Log in

The Nation’s Most Courageous Republican

Exclusive: Larry Klayman praises House candidate who went toe-to-toe with Islamists

I have been a lawyer and public-interest advocate in Washington, D.C., for 35 years and can tell you that there is not one congressman or senator currently serving in Congress who has the patriotic guts of Joe Kaufman. Joe is running for the U.S. House seat of the ultra-leftist and sleazy Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in South Florida’s 23rd Congressional District.

When I first met Joe, in 2003 while I was running for the U.S. Senate in Florida, he volunteered to help my campaign. After it ended, Joe worked for me as an expert on lawsuits such as the one that challenged the building of a radical Islamic mosque in the Ft. Lauderdale area. From personal experience, I can attest to Joe’s courage.
Read more...Collapse )
President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111

Dear Mr. President,

On October 23, 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, requiring that the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 1999. The law recognized that every nation has the right to designate its own capital and that Israel has so designated Jerusalem as its capital city.

In order to placate Israel’s and America’s enemies abroad, President Bill Clinton signed a national security waiver of the act in June 1999. This injustice has since been replicated by each succeeding President, including you, President Obama, every six months since the waiver was originally signed.

We believe that the time is long overdue for this injustice to be righted. We especially believe this time is important, as Israel’s enemies have been raising the rhetoric regarding Jerusalem.
Read moreCollapse )
Please help to distribute this petition. Thank you.
.אנא עזרו להפיץ את העצומה. תודה
Veuillez nous aider à faire signer cette pétition. Merci.
Пожалуйста помогите рапространить эту петицию. Спасибо.

Obama: The Affirmative Action President

“Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?”

This is an article that needs to be read especially by those of you who were so unfortunate as to have voted for this horrible horrible excuse for a leader.

A few other quotes from this article that I think are important.

“ . . .ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.”

“In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.”

Could not have said it better!


28% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

Right Direction or Wrong Track

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, July 25.
This is up one point from last week but remains within the narrow range found on this question since last July.
Following Congress' passage of the national health care bill in late March, the number of voters who said the country was heading in the right direction peaked at 35%, the highest level of optimism measured since early September 2009. But it has since returned to the levels found prior to passage of the bill.
Just over half (53%) of Democrats feel the country is heading in the right direction, but 91% of Republicans and 73% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe the country is heading down the wrong track.

Generic Congressional Ballot

Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 46%, Democrats 38%

Republican candidates hold an eight-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, August 1, 2010.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for Republicans held steady from last week, while support for Democrats inched up two points.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans back their party's candidate, while 78% of Democrats support the candidate of their party. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Republican candidate by a nearly two-to-one margin

Fiscal Responsibility Conference

One of the things I love about liberals is not just their deep hypocrisy, but also their confidence that the American public is to stinking stupid to see it.  In part they are right about that.  After all somebody keeps sending Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi back to Washington. Several million actually voted for this president.  The liberals have good reason to assume that the American public is to stupid to see the truth about them. Part of it really is.


Obama has announced that he is going to cut the deficit by half.  Well good for him.  I just have a question or two.  Does Obama intend to reduce the deficit by half of what the deficit was BEFORE he signed into law the 775 billion dollar Democrat wish list, the biggest spending bill in our history?  The same 775 billion dollar bill that is full of earmarks that we are not allowed to call earmarks?  That bill?  Can we reduce that by half? 


Maybe Obama intends to reduce the deficit by half of what it became after he also added the housing bill in which he decided to reward those who do not pay their mortgages by punishing those who do pay their mortgages?


 Is this reduction of the deficit going to at least get us back to the levels of the Bush deficit, as bad as those were? Can we reduce the bill back to what it was before Obama took the oath of office?  I mean. I would at least like to get back to that. 


Frankly this President who ranted and raved about the Republicans’ fear mongering and after ranting and raving about the debt he inherited from the Bush administration, used fear mongering to plunge this nation into even more breath taking crippling debt just last week. 


That was This week?  Why this is a new week.  This week he blatantly held a fiscal responsibility conference yesterday. A fiscal responsibility conference!!!  Like a liberal would recognize a responsibility if one walked up and bit him on the nose.   Still Obama after increasing the budget he decries by another 775 billion on pork projects that have nothing at all to do with helping the economy holds a fiscal responsibility conference.  I do recognize that for liberals looking like they are doing something is the same as doing something, still a fiscal responsibility conference? That is epitome of hypocrisy.


Obama and the liberals are counting on our not noticing this hypocrisy.  After all he signed the pork bill last week. Surely the American public will not remember.  He may be right.   The liberal media will inundate the non thinking with the idea that we should  applauded this president for his ‘courage.’  


Now all you Kool-Aid drinkers repeat after me:

Obama is going to reduce the deficit by half.

Obama is going to pay my mortgage

Obama is going to save us

Obama is going to make my life trouble free.

Obama is the messiah


 And the liberals love to have it so.

Profile of William Ayers.Obama's boy


  • Leader of the 1960s and 70s domestic terrorist group Weatherma "Kill all the rich people. ..\
    . Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
  • Participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972
  • Currently a professor of education at the University of Illinois
  • participant in Weatherman's 1969 "Days of Rage" riots in Chicago, where nearly 300 members of the organization employed guerrilla-style tactics to viciously attack police officers and civilians alike, and to destroy massive amounts of property via vandalism and arson; their objective was to further spread their anti-war, anti-American message.
  • . "What a country," Ayers said in 2001. "It makes me want to puke."
  • Ayers boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers says, "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.
  • Ayers stated: "There's something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down."
  • All told, Ayers was responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.  "I don't regret setting bombs, said Ayers in 2001, "I feel we didn't do enough."
    In 1970, Ayers' then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, along with Weatherman members Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, were killed when a bomb they were constructing exploded unexpectedly. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed.
  • After the death of his girlfriend, Ayers and his current wife, Bernardine Dohrn, spent the 1970s as fugitives running from the FBI. In 1980 the two surrendered, but all charges against them were dropped due to an "improper surveillance" technicality. Ayers' comment on his life, as reported by Peter Collier and David Horowitz in their authoritative chapter on Weatherman in Destructive Generation, is this: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird, America is a great country."  
  • In Fugitive Days, Ayers reflects on whether or not he might use bombs against the U.S. in the future. "I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility," he writes.
  • In the mid-1990s, Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn hosted meetings at their Chicago home to introduce Barack Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate.

The link to this article is important, for at this site there are several links to the sources for this article.  Do take a look. 




Biden and Plagiarism

 Biden?  As VP?  Oh my.  What a wealth of material for writing that choice is. What a great revelation this choice is into Obama and his character.  Lets just start with the plagiarism issue that forced Biden to withdraw from the race for President back in 1988.

 Howie Carr of the Boston Herald wrote:
"What I kept searching for in vain yesterday was any description of the end of Biden’s first presidential run, back in 1987. Oh sure, the press mentioned how his campaign was wrecked by the disclosure that hed been lifting biographical passages wholesale from the stump speech of Neil Kinnock, then a British Labor Party leader."

What is really strange about this plagiarism to me is that Biden didn’t just quote someone else without giving that person credit, but he actually stole this other guy's life and experiences  and presented it as his own life and his own experiences.  Now that's low.

Again from Howie Carr of the Boston Herald:
"Considering that Kinnock came from a long line of Welsh coal miners, this plagiarism required some creativity on Biden’s part, but then, he did have experience with that literary genre earlier, at Syracuse University College of Law."

E. J. DIONNE JR. of the New York Times explains Biden's plagiarism in law school. At the time of the 1988 election he wrote the following.

"Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic Presidential candidate, was accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School, academic officials familiar with Mr. Biden's record said today.

"Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic Presidential candidate, was accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School, academic officials familiar with Mr. Biden's record said today.

"According to the people familiar with the record of the 44-year-old Senator from Delaware, he was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper. Mr. Biden entered the school in 1965 and graduated in 1968.

"CBS News . . .quoted an aide to Mr. Biden as saying he had been exonerated. However, an academic official said Mr. Biden had been found guilty, ''threw himself on the mercy of the board'' and promised not to repeat the offense. This, according to the official, persuaded the board to drop the matter and allow Mr. Biden to remain in law school. Mr. Biden's office declined to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case, saying the Senator had insisted on handling the matter himself at the news conference.


Obama's poor choice in VP has proven Biden correct when Mr. Biden said that Mr. Obama is “not ready” to be president.

“I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it,” said Mr. Obama, of Illinois.

Does he now?  Well then.

Infanticide and Barak Obama

What are your opinions about children who survive an abortion attempt and are born alive?  Should they be given medical care?  Should they be allowed to die?

We have all heard about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, both the Federal version and the version from Illinois.  The purpose of these bills is to insure that a child who survives an abortion attempt and is born alive is given medical care.   Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a Senator in Il.  His excuse was that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act didn’t include the right kind of language needed to protect Roe v Wade. 

Well then . . . .
How true is that?  Redstate.com has done some research on this. 

“The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.”


But today Obama’s words have come back to haunt him.  In 2002 the then Senator of Illinois stood up and told the real reason he opposes a law that protects children that are born alive after a botched abortion.  From the article again:

“In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law. He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

‘In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

‘Here is what he said:

‘’As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

In 2002, Obama Supported Infanticide and I've Got the Transcript of His Words  http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

I know some may say that such laws are not needed.  Surely children born alive are already protected by the laws of the state of Illinois. Medical care would have to be provided by law.  I thought so too.  I was wrong. 

“In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.”

If you would like to read or compare the federal bill and the Il. bill, you can at  this site.  http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html

Tell me...

about Brownback......