or for her comments when asked why she refused to attend the annual “Red Mass” at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. when she said: "I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion,” Does this mean she has a predisposed position on abortion and should recuse herself from cases appearing before the Court.

How about newly appointed Justice Elena Kagen who during her time as Solicitor General, she prepared a brief defending a law later ruled unconstitutional that would have criminalized depictions of animal cruelty or during her solicitor general confirmation hearing, she said that "there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Also when asked during her confirmation hearings when asked about the Defense of Marriage act she replied: “she would defend the act if "there was any reasonable basis to do so.” If every Justice had to recuse themselves for comments they or their family members made we would have no Court. Just look at Justice Hugo Black, that bastion liberalism appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, who was a member of the KKK and fiercely anti-Catholic.

Thomas, like David Web, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, Joe Hicks, Sonja Schmidt, Star Parker, Larry Elder, Herman Cain and many others, are hated by the left because they will not conform to the victim mentality fostered by black politicians and street organizers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They just will not buy into their agenda and will speak to reality of why blacks are still in liberal serfdom.

One of my favorite black Tea Party conservatives is Deneen Borelli. Deneen Borelli is a Fellow with Project 21, a network of black conservatives which is an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a national public policy group based in Washington, D.C.

In her role, Deneen promotes the importance of personal responsibility and the benefits of free market policies as a means for social advancement. She advances these values by writing commentaries and participating in media interviews.

Deneen currently serves as an official contributor on the Fox News Channel programs and has appeared on FNC programs such as "Glenn Beck," "Your World with Neil Cavuto," "Hannity" and "Fox and Friends." Deneen has also appeared on MSNBC, CNN, the BBC and C-SPAN. Deneen is a columnist with The Daily Caller, and her commentaries on the importance of freedom and limited government have been published by newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Baltimore Sun, Washington Examiner and Washington Times. She has also been a frequent speaker at political rallies and events, including the FreedomWorks 9.12 March on D.C. that drew a crowd estimated at over 800,000 people. Here are a few video clips of Borelli being interviewed on various FNC shows.

Deneen points out to FNC host Jamie Colby why Gov. Walker is following a mandate from the voters

n the FNC show “Justice with Judge Jeanine Pirro,” Deneen said the protests in Madison against Governor Walker and his plan to reform collective bargaining in light of the budget crisis are “an assault on the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

Deneen debates liberal political strategist Christopher Hahn on the Wisconsin protests, with “Fox and Friends” host Clayton Moore serving as the moderator.

I spent over an hour researching (on Google) the black conservatives I show above. I found some biographical information, but I also found some of the most scurrilous, racist and obscene sites and comments directed at them. I will not refer to these sites as they do not deserve any attention, however, I will link one such site referring to Deneen Borelli so you can see how ignorant and hateful the left is when there is someone who does not agree with them.

This particular site not only attacks her politics but her appearance. It claims her publicity picture was altered using Photoshop to make her look less black. I can tell you as a professional photographer everyone wants to look good in their professional headshot. I recently photographed an event for a black couple. The woman made a special request of me to reduce and shine on her face and to tone down the saturation of her skin. This is not unusual. Also, wen taking candid snapshots the lighting is nowhere near as favorable as when doing publicity headshots. This makes a very big difference.

As I stated above the left can’t tolerate black conservatives. Even he comedian and left leaning Bill Cosby is attacked by the left when he criticizes inner-city blacks for their lack of responsibility in education and parenthood. I can recall one such instance where Cosby was being interviewed by Tavis Smiley on his PBS show. Smiley, a left wing commentator on PBS and NPR, was challenging Cosby on his comments regarding the condition of inner-city blacks and bemoaning the fact that they were locked into a vicious cycle of poverty. Cosby paused a few seconds and then replied “50% dropout rate.” Smiley was speechless. You see Cosby did not go into the usual mantra of not enough government money or racism. He, instead, focused the responsibility on the individual — something the black liberals and street organizers do not like.

Every one of the black conservatives I have mentioned, including the left wing Juan Williams of FNC, have said the same about blacks and their condition in the inner cities of America. They blame the lack of responsibility on the part of the blacks for their plight. They claim the lack of even a basic high school education, children having children having more children with absent fathers, a culture of victimization and dependency on government for their sustenance is the reason. In essence this is nothing less than a form of serfdom promulgated by Democrat politicians so they can maintain their political power. Some cities such as Detroit and Cleveland have had Democratic lead municipal governments for over 40 years and the results have been disastrous.

They claim big government is not the answer and has never been the answer. Every government imposed solution, using taxpayer money; from public housing to community organizing has failed. And let us not forget the role of the teachers unions in the deplorable state of the inner city schools and education.

With the rise of the Tea Party movement more and more black conservatives are being heard. Allen West was elected to Congress and Herman Cain is exploring a presidential run. These black conservatives represent promise for a better life for the inner city blacks, a promise that will never come to fruition from the left.