Victory achieved, or just a "job done"?

Friday, February 27, 2009 Comments

Obama announced today his plans to draw down troop levels in Iraq over the next 18 months. If I remember correctly, Bush actually set that in motion before leaving office, but whatever.

Speaking to a group of Marines today as he announced his plans, Obama managed to avoid using the word "victory." He simply said our troops "got the job done." Not even "job well done," just "got the job done."

John McCain's response, "I think it'd be very appropriate for the president to say that we are winning, and we have succeeded, and we are achieving victory."

Questioned about the omission, Secretary of Defense Gates responded, "I don't think they need to be told that they've been successful, they know it."

To let politics take precedence over honor in this way is beyond disgraceful.

Our troops DO need to hear it, and they need to hear it from their Commander in Chief. Their families and friends need to hear it, and they need to hear it from their President. The families of all the troops who didn't make it home need to hear it. They need to know that the mission in which their loved ones sacrificed their very lives in service of their country, will be ending in victory. Our troops and their families have made countless sacrifices in support of America's mission in Iraq, and they HAVE been successful.

Our troops have succeeded in liberating the Iraqis from a tyrannical leader who routinely murdered and tortured his own people. The road has not been easy, but bit by bit we have succeeded in helping the Iraqi people to develop their own democracy.

One of the greatest evidences of the success was seen last month, with little if any mention in the MSM, when Iraq held free elections without violence.

Major General John Kelly wrote about the experience, here's an excerpt:

I don't suppose this will get much coverage in the States as the news is so good. No, the news is unbelievable.

Something didn't happen in Al Anbar Province, Iraq today, Saturday January 31.

Once the most violent and most dangerous places on earth, no suicide vest bomber detonated killing dozens of voters.

No suicide truck bomber drove into a polling place collapsing the building and killing and injuring over 100.

No Marine was in a firefight engaging an Al Qaeda terrorist trying to disrupt democracy.

What did happen was Anbar Sunnis came out in their tens of thousands to vote in the first free election of their lives.


Six PM and the polls close without a single act of violence or a single accusation of fraud, and nearly by early reports pretty close to 100% voted. Priceless.

Major Kelly goes on to make the point that "People are not given freedom and democracy - they take it for themselves. The Anbaris deserve this credit."

Yes, the people of Iraq deserve credit. Without their resolve and courage to do this for their families and communities, none of this would have happened. But so too, the sacrifices of American troops were also essential to bringing Iraq to where it is today.

Our troops deserve to hear that in no uncertain terms from their Commander in Chief.

Link to video

Read full post >>

Moral relativity and the slippery slope


One of the arguments that is often made by pro-abortion folks is that they personally find abortion wrong, but that we can't legislate that moral belief for others.

Really? I disagree. In the words of our new president - Yes, we can!

We lesiglate morality all the time, why should this be any different? After all, murder is against the law, and a murderer who claims that they personally don't find killing another human being morally wrong will not find leniency due to their personal beliefs. When it comes to issues of life and death, we most certainly do "legislate morality." And it doesn't stop there, we have laws against physically harming another person (assault, rape, kidnapping, etc.), and our laws even allow for compensation in the case of "mental anguish," in which physical harm doesn't even need to be present.

In other words, we have a whole range of laws around what we have deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior toward other human beings, and these are based on socially-accepted moral standards and do not vary according to the moral standards of the individual in question.

But, if we overlook the fact that we're talking about another human being here, what about the individual rights of the woman?

The pro-abortion argument claims that this is all about a woman's right to control her own body. As a woman (and a person in general), I'm in favor of being able to make decisions about my body and my health without government intervention. But again, our government has a number of laws that infringe on that already. We have laws against substance abuse, with a whole range of drugs that one can be arrested for using. State laws have varying degrees of legal requirements regarding vaccinations, so the government is not only legislating what you can't do with regard to your own health, but what you must do with regard to your own health. I've heard recent reports that some states are even considering laws regarding what kinds of food their citizens can eat (primarily targeted at fast food). We can certainly expect more of that if "universal healthcare" becomes a reality.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of these laws. My point is that these laws exist. So, if it's fair game for the law to establish that one cannot harm another human being, and it's fair game for the law to determine what an individual may and may not do to their own bodies, how then can anyone make the argument that we couldn't possibly outlaw abortion just because some people (and who knows how many that actually is) don't believe it to be wrong. That argument just doesn't hold water.

And quite frankly, I find the argument that this is about women's freedom to choose to be disingenuous at best. If there is one ugly truth revealed by the 2008 election it is that those who are pro-abortion do not support women's "choice" unless it is the choice they would have made. The level of hatred directed at Sarah Palin simply for her "choice" to give birth to her son with Down Syndrome is proof of that.

What's ironic is that many of these same people are wholeheartedly devoted to what they call "human rights." What about the most basic of human rights, the right to live? America holds dear the God-given, inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no qualifier for size or location, no requirement that one have attained a particular weight or gestational age, or be located outside of a womb, in order to be granted the right to live.

Make no mistake, a child inside the womb is a child, a human being. They may be small, but even from the earliest weeks of pregnancy they have a beating heart, they react to their environment, and they even have personalities that one can recognize after they are born. There is nothing magical about 9 months gestation. As a mother of preemies, I can assure you my children born prematurely were no less alive, no less deserving of basic human rights, than a child born full-term. And they were no less so before delivery than after. Children have been born much earlier than mine were and survived, even as early as 21 weeks. Never underestimate the human spirit and the will to live, if only given a chance.

I think that those who fight for abortion "rights" would have us become numb to the reality of what abortion really means, to both the child and the mother. I'm hoping that those who may be casual observers thinking "well, I wouldn't but if someone else wants to I guess that's ok," will stop to think about the implications of that line of thinking. I'm hoping that those who truly believe that abortion is wrong but don't feel justified in asking others to believe that, will find the courage to stand up for what they believe is right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom and individual liberty and I don't think that we need laws to govern every little aspect of our lives. By and large, we should all be free to live our lives and make decisions based on our own understanding of what is right and wrong, and accept that our notions of right and wrong may be different that someone else's.

However, this goes well beyond personal decision-making. When it comes to matters of life and death, the moral relativity argument is on shaky ground at the edge of a very slippery slope. Once we decide as a society that literally anything goes, no matter who gets hurt (or loses their life), we lose a piece of our humanity. And with every innocent life lost, society as a whole loses forever a lifetime of potential that person would have contributed, and the ripple effect of every person that individual would have touched in life.

Read full post >>

Alert - parental rights at risk if this is ratified


I first read about this a couple of months ago, and although I've been mainly focused on the out-of-control spending lately I want to make sure people are aware of it, because according to yesterday's news, this is being brought up again for consideration and it needs to be stopped.

The "U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child" essentially demotes parents to simply caregivers, and elevates the state as the ultimate authority on how children should be raised, giving the state the right to override any number of parental decisions.

Forget about homeschooling, imparting your religious values to your child, or teaching responsible behavior. Forget about setting appropriate limits on what your children may and may not do. If the state disagrees with you, this law would give them the power to intervene. If your CHILD disagrees with you (for instance, if you ground them or give them a curfew), they are empowered to seek state intervention to override you. This is yet another attack on the family.

The United States has signed the convention, but the Senate has not yet ratified it. We are the only nation, aside from Somalia which has no organized government, that has not yet ratified the treaty. Ratification is required to actually make it a binding law in the U.S. If that happens, because of our treaty law, this would nullify approximately 90% of existing family laws currently on the books at the state and local levels, and because it allows the U.N. authority, it would also seriously infringe on our national soveriegnty.

What can we do to stop this? is seeking to amend the Constitution to protect children by empowering parents. The text of their proposed amendment reads:


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Click here to sign the petition.

Click here to learn more.

I'll continue to post updates here.

Read full post >>

U.N. attack on free speech


A new U.N. resolution is aimed at making it illegal to criticize "religions" (Islam in particular). Obviously this would be unconstitional in the United States, and I don't see any indication in the report that the U.S. is actually considering this (thank goodness) but I think it's good to be aware that this is out there.

Lou Dobbs is right on about the U.N. when he says, "The United Nations is getting a bit burdensome, it seems to me, to anyone who's interested in freedom, whether it be through the World Trade Organization, whether it be all sorts of institutions, organizations, ranging in issue from global warming to anti-blasphemy, this is becoming a totalitarian, authoritarian organization."

Read full post >>

Party like it's 1773

Thursday, February 26, 2009 Comments

For any of you who may not be totally on-board with the government's new dictionary and would prefer a return to the old-school definition of "fiscal responsibility," there are several Tea Party USA events happening all over the country, many this Friday, February 27th.

For more information and to find one near you, visit the official #TCOT Tea Party site, or Michelle Malkin has more info also.

Read full post >>

Fiscal re-what?!


I literally laughed out loud when I heard Obama was hosting a "fiscal responsibility" summit. What a joke. He and his friends in Congress just spent more in one month than we've spent on the entire Iraq war, and now they want to talk about being fiscally responsible.

Well, they may be talking about it, but they sure as heck aren't doing anything about it. Unless, well, hmm... let me think about that. Perhaps when Obama tells us he's getting away from the "failed policies of the past" what he really means is the "failed dictionaries of the past." Because, from the looks of things, the term "fiscally responsible" in his new-fangled dictionary is the exact opposite of what I think most of us have generally thought it to mean.

So maybe what we really need to do is just get with the program and get ourselves a new dictionary. The old one would have said that fiscally responsible means:

- saving money, and living within your means
- not spending money you don't have
- not borrowing money you know you can't afford to pay back
- not stealing money from your children

Ha, that is SO yesterday. FAIL.

The NEW dictionary defines fiscally responsible as:

- borrowing money you don't have to spend on things you don't need and can't afford
- stealing from your children to spend on things you don't need and can't afford
- spend, spend, spend, spend, spend
- when you run out of money, take out a new credit card in your children's name
- just keep spending and all your troubles will just float away...

Yep, if that's the new definition, I think this administration has it NAILED. The proof of their fiscal responsibility is everywhere.

Here are just a few examples:
House Approves $410 Billion ‘Omnibus’ Spending Bill
Obama Proposes $634 Billion Fund For Health Care
Obama Will Unveil $205.5 Billion War Spending Through 2010
Housing bailout at $275 billion
Detroit auto bailout could cost $100 billion

That's well over another $1.6 trillion on top of the $800 billion for the recent "porkulus" bill. Wow, so much of other people's money to spend, so little time. Just imagine how much they can spend in the next 47 months! Oh yeah, and don't forget $700 billion for TARP 1 (yeah, I know that was Bush but it was also Pelosi / Reid) and who knows how much for TARP 2. The fun just never ends when we're busy being "fiscally responsible!"

How do they propose to pay for all of this? Well, aside from the ever-popular printing presses, there's the off-chance that China might actually still loan us money, and in addition to that, tax increases. Because nothing stimulates an economy like hiking taxes on the backbone of the economy - small businesses. You know, the ones that employ a large percentage of Americans? That will pull more money out of the economy, force businesses to lay off more employees and making a bad situation much worse.

So there you have it. Spending like there's no tomorrow and crushing small business is the new "fiscally responsible."

Read full post >>

How much will "Porkulus" cost you?

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Comments

Link to video in case it doesn't work.

So, for the touted $8/week ($400 for the entire year) we're supposed to receive in tax "relief," every household in America is now on the hook for an additional $13,000 of debt to pay for this so-called stimulus bill.

Does it make sense to pay $13,000 to get $400? If it does, I have some quarters I'll be happy to sell you for $8 each.

Keep in mind, this is in addition to the $27,000 per household we are already in debt for the existing deficit and the recent bank bailouts, bringing the total PER HOUSEHOLD to $40,000.

I don't know about you, but I can't afford that.

The video breaks it down by tax bracket, and based on that it looks like the lump sum debt is roughly 20% of household income without interest (ranges from 8% to 45%). Including interest, it's 37% of household income on average (ranges from 16% to 84%). So, including interest, it could take you anywhere from 2 months to 10 months salary to actually pay off your portion of the debt if everything you made went just to that. That's insane.

It's very much like a person facing bankruptcy deciding they are going to solve their financial woes by taking on huge loans.

This is only going to result in shrinking businesses, more lost jobs, higher taxes, high inflation, and ultimately a declining overall economy.

Read full post >>

Abortion from the eyes of a child


Read more here: 12-yr-old Stuns Pro-Choice Advocates

HT: Domestic Divapalooza

Read full post >>

Obama is "Bush on steroids"

Sunday, February 15, 2009 Comments

Here's a great overview of what's happening from an economic standpoint, from the Center for Freedom & Prosperity. It shows how Obama's spendulus plan will just repeat Bush's mistakes, grow government, and fail to boost the economy. Federal spending (and the corresponding debt) increased significantly under Bush, and Obama proposes to increase it even more. Change is going to be the only thing left of our paychecks when he's finished.

Read full post >>

Not the America I knew

Saturday, February 14, 2009 Comments

This week has been so exhausting, I don't even know where to start. I feel like I am watching the nation I love morph into something unrecognizable and it breaks my heart.

This is not the America I knew.

In the America I grew up in, no one was "too big to fail." Tax cheats were not awarded with lucrative cabinet jobs. Presidents didn't dishonor service men and women who gave their lives for this country by stopping the trial and dropping charges against known - admitted - terrorists. Presidents didn't "abandon free market principles to save the free market" (what the #$%& does that even mean?).

In the America I grew up in, the media actually did its job, which was to inform the public of important issues in an objective manner. Their role (and I'm talking about journalists here, not opinion commentators) was to be the watchdogs of both parties in government on behalf of the people. Now they have by and large become the cheering section for the liberal agenda (and yes, if they were cheerleaders for conservatives I would still be disturbed, they fail the public when they let bias skew their reporting in either direction).

In the America I grew up in, contraception was not considered economic stimulus (because less people means less cost). Trillion-dollar stimulus packages were not thrown together behind closed doors under cover of darkness and voted in a rush under the pretext of impending doom. Trillion-dollar bills that would enslave generations to debt were not even in the realm of consideration. Stealth socialized healthcare provisions were not slipped into stimulus bills to avoid open debate on the issue.

Presidents were respected and conducted themselves in a manner worthy of that respect. They were not treated as messianic figures and didn't seek to be. America believed in freedom, liberty, and capitalism, and wasn't afraid to stand for its principles.

Maybe my memory is wrong. I'm not trying to sugar-coat history, and admittedly I'm only in my 30's so there is much of this country's history that I don't remember. But at the end of the day I grew up in a free America, and that is the America I want to leave my children.

What scares me the most is how quickly we are moving (falling?) down the slippery slope toward socialism. This country has fought against socialism and it's cousin, communism, for so long because it goes against everything we believe in. And yet, here we find ourselves apparently welcoming socialism with open arms because we are afraid. Our leaders in Washington have chosen not to lead. Rather than reassure Americans that even though times may be tough we will get through it because that is who we are, they play chicken-little, cry that the sky is falling, and promote fear and panic because it serves their agenda.

This isn't the first time we have been down this road. The events surrounding the Great Depression of the 1930's are similar in some ways to today, and eerily enough, both the Bush and Obama administrations seem bent on repeating the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. Spend, spend, and spend some more, expand government and restrict freedoms. Normally we the people would resist such attempts, but we are less likely to do so when reduced to a panic by our leadership and the MSM.

It is time to stop being afraid. We need to take a hard look in the mirror and be willing to stand up and say NO.

No, I will not give up my freedoms in exchange for a promise of security. Benjamin Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both. I believe that is true, and I say NO. The price is just too high.

We owe it to our children to stand firm and fight for our principles. We owe it to them to find a way to appeal to the common sense of Americans, to let them know they are not alone, to stand together and make sure America remains the land of the free, home of the brave.

Obama and his supporters in Congress tell us that without the spendulus bill right-now! we would inevitably face an economic "catastrophe." I don't believe that is true, but if it is, then so be it. I would rather risk facing a depression and emerge with our freedoms intact, than give up the heart and soul of this great nation and be forced into socialism.

This country isn't perfect, but it is great. It is, and has been, a beacon of freedom and hope to the world, and I want to keep it that way. That is the country I want my children to inherit.

Read full post >>

Broken Promises


Sigh. I realize that broken promises go with politicians like chocolate fudge goes with ice cream, but come on. It's only been 25 days and seven promises from just this one speech have already gone by the wayside.

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it "Impossible" for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You'll know what's in it
7. We will put every pork barrel project online

Let's see.

Impossible for pork to be slipped in? Almost the entire bill is pork! We're told there are "no earmarks" in this bill, and that's only because all the pet projects are just part of the bill and therefore no need to slip them in as earmarks. At least with earmarks, we'd be able to see who put each project in. But as it stands, we have no idea who is responsible for each of the "porky" projects. So while they're telling us it's more transparency, it's actually much less.

No more secrecy? The bill was written with no Republican input, much less public input. The final negotiations took place behind closed doors, with Republicans completely shut out (including the three who had promised to vote for it). They didn't have an "open" meeting until the negotiations were over.

Not only did the public not get access to the bill until the 11th hour, but Congress didn't even have access to the final bill until just a few hours before they were expected to vote on it. There was no time to actually read it, and they didn't get it in a web-based, searchable format, they got 8 inches of paper. Obama is set to sign it on Tuesday, the first business day after the House and Senate passed it.

So much for 5 days time for the public to review before it is signed into law, not to mention the 48 hours we were supposed to have to review before it was voted on.

And these are just the broken promises that are relevant to this one particular bill. We were promised a "new era of bipartisanship," the "most ethical administration in history," with "no lobbyists" in the administration.

What we got instead was Nancy Pelosi rewriting the rules of the House to bar the minority party from offering alternative bills, amendments to bills, or even having a guarantee of open debate.

What we got instead was one cabinet pick after another riddled by ethics issues.
- Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary - nonpayment of taxes (confirmed anyway)
- Tom Daschle, Head of HHS - nonpayment of taxes and conflict of interest (finally withdrew from consideration, but Obama was prepared to stand by him despite the fact that any other citizen with so much backtaxes owed would be in jail)
- Bill Richardson - Commerce Secretary, withdrew when the fact that he was under investigation for ethics violations surfaced
- Hilda Solis - tax issues & conflict of interest issues - confirmation hearings not yet complete
- Nancy Killefer - "Performance Czar" (newly created position) - tax issues
- Hillary Clinton - conflict of interest, confirmed anyway
- David Ogden - Deputy Atty General, has defended the porn industry and opposed a law that would protect children from predators on the internet.

As for the "no lobbyists" rule? Instead, he started filing for exemptions almost as soon as the rule was passed. What's the point in setting a standard if you have no intention of actually living up to it? Oh yeah, he's hoping no one is paying attention.

The so-called most "ethical" administration ever has been a big disappointment so far, and it's only been 25 days. It's going to be a long four years.

Read full post >>

Porkulus passes


Despite the efforts of many people like myself calling and emailing Washington, the so-called "stimulus" bill was passed. 246 members of the House and 60 senators (barely the number needed to pass the bill) voted in favor of a bill that was over 1,000 pages long, that they just received at 11pm the night before, and that not a single one of them had actually read in it's entirety.


Because "something" has to be done, and it has to be done right-now-hurry-up-don't-bother-with-the-details, or we will face certain catastrophe. Well, this bill is "something" all right. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will actually harm the economy in the long run. Not only that, the bill is loaded with pork and pet projects that will do little or nothing to actually boost the economy.

This wasn't the only option. Jim DeMint proposed an alternative, as did TCOT (personally I like the TCOT plan!). Republicans in the House and Senate had suggestions and alternative plans but were completely shut out of the process at every step of the way.

But this isn't about party politics. I don't care what party you belong to, and the Republicans by and large have hardly been good examples of fiscal restraint. That's why they keep losing elections. But putting all that aside, this is about the future of our country, it's about what kind of country we will leave our children.

Here are a few highlights from the week.

This bill was thrown together so hastily it still has handwritten notes. Congress not only voted on a bill they hadn't read, they voted on a rough draft:

Not only that, in doing so they broke their own 48-hour rule, which requires that any new legislation be made available to the public online, in searchable form, for 48 hours before it is voted upon. So much for transparency.

Some of our elected officials were blatant in their disregard and contempt for the American people during this process:

Correction, Senator - the American people DO care (and the pork is hardly tiny). I can only hope that the people in your state show you just how much they care when you are up for re-election.

John Kerry articulated just how little faith the "elites" in Washington have in the American people:

Yeah, heaven forbid we actually - GASP - trust the American people with their OWN money. No, we can't have that. I ask you, Senator, what *guarantee* do we have that OUR money will be spent wisely by the government? None whatsoever.

And all that is before we get into the fact that they managed to slip socialized medicine into an economic bill. No disclosure, no debate. More contempt for the will of the people. More to come on that.

I'm disgusted. I'm utterly disgusted. I don't know what else to say. Well, I do but it will have to wait...

Read full post >>

We are all socialists now?

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 Comments

Saw this on Glenn Beck last night, wanted to vomit.

If this pork-laden spendulus bill passes, well, this is reality. How can this possibly stimulate the economy when it will pull billions upon billions of dollars (into the trillions with interest) OUT of the private sector through taxes?

GWB started us on this path with the TARP nonsense (with a little help from Pelosi and Reid). And BHO seems determined to finish what they started. We're told the current porkulus bill is just the "first step." A new TARP 2 is already in the works. Where does it end? At what point do we find ourselves so far down the road to socialism that we can't find our way back?

How will we possibly explain this to our children someday? They, and their children, will be left with the bill because our government believed that "only government" could solve our problems when in fact what we need is for government to step out of the way, give us OUR money back and let the people solve this. With that money, businesses small and large would be able to hire people. Individuals would be able to buy goods and services. All of this would stimulate the economy, without any bureaucrat involvement.

Visit to sign the petition.

Visit Take the TCOT Challenge to tell what you would do with more money in your pocket (if taxes were reduced).

Read full post >>

What do you believe in?

Saturday, February 7, 2009 Comments

Glenn Beck has a project going on to show the American people we are not alone. If you believe in at least seven out of the nine following principles, he asks that you email your picture to

1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.

2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.

3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.

Read more about it at:

Read full post >>

Change we can't afford

Sunday, February 1, 2009 Comments

Change apparently means more of the same. Or rather, changing our opinion on whether trillions of dollars in national debt is a good thing or not based on who is in charge.

From September 2008:

Obama notes that "under George Bush the debt has gone up four trillion dollars, all right? So that's the credit card we have taken out on our kids from the Bank of China that they are going to have to pay for."

I'm not sure where he got the $4 trillion number from, but since this was before the $700 billion bailout debacle, I'm guessing he is largely referring to the Iraq war. Here's an update from early January:
President-elect Barack Obama predicted Tuesday that the nation could see "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come," but said the country needs to continue spending taxpayer dollars to get the economy back on track.

So when Bush spends too much and runs up the debt, we're burdening our children (true) but when he and the Democrats propose to do the same, and to even greater levels than Bush did, then suddenly it's ok? Should we all just sit back and watch them keep spending us into oblivion for the next several years, so then it will be not only our children, but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren on the hook?

We have heard a lot of complaining about the cost of the Iraq war for years now, and yet according to the Wall Street Journal, this one bill alone would cost more than the entire Iraq war, and they're just getting started.

If this bill passes, I fear that we will be digging ourselves into a hole from which it will be nearly impossible to come out of. Look what has happened to several states which allowed out-of-control spending for years, they need a bailout. The bill just passed by the House offers that bailout to the states. But who will bail out the federal government when reality catches up with them?

Read full post >>

Stimulus watch - be informed


Thanks go out to Jules for sharing this link:

Go check it out, you can sort and view all the projects in the stimulus bill and rate them.

And don't forget to contact your senators to let them know your thoughts on the bill.

Read full post >>