Friday, April 30, 2010

My neighbor is a "lefty"

From a guy in Florida :
My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So this past spring I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party. The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which if there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the sign in seven days."


After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder. I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to make him even more angry. I then asked him if he wanted to go to a Tea Party rally but again he declined my outreach efforts to bring about a better understanding between political and social opponents.

I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome. Maybe I'll ask him if he want to go deer hunting, which opens up November 1st, you know, just a bunch of guys running through the woods chasing Bambi, then sitting around the campfire roasting marshmallows, drinking beer, and singing our favorite country songs to the accompaniment of Jake's harmonica (he is a better lawyer than a harmonica player but don't tell him I told you). I even made him a bumper sticker and that made him madder than he already was! Anyway, that's life in our neck of the woods, how's about yours?

Friday, April 23, 2010

THE WARRIOR SONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU&feature=player_embedded


THE WARRIOR SONG
Words and music by: Sean Householder




Video Shows Dog Leading Alaska Troopers to Fire

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PIO/releases/resources/Video/Misc%20Videos/4-4-2010%20Dog%20leads%20Trooper%20to%20fire.wmv
Video Shows Dog Leading Alaska Troopers to Fire 4-4-2010

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) A dashcam video from the Alaska State Troopers shows a dog leading them through winding back roads to a blazing fire at his owners' property.

The video on the troopers' website shows the German shepherd running to meet the trooper's vehicle, then racing to the house on Caswell Lakes on April 4.

Troopers say Buddy and his owner, 23-year-old Ben Heinrichs, were in the family workshop when a heater ignited chemicals. Heinrichs told Buddy: "We need to get help."

The dog eventually found a trooper responding to a call about the fire.

The State Troopers are presenting a special award Friday to the dog. Buddy will receive an engraved silver-plated dog bowl in Anchorage.

Heinrichs suffered minor flash burns on his face. The workshop was destroyed, but only some window trim on the house was damaged.

Editor's Note: The trooper first responder had difficulty finding the fire scene because the squad car’s GPS device wasn’t working properly. The trooper sighted the dog on Caswell Loop Road a little over one mile south of Caswell, and the dog started running. State trooper Terrence Shanigan decided to follow, since the dog could have been on a mission to lead the officer to the fire.

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PIO/releases/resources/Video/Misc%20Videos/4-4-2010%20Dog%20leads%20Trooper%20to%20fire.wmv

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment And Uses It

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment And Uses It.

If This Passes, There Will Be WAR

Just got this ... pass it far &wide.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States.

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress.

Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.

These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.

The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

Does that mean Obama is telling the truth?

What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress.

We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.

We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership.

And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Read the Article

U..S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

View The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 14 Nov. 2009

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

Silence will lead us to Socialism/Marxism....

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Iran Could Have Nuke 'Any Day' Now

Gaffney: Iran Could Have Nuke 'Any Day' Now
Friday, 16 Apr 2010 10:04 PM Article Font Size
By: Jim Meyers

Leading national security expert Frank Gaffney tells Newsmax that Iran could be armed with nuclear weapons “any day” now, and warns that the regime is likely to use them to bring about their sought-after “apocalypse.”

Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, also says sanctions against Iran will ultimately fail and a military strike must be seriously considered.

Gaffney was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in April 1987 to become assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations.
He also served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Gaffney was asked about a recent U.S. warning that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within a year, and when he thinks Iran will be nuclear-armed.

“They have been beavering away at a nuclear weapon for at least 20 years,” he says.

“And the thing I keep thinking about is, it took the United States three years to invent the idea of nuclear weapons, to develop all the capacity to build them, to build them, and to use two of them to military ends.

“We had no knowledge of the science. We had no access to advanced computers. We had none of the kinds of technical abilities that are currently available worldwide. Having said all that, it has taken the Iranians 17 more years to get to this point than it took us. I’ve got to believe it could be any day, if not maybe a month or two. Certainly I would be surprised if it’s as long as a year.”

Gaffney rejects the assertion that containment might work against a nuclear-armed Iran the way it worked against the Soviet Union.

“I think the idea of containing Iran, based on our success in containing the Soviet Union, is wrong on two counts,” Gaffney tells Newsmax.

“First, I don’t think that containment was all that successful vis a vis the Soviet Union. What ultimately resulted in their defeat in the Cold War and the elimination of the Soviet Union was Ronald Reagan’s strategy of rolling them back and bringing down the U.S.S.R.”

The Iranian regime, on the other hand, “is convinced, according to its theology, that bringing back the twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, the messiah figure, is their highest purpose, and in order to do that, according to their religious beliefs, something very much like the apocalypse needs to take place. It seems to me the height of folly to think you’ll be able to dissuade them from pursuing that end, perhaps by starting a nuclear war.

“If we think we can deter mullahs who are committed to an apocalyptic, messianic program, we’re kidding ourselves.”

President Obama has so far failed to get China to agree to go along with harsh sanctions against Iran, and likely will not succeed in the future, according to Gaffney.

“I don’t think there will be meaningful sanctions on Iran with Chinese support, and without them of course there won’t be any sanctions.

“I’m not surprised that this is playing out the way it has because China regards Iran as a client. It is a very important source of energy for the Chinese, and the Chinese are helping it with its various military activities and I think its regional ambitions.

“So for all these reasons, no matter how many times the president of the United States says we’re making progress toward sanctions, we think we’re bringing the Chinese along, I don’t believe the Chinese think it is in their interest to penalize their client. And as a result I don’t think they’ll do it.”

Gaffney also says an American military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “very severe repercussions,” but the risk must be weighed because allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons will be an “extremely perilous situation for freedom.”

Referring to Obama’s effort to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and his vow not to modernize our weapons, Gaffney says that amounts to “the unilateral denuclearization of the United States. The truth of the matter is, the only country Barack Obama can denuclearize is ours, and I personally don’t think that’s advisable. And I don’t think most Americans will either once they focus on it.”

Gaffney is concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons due to the cooperation between the Taliban and Pakistan’s intelligence services and military, and says there is a “real danger of the Taliban getting their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.”

The security of those weapons “could be compromised by folks whose sympathies ultimately lie with the Taliban and their ambitions.”

Eric Holder’s recent suggestion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators could still be tried in a New York City civilian court means that he is “probably disqualified as a practical matter from being the attorney general of the United States,” Gaffney declares.

“It isn’t going to happen, and to even consider it is scandalous. Eric Holder has completely discredited himself.”

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The U.N. Wants Firearms Trace Data? What Do They Really Want?

The U.N. Wants Firearms Trace Data? What Do They Really Want?
Gun Rights Roundup
by Buckeye Firearms Association

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the trade association for the firearms industry - has learned that the United Nations has filed its first firearms trace request. This is raising serious concerns since the U.N. has been pushing for civilian disarmament.
"Firearms trace data is a law enforcement tool to help aid in specific criminal investigations," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "Our concerns with this trace request stem from U.N.-efforts to impose arms trade control treaties that would lead to a ban on the civilian possession and ownership of firearms, possibly even in the United States."
Tracing a firearm is the process by which law enforcement tracks the chain of custody of a firearm through the licensed distribution system to the original retail purchaser. In this particular case, the manufacturer declined to provide the information to the United Nations and instead advised U.N. officials to make its request through proper international law enforcement channels. This would ensure that ATF, the appropriate law enforcement entity responsible for handling such requests, would be aware of the world body's actions.
"Some foreign states and well-funded non-governmental organizations, like the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), are using arms trade-control talks at the United Nations to restrict or ban the private ownership of firearms," continued Keane.
Though this trace request appears to have been an isolated incident, it should make all gun owners nervous. Imagine a future where your firearms are governed by international agreements and politics, where the principle players are not your elected officials, but socialists, marxists, and dictators around the globe.
For some, this is fine. There is a growing contingent of believers who long for a day when national borders vanish and we all live under one world order. One set of laws. World police. Shared wealth. And laws crafted by people from all corners of the globe.
Given the unique nature of America and the rights we enjoy, such a vision would spell the end of the world as we know it. It would certainly spell the end of the Second Amendment, which is viewed by many around the world as barbaric and out-dated.
The only hope we have is to continue to say "no" to such naïve visions and support only those candidates that not only believe in the Second Amendment but also cherish the absolute sovereignty of the United States.

National Day of Prayer

This is chilling ...

In
1952
President Truman
established one day a year as a
"National Day of Prayer."

In
1988
resident Reagan
designated the
First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.

In June
2007
(then)
Presidential
Candidate Barack Obama
declared that the USA Was no longer a
Christian nation.

This year (2009)
President Obama,
canceled the
21st annual National Day
of Prayer ceremony
at the White
House under the rouse
Of "not wanting to offend anyone"

On September 25, 2009
from 4 am until 7 pm,
a National Day of Prayer
for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill,
Beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims that
Day in DC.

I guess it Doesn't matter
if "Christians"
Are offended by this event -
We obviously
Don't count as
"anyone" Anymore.

The direction
This country is headed
Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian.
Especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
Converted they should be Annihilated

This is not a Rumor –
Go to the website
To confirm this info:
( http://www.islamoncapitolhill..com/ )



Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page:
"OUR TIME HAS COME"
I hope that this Information will stir your spirit.


The words of 2 Chronicles 7:14
"If my people, Who are called by my Name,
Will humble themselves And pray,
And seek my face, and Turn from their Wicked ways,
Then will I hear from Heaven
And will forgive their Sin and will heal Their land."

We must pray for Our nation, our communities,
Our families, and especially our children.
They are the ones that are going to suffer the most

If we don't PRAY!
May God have Mercy...
IN GOD WE TRUST.




Please pass this on,
Maybe someone, somehow can figure out a way to put America
back on the map as it was when we were growing up,
a safe place to live and by
The Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Judge advises Ashtabula County residents to "arm themselves"

Judge advises Ashtabula County residents to "arm themselves" in face of law enforcement cut-backs

Submitted by cbaus on Tue, 04/13/2010 - 07:00. Guns in the News
By Chad D. Baus

Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey made national headlines over the weekend after he advised residents to "arm themselves" in the face of severe budget cuts that have reduced the number of sheriff's deputies in the state's largest county by land area from 112 to 49, and parked all but one patrol car.

The quote was first published at WKYC.com:

The Ashtabula County Jail has confined as many as 140 prisoners. It now houses only 30 because of reductions in the staff of corrections officers.

All told, 700 accused criminals are on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.

Are there dangerous people free among the 700 who cannot be locked up?

"There probably are," Sheriff Johnson said, "but I'm telling you, any known violent criminal, we're housing them. We've got murderers in there."

Ashtabula County is the largest county in Ohio by land area.

Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.

"Arm themselves," the judge said. "Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we're going to have to look after each other."

The story, which was subsequently picked up by the Associated Press, and eventually by USA Today, goes on to say that Ashtabula County gun dealers and firearms instructors say their business has really picked up since the Sheriff's Department cutbacks began some months ago.

"That's exactly why they are coming, so that they can protect themselves," says Tracy Williams, a certified firearms instructor in Jefferson. "They don't feel that they are protected. They want to be able to protect themselves."

Williams says interest in his classes has doubled recently, and many of those coming are people who he would not normally expect to have interest in obtaining a concealed carry permit.

"And as far as him (Judge Mackey) telling you to arm yourselves and protect yourselves, you don't have any other option," Williams told WKYC. "We don't have the law enforcement out here to handle it right now."

According to WKYC, Ashtabula County, where unemployment is higher than the state average, is asking May primary voters to approve a one half per cent sales tax increase.

The tax hike would raise the tax in the county to seven percent, whereas a quality self-defense firearm can be purchased for a one-time cost of only a few hundred dollars.

Monday, April 12, 2010

A Parent's #1 Concern in a Disaster

A Parent's #1 Concern in a Disaster
So a major earthquake has just occurred or a tornado just blew through your town (or living room). As a parent what’s your biggest concern?

As a parent myself I can tell you honestly that my biggest concern in a disaster is not actually for my own well-being. I have six major concerns and they come in the form of a new baby up to a pre-teen.

I recognize that as a parent of six young kids that it’s my responsibility to insure their safety and well-being. For parents it’s important to realize that a disaster can cause extreme fear and panic and traumatize your children. Including your children in your emergency prep plans can literally make all the difference.

Getting an emergency kit is just the beginning. Just as important to physical preparation is the need to get your children mentally and emotionally prepared. The first step to accomplishing this is to include them in your emergency plan. The more prepared they are personally the easier it’ll be for them to handle the real thing. FEMA has an incredible resource for getting kids ready for an emergency. In fact, they’ve devoted a section of their site for helping children get ready. It’s interactive, including different activities that help children take a hands approach to helping the family get ready. Their 4 step children’s section includes:

Step 1: Creating a Kit

Step 2: Making a Plan

Step 3: Knowing the Facts

Step 4: Graduating from Readiness U

You can check it out here: http://www.ready.gov/kids/home.html

I personally followed there advice and recently updated my 72 hour kits. I checked the dates on my food and water and made sure that I had sufficient supplies for everyone. I didn’t do this alone though; I turned it into a family activity. As I pulled each item out of the bag I was able to talk to my kids about what the different items were and the types of emergency situations that might require the use of the different items.

They were all excited about the six 7-in-1 Survival Whistles with an LED Light (one for each of them); an extremely inexpensive item that among other things gives each one of my kids a flashlight and a whistle. The hardest part was getting them to put everything back into the backpacks when we were done.

While a major disaster may not be a particularly fun experience, getting you and your children ready can be.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Robin Carnahan: Shoveling more bull

Bernie Madoff vs. The Government

Bernie Madoff vs. The Government
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on, he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.
Some of you know this but not enough of you. Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 60 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
Do you need a side-by-side comparison? Well here's a nifty little chart.


BERNIE MADOFF
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later
SOCIAL SECURITY
Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.

BERNIE MADOFF
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts.

SOCIAL SECURITY
Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote
buying.
BERNIE MADOFF
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.
BERNIE MADOFF
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.
BERNIE MADOFF
Bernie Madoff is in jail.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Politicians remain in Washington.

Attack the US and we will not retaliate.

U.S. Unveiling New, More Restrictive Nuclear Policy
Tuesday, 06 Apr 2010 08:30 AM Article Font Size

The Obama administration is unveiling a new nuclear weapons policy that seeks to narrow the circumstances under which the United States would use such weapons while preserving long-standing assurances of nuclear protection for allies, U.S. officials said.

It is a delicate balance that the administration will describe in a policy document, called a nuclear posture review, to be released Tuesday following a full year of deliberation led by the Pentagon in consultation with allied governments.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen planned to unveil the new policy at a noon Pentagon briefing.

The document is expected to include language reducing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons for its national defense by narrowing potential U.S. nuclear targets. That reflects President Barack Obama's pledge to move toward a nuclear-free world, and could strengthen U.S. arguments that other countries should either reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons or forgo developing them.

The review of nuclear weapons policy is the first since 2001 and only the third since the end of the Cold War two decades ago.

The White House also planned to urge Russia to begin talks on adopting first-ever limits on shorter-range nuclear weapons, an arena in which Russia holds an advantage, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the nuclear policy review prior to its release.

These would be follow-on negotiations to the newly completed "New START" treaty reducing long-range nuclear weapons — to be signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the new treaty if it decides a U.S. missile defense shield, now planned for Romania, threatens its security.

He also said Moscow shares Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world, but other nations must join the disarmament process.

The U.S. officials said the administration's new policy would stop short of declaring that the United States would never be the first to launch a nuclear attack, as many arms control advocates had recommended. But it would describe the weapons' purpose as "primarily" or "fundamentally" to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

The officials said the document would say it is a U.S. goal to move toward a policy in which the "sole purpose" of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to nuclear attack. That wording would all but rule out the use of such weapons to respond to an attack by conventional, biological or chemical weapons. Previous U.S. policy was more ambiguous.

In an interview with The New York Times on Monday, Obama said his administration was explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons. Those threats, he told the newspaper, could be deterred with "a series of graded options" — a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

The Obama administration plans to urge Russia to return to the bargaining table following Senate ratification of the new START treaty.

The White House hopes to overcome Russia's expressed reluctance to move beyond START, especially if it means cutting Moscow's arsenal of tactical, or short-range, nuclear arms.

These so-called theater nuclear weapons play a key role in Russia's overall defense strategy and are regarded in Moscow as an important bargaining chip on security issues.

The timing of a planned U.S. push for new, broader arms talks with Russia is uncertain. But officials said the proposal would only come after U.S. and Russian legislative approval of the new START pact, which isn't expected until the end of this year.

The Russian parliament is almost certain to sign off on any deal negotiated by the Kremlin, but the U.S. Senate's ratification of the new START treaty is far from a sure thing.

Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for arms control, told reporters March 29 that the administration has a "big agenda" for the next set of nuclear arms talks, and that it includes limiting short-range weapons.

Obama is hosting dozens of world leaders in a nuclear security summit in Washington next week.

One senior administration official said the U.S. wants another round of talks between the White House and the Kremlin that would include not only short-range weapons but also so-called "non-deployed" nuclear weapons — the thousands of warheads, long-range and short-range, on both sides that are held in reserve and not ready for immediate use.

George Perkovich, a nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Russians have a strong incentive to limit reserve weaponry because the U.S. could, in theory, quickly mount its stored warheads back onto missiles.

Russia's struggling military forces would have a harder time preparing their reserve warheads for use in the event of war.

U.S. officials believe talks on reducing stockpiled warheads could persuade Russia to negotiate limits on short-range weapons — a category of arms in which the Russians hold a large numerical advantage.

Reducing the short-range bombs and stored warheads would involve more intrusive inspections than agreed in the treaty Obama and Medvedev will sign this week. But new technologies for verifying and counting warheads could ease concerns on both sides about protecting the secrecy of their weapons designs, the officials said.

These technologies allow inspectors to verify narrow characteristics of warheads without revealing details of their structure.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

WAKE UP, AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

There is no way this will be widely publicized,
unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference.