Thanks to our Military veterans who have served and given of their time, their soul, and their lives.

Thanks to all of our fellow military families, both active and retired.  Without the sacrifices of our military families, our nation would not be where it is today.  There are too many elected politicians who have no idea of what it is like to serve our great nation.  They are only politicians with a different agenda such as a community organizer.

Below is a poem for our military on Veteran's Day....


And now they're coming home to us with glory in their eyes.

Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!

Our hearts are turning home again and there we long to be,

In our beautiful big country beyond the ocean bars,

Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

Our boys have seen the Old World as none have seen before.

They know the grisly horror of the German gods of war:

The noble faith of Britain and the hero-heart of France,

The soul of Belgium's fortitude and Italy's romance.

They bore our country's great word across the rolling sea,

"America swears brotherhood with all the just and free."

They wrote that word victorious on fields of mortal strife,

And many a valiant lad was proud to seal it with his life.

Oh, welcome home in Heaven's peace, dear spirits of the dead!

And welcome home ye living sons America hath bred!

The lords of war are beaten down, your glorious task is done;

You fought to make the whole world free, and the victory is won.

Now it's home again, and home again, our hearts are turning west,

Of all the lands beneath the sun America is best.

We're going home to our own folks, beyond the ocean bars,

Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

From the campaign trail to the White House, Obama has been after "our money" to push all of his socialist ideas and policies.  He has used our money to fund bailouts of banks, private companies, unions, organizations helping illegal immigrants, and big government.  There is a new film that you must see that reveals his plan.

Taking aim at the Obama administrations economic record, a new documentary is looking to ride a wave of government resentment to the unusual heights of blockbuster status.

The makers of "I Want Your Money," which uses animation plus interviews with conservative-leaning pundits, know their core audience--the American taxpayer.  They have tapped one of the few marketing companies with experience in attracting conservative-leaning voters to movies. Motive Entertainment worked on "The Passion of the Christ" and "Expelled," films that exceeded box office expectations.

"Its all about connecting with the core motivation and value of the taxpayers who value our Constitution," said Paul Lauer, CEO and founder of Motive Entertainment. For "The Passion of the Christ," that meant reaching out to faith-based groups. "I Want Your Money" is seeking out other targets - conservative talk-show hosts and "tea party" affiliates.

The YouTube trailer for the film, which opens Oct. 15, has been viewed more than 2.5 million times.  The movie's stinging rebuke of President Obama's stewardship of the nation's foundering economy has another arrow in its marketing quiver - the film's narrator and driving force, director Ray Griggs.

The documentary will succeed or fail based on its entertainment value, not partisan finger-pointing, said Eddie Schmidt, president of the International Documentary Association and an Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker ("Twist of Faith" and "This Film Is Not Yet Rated").

Documentary films rarely take in more than a few million dollars at the box office and sometimes fail to make a fraction of that amount. "Fahrenheit 9/11" made $119 million during its 2004 theatrical run, a figure more akin to a superhero sequel than a cinematic commentary.  However, the media and even schools hyped the film so many people went to the movies to see it and we now know that much of the film was a "lie".

Since this film is not dependent upon the media, it will be successful with the average American citizen who is worried about Obama's socialism and the disdain that he has for American values, self-reliance, fewer taxes, and less government.  We all need to see this film.  Also, vote in November...kick the bums out.

We have been saying for years that our southern border is as unsecured and dangerous as the border between Iraq and Iran.  Now that Senator McCain is in a real primary race with J.D. Hayworth, he has changed his opinion of border security with illegal aliens and drug runners. 

The Mexican drug violence is all across the United States and due to limited drug routes, more and more people across our southern border are being threatened and killed.  With border violence flaring again, the two U.S. senators from Arizona on Monday called on President Obama to deploy 3,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in their state, saying the borders must be secured before the White House pursues a broader immigration bill.

Due to Senator McCain's "open border comprehensive immigration reform", he wants to show us that he is tough on illegal immigrants before he gives them US rights and allow these law-breakers a path to our citizenship so they vote with the liberal Democrats against us.

The call from Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans, was made the same day Arizona's Legislature approved a bill to make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure.  We are glad that the current DHS Secretary is not in Arizona so the state legislatures can finally pass legislation that will target the illegals with breaking current laws.

"It's a very important step forward," said Mr. McCain, who in the past had fought for a broad bill legalizing illegal immigrants but who on Monday said illegal immigration has led to deteriorating security in Arizona.

The senators said they want Mr. Obama to deploy 3,000 National Guard troops until Arizona's governor certifies that the government has operational control. They also said an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents should be sent to the state over the next five years.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Kyl called on the Justice Department to expand a program that guarantees illegal immigrants serve time in jail, rather than being immediately sent back across the border. Mr. Kyl said the program has shown great promise where it's been used. A Homeland Security spokesman said the administration is evaluating law enforcement options, including using the National Guard, but pointed to strides made over the past five years to boost the U.S. Border Patrol.

"The Border Patrol is better staffed today than at any time in its 85-year history," said spokesman Matt Chandler, pointing to the more than 4,000 agents in Arizona and 20,000 total across the country, or more than twice the number compared with six years ago.

Security along the border has become a national issue again after a rancher was killed on the U.S. side of the border in what authorities say could have been related to a drug cartel, and after two U.S. citizens and a Mexican employee of the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, were killed. Both incidents happened last month.

"Things are out of control. We need the help of troops that are deployed along the border," said Paul R. Babeu, sheriff of Pinal County in central Arizona, who appeared with Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever and the two senators at a news conference at the Capitol.

Sheriff Babeu said he has seen a marked increase in the past four months in the aggressiveness of those crossing the border illegally and that they are more frequently armed.

He said illegal immigrants have figured out that police rules require officers to stop pursuits if citizens are endangered. That has led to illegal immigrants intentionally trying to run other drivers off the road in an effort to force police to give up the chase.

Republicans' push to highlight border security could hurt Mr. Obama's efforts to pass an immigration bill this year. Last year, Ms. Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration, said the U.S. border was secure enough that Congress should enact a bill to legalize the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and provide a way for more foreign workers.

But Republicans are questioning that idea after the recent killings, including that of Rob Krentz, a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border who may have been targeted by drug cartels.

In the wake of that killing, the Arizona Legislature has acted. The bill sent Monday to the governor would require police to conduct immigration-status checks when they find someone they think might be in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be there without authorization.

It also makes it illegal to knowingly hire or transport illegal immigrants.

"Most of us in law enforcement welcome this legislation," said Sheriff Babeu. He said it brings uniformity to the state, so all police know what's expected of them, and illegal immigrants know the penalties.  For Mr. McCain, who is now involved in a tough primary battle with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Monday's embrace of a security bill was controversial.

He was a key author of an immigration-reform bill a few years ago and was a chief backer of efforts in 2006 and 2007 to pass a measure through the Senate. But after that 2007 bill failed, Mr. McCain said voters need to be convinced that the borders are secure before they will accept any action on legalizing illegal immigrants.

Mr. Hayworth called Mr. McCain's move an "election-year gimmick," while immigrant rights groups said they felt betrayed by a former ally.  "What a sad day," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a leading advocacy group. "Obviously, John McCain is fighting for his political life in Arizona. I sure miss the days when he fought for his principles."

I hope the voters of Arizona do not give McCain a free pass on this issue---vote for J.D.

The Obama administration is giving a know terrorist who killed American citizens more rights than our brave members of the Navy Seals.  That's right---the Obama liberal justice system is going after five Navy Seals who captured a known and targeted terrorist.  What is wrong with this radical attack on our troops who have been given the mission of killing terrorists?  These five brave men captured this terrorist and hit him so they are now the bad guys?  They should have killed him.

The terrorist who was captured by the American Seal team killed Americans through an ambush in Fallujah , Iraq. Their bodies were dragged around in the streets of the city, then burned and hung from the upper trusses of a bridge. The murderers gathered to celebrate and have their photos taken with the trophy.

A Navy Seal team was formed to go after this terrorist and now are facing criminal charges because, somewhere along the timeline of his capture, the terrorist murderer suffered a school-yard fat lip, his captors are now being charged with nothing short of war crimes and facing discharge and imprisonment.

So, instead of celebration of justice served and heroes honored, these men are facing trial and prison because they hit a terrorist.

The mother of slain Blackwater guard Jerry Zovko drove from Ohio to give each of the accused SEALs a blessed rosary and lend them her support. "These young SEALs are in this situation because they caught the mastermind behind the death of my son (and others), and not only my son and his co-workers but also the marines who went into Fallujah after their death," said Donna Zovko. "I am very proud of these young SEALs and thankful to them. They did not do anything wrong."

I perceive more symptoms of a sickness, a corruption of the nation's heart and soul. I am tempted to label it 'liberalism' or 'progressivism', but those too are just symptoms of the infection. But this is nothing new, I recognized these symptoms four decades ago in the shameful treatment of our warriors returning from Vietnam, in the acceptance of Marines bombed in Beirut, in the ho-hum yawn of media coverage of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), in the return to mental numbness after 9/11, prosecution of the Marines of Haditha, assault of recruiters across the country, anti-war protesters at the gates of Walter Reed Army Hospital...

Our nation must stand up and support our Navy Seals and demand that the Obama liberal justice system be stopped.  Our military must be supported in time of war or bring them home.  Better yet, we need to throw out this anti-American administration and put a real President in the White House who supports the values of our military and society.

The US Supreme Court just corrected the "freedom of speech" for all Americans during political campaigns.  The US Congress wrongfully passed legislation that limited our freedom of speech that protected incumbant elected officials.  We need a campaign contribution system that is transparent and immediately records contributions.  The below article is from the Washington Times.

In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races - reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process.

The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden.

Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking.

Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections.

In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to "ancient First Amendment principles."

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002.

Justice Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas.

Sounding dire in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the decision an unprecedented assault on the court's principle of "stare decisis," or reliance on precedent.

"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution," Justice Stevens said.

He said the ruling turns over power to corporations and unions at the expense of political parties, who will have a tough time fighting back because of the restrictions on their own fundraising and spending.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Alan Grayson, Florida Democrat, called the ruling "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that slaves could never be citizens, nor were they entitled to constitutional protections.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, immediately vowed to try to pass a bill to overturn the ruling. They acknowledged that it would be difficult, but said there could be room to attach new rules to corporate political ad spending.

"This threatens the viability of our democracy. This threatens the viability of what we're all about here," Mr. Van Hollen said.

The case stemmed from "Hillary: The Movie," released by conservative nonprofit group Citizens United. The group wanted to be able to run television ads promoting the 90-minute documentary, a critique of presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But the Federal Election Commission said that amounted to political communication financed by corporate funds, which was banned by federal law. Under campaign-finance laws, corporations are forced to create separate political action committees, which were bound by myriad fundraising, spending and reporting rules.

Citizens United sued, and the decision has been steadily moving up the federal courts for the past two years.  President Obama also promised to try to curb the decision.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," the president said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia Law School, said it will be difficult for Congress to craft legislation to limit business spending, since most corporate law is written at the state level.

He also said it's not immediately clear how much will change in campaign finance, but expressed doubt about the dire predictions. He noted that about half of states had banned corporations from making independent political expenditures and half had allowed it.

"I don't think you could see one was demonstrably more politically free," he said.

Thursday's ruling does strike down state laws that banned independent corporate political spending.

Those who fought for more campaign freedom cheered the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has restored a part of the First Amendment that had been unfortunately stolen by Congress and a previously wrongly decided ruling of the court," said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission and current senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The Supreme Court first heard the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, in its 2008-09 term, but instead of issuing a ruling, the court asked that the case be reheard to address the fundamental questions of restrictions on corporations.

The case was reheard in September and was the first in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor heard oral arguments. She sided with the court's minority in Thursday's decision.

In the wake of the ruling, a number of groups erroneously accused the court of lifting the limits on corporate contributions to political candidates. The decision does not end those limits, which require any contribution to be made by a corporation's political action committee, which must abide by strict rules.

"The opinion very specifically talks about and upholds the limits on contributions," Mr. von Spakovsky said.

The decision also doesn't overturn the ban on so-called "soft money," the uncapped donations to political parties that had swamped the political process in the 1990s.

The court, ruling 8-1, also upheld the law's requirements that any group running political ads must disclose the names of its contributors. Justice Thomas dissented from that part of the decision, arguing that there is a right to anonymous speech that is being circumscribed by the disclosure and reporting requirements.

Our Department of Education and Unions ask our teachers to do the below, instead of teaching the students English, history, math, and other subjects.  Our schools systems have serious problems since we now dump all of the social problems on teachers.

 After being interviewed by the school administration, a prospective teacher said:  

Let me see if I've got this right.  You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.  

You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

     
You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job.  

You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.
 
You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.  

You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.
     
You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

So what is wrong with our education system?  Ask any teacher....