I’m sure over the past months you have heard the leftists trying to discredit the Tea Party movement. Since there is no one national leader to attack or lie about, and they have not been able to produce any facts at all that would discredit the Tea Party movement, then they always come to the last page in their playbook: allege racism. Whenever you hear racist accusations leveled against an individual or organization by the left, that always means their previous attacks have been exposed and they have nothing else to say other than to play the old race card. The very old race card.

It seems that the left-wing extremist organization THINK PROGRESS has been caught using brief video clips edited together to try to prove the Tea Party movement is racist. One of the clips, a man who says he is proud to be racist, was in reality not affiliated with the Tea Party and said so as he was being repeatedly asked to leave. Other clips were from non-Tea Party events and gatherings. Here is Think Progress’s version:

This was Think Progress’s second version. The FIRST VERSION, which ran 53 seconds, had two clips of a man yelling, “Go home wetbacks” . . . until it was exposed as having been from a video recorded in 2006 at a Florida protest against illegal immigrants, well before the existence of the Tea Party. That video is now blocked from public viewing. The “new and improved” version is still on Think Progress’s website HERE with this Update statement: “One of the clips in the video had footage from a 2006 anti-immigration event, not a Tea Party rally. We regret the error and have posted an updated video.”

Non-Tea Party leftists attempting to infiltrate a Tea Party Express rally in Boston, April 2010.

Here’s “Nazi-man” at another Tea Party rally.
Here’s the “rest of the story”, with this man admitting he is not part of the Tea Party and is repeatedly being asked to leave due to the swastika emblem on his shirt. Speaking of his shirt: notice the creases and wrinkles seem to indicate that it’s right out of the box. Progressive plant? Quite possibly. Infiltration of this particular Tea Party rally was planned by Crash the Tea Party. Click HERE for details.
Think Progress has said nothing about the misleading use of the “Nazi-man” clip on their video.

Another man, quoted as saying that Obama was “too black to be president”, was taken out of context. Again, Think Progress did not dare include the man’s entire statement. Note that he is married to a black woman. Here is what he said in its entirety:

“Barack Obama’s just a bad guy. That’s all I can say. He’s . . . he’s too black to be president. And you look at the color of my wife, it’s not the color of his skin that troubles me, it’s not the blackness of his skin that troubles me. It’s the blackness inside . . . his heart. He’s a bad guy.” Think Progress failed to edit out this man’s biracial son beside him. A far cry from how he is portrayed in the Think Progress video. Attempting to use this man and making him look like a racist is another shining example of how low the left will go in its attacks.

Then there’s the man who screams, “Afro-Leninism! Coming to you on a silver platter, Barack Hussein Obama!” I haven’t been able to find out what this man meant by “Afro-Leninism”. I saw an idea put forth that it was possibly referring to Obama’s 20-year attendance and membership of a church that teaches a racist Marxist liberation theology. Or it could be a reference to Obama made by radio talk show host MICHAEL SAVAGE in 2008 as an “Afro-Leninist.” If neither of these was it, then I don’t know. I doubt Think Progress knows either. This is the closest Think Progress could come to a legitimate complaint of racism here.

Needless to say, this casts very serious doubt on the accuracy of the couple of clips not covered here. If Think Progress will knowingly lie about this much of this video, then what would stop them from the rest of it being a fraud?

Glenn Beck does an excellent expose’ of this video. He even pointed out a very old subliminal message tactic that was developed by the so-called progressives. There’s a split second photo of someone holding a sign that says, “Thank God there’s Glen (sic) Beck”. So, exactly what is racist about that? Look where it’s placed in Think Progress’s video. In between Nazi-man and someone else making racist comments. God’s and Glenn Beck’s name were placed there in hopes people would connect racism with these two names. Mr. Beck explains:

The other clips are anything but racist, such as, “We think the Muslims are coming in and taking over.” “Send [Obama] back to Kenya” is a reference to the belief that he was not born in the United States, but in Mombasa, Kenya. Definitely not racist. “We can fight al-Qaeda, but we can’t kill Obama.” Maybe a little off his nut, but no racism in this comment either. And the term “faggot”, a term I neither use nor condone, is anything but racist.

To date, Think Progress has not issued any statements about this fraudulent video other than the one noted above. Why? Because it would destroy what little credibility they have. They count on those who do not think things through and the confusion of many between what is a racial slur and a derogatory term aimed a particular group of people that has been perpetrated on the American people by the left.

And think about this: if racism is so widespread in the Tea Party movement, then how come Think Progress could not even get ONE MINUTE’S worth of footage? Take out the known outright fraudulent clips, and you do not even have HALF A MINUTE.

Here’s a final note. In a vain attempt in trying to make the Tea Party appear as a racist movement, NBC reporter Kelly O’Donnell approached a black man at the Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington, D. C. with the statement, “There aren’t a lot of African-American men at these events.” The man was Darryl Postell, and his answer to O’Donnell’s question of if he had ever felt uncomfortable at the Tea Party rally. Mr. Postell answered simply, “No . . . no, these are my people . . . AMERICANS.” (emphasis mine).

This obvious attempt to create a racial issue was completely crushed by Mr. Postell’s simple answer. ” . . . these are my people . . . Americans.” That’s right, AMERICANS, obviously a concept with which liberals have difficulty understanding. Great answer, Mr. Postell!

Here is an excellent video showing interviews by Nathaniel Stewart of a number of black people who attended the Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C. The interviewer reads quotes by leftist journalists and gets their reactions.
The answers from these fellow Americans show just how out of touch with reality liberals really are. I think the real reason the left is so up-in-arms at the Tea Party protests is that the left enjoyed center stage in the protest arena for decades. Average citizens did not participate in demonstrations and protests. They went to work every day, paid their bills, and raised their children. Now, John Q. Ordinary Citizen has seized the limelight and liberal protests greatly pale in comparison. This pre-meditated fraud is just one example of the left’s desperation to get it back.



Not that the judicial branch of our government has the Constitutional authority to override the will of “We The People”. As you undoubtedly know now, U. S. District judge SUSAN BOLTON all but eliminated Arizona’s ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW, temporarily anyway.
The overwhelming will of “We The People” in Arizona and nationally was to stop illegal immigration and favored . Passage of the law worked before it’s effective date of July 29, 2010. By mid-July, 100,000 illegal immigrants had already left Arizona. Just a little tidbit here: According to a Rasmussen POLL posted on May 20, 2010, showed 71% of Arizona voters supported the law with 24% opposing. Consider this: According to the U. S. Census Bureau REPORT from 2008 which is the latest available, 30.1% of Arizona’s population is Hispanic. So, there have to be many Hispanics in Arizona who favor it. Kind of knocks a hole in the liberals’ “racist” allegations. But then again, that’s where the leftists always go when they have nothing to support their position or simply run out of unfounded allegations. No real surprise there, just overworked.
It is quite obvious this ruling politically motivated. Judge Bolton is a former President Clinton nominee. The Democrats are notoriously well-known for appointing left wingnut activists to the courts. I would go so far to guess that Judge Bolton’s mind was already made up before the hearing in her court. Next is that Arizona merely copied Federal law. Arizona’s law only gave their state and local law enforcement the ability to enforce it. Furthermore, Judge Bolton’s ruling was not at all in line with Federal law. Federal law requires immigrants to carry documentation of their immigration status on them at all times. Judge Bolton’s ruling gave immigrants permission to not obey Federal law and told law enforcement they have no right to enforce it. Next comes the first few paragraphs of the law:
“Section 1. Intent
The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
“Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding article 8, to read:
11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
immigration laws; indemnification
Notice something? The very last sentence stated the suspect’s immigration status will be verified in accordance with already existing Federal law. Here is what that law says:

§ 1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
Click HERE to verify my source which is Cornell University’s School of Law.
Here is an excellent discussion about Judge Bolton’s ruling entitled, “WHAT JUDGE BOLTON’S INJUNCTION DOESN’T SAY.” As you can see, Judge Bolton’s ruling has no factual basis whatsoever unless she includes already existing Federal law. That certainly won’t happen. A fellow Democrat is in the White House.
There is another matter of much greater importance than the Washington politicians’ personal gain from illegal immigrants. That’s national security. This is something you will not hear anything about from any of the leftist wingnuts. From fiscal year 2009 through April 2010, according to the Federal Enforcement Integrated Database, 125 people were arrested along the southern U. S. border. Among these were two Syrians, seven Sudanese, and seventeen Iranians. All three nations are classified by the Federal government as state sponsors of terrorism. From what the Federal government classifies as “special interest countries” during the same people, two Afghans, five Algerians, 13 Iraqis, 10 Lebanese, 22 Nigerians, 28 Pakistanis, two Saudis, 14 Somalis, and three Yemenis, were also arrested along the Mexican border. And yes, Arizona had incarcerated in their Florence, Arizona facility 198 illegal Mexican immigrants, 18 Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese, Nigerian, Pakistani, Somalian, Sudanese, and Yemeni illegal immigrants.
Lest you think these illegals from these terrorist nations were just seeking a better life, Texas Border Patrol agents found Arabic clothing patches that read “martyr” and “way to immortality” along with a patch showing a jet flying into a skyscraper.
Still not convinced? A 2006 House Homeland Security Investigations Subcommittee report stated that members of Hezbollah had already entered the U. S. via the southwest border. Click HERE to read the report which includes photos. The report goes into even more detail about the massive quantities of drugs entering the U. S.
The illegal immigrant issue is about far more than poor migrant workers. Border security is of utmost importance in a post-September 11th America.
Judge Bolton was way out of line on this one. The State of Arizona has appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite it’s typical left-wing extremist rulings, the court has generally made good decisions on immigration. The court will hopefully overturn Judge Bolton.


This news is about two months old, but I haven’t had much time lately to research this. But not all of it’s old news. The pattern with this administration continues.

During the Pennsylvania primaries earlier this year, Democratic Representative Joe Sestak was running against incumbent Senator Arlen Specter. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, using Former President Bill Clinton, offered Sestak a bribe in the form of a prominent advisory position within the administration in exchange for Sestak dropping out of the race. According to the New York Times, one of the jobs offered was a position on the PRESIDENT’S INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD. Click HERE for the New York Times article.

Here’s Clinton doing the Washington Ignore the Question Dance:

As you know, Sestak refused, then went on to defeat Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

Fast forward to June 2010 and a report on Fox News, INTERVENTION IN COLORADO RACE COULD CAST PALL OVER OBAMA TRANSPARENCY MESSAGE. This time it was Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina contacted Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in the fall of 2009 to determine if Romanoff was still interested in a USAID job for which Romanoff had applied. Even though White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied making a job offer (“plausible deniability”), the rest of Messina’s inquiry was to determine “if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters”. The latter refers to the White House’s attempt to get Romanoff out of the primary race against incumbent Senator Michael Bennet. The Obama administration, by sheer coincidence I’m sure, supported Bennet.

Here’s a clip from CBS News’ Washington Unplugged with more:

Click on this link since WordPress won’t allow posting of videos the normal way by embedding:

According to the accompanying article to the video, ANDREW ROMANOFF BREAKS SILENCE ON WHITE HOUSE JOB TALKS, Messina told Romanoff that the administration would support his opponent, and three White House positions might be available if Romanoff were not in the Senate race. When Romanoff refused, no one in the White House communicated with him again.

There is obviously a pattern here. I wonder just how much of this is going on with this “transparent” administration that we don’t know about because the players involved are keeping quiet. “Change”? Not so much. Same as always, business as usual, no real “change”. Not surprising though judging from Obama’s track record.

Related articles:


Here is a story from FOX NEWS RADIO that my sister-in-law posted on her Facebook page. I of course was interested as it was concerning an attempt at suppression of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Interestingly enough, it happened in North Carolina, where U.S. House Representative Bob Etheridge is from. As you may recall from an earlier post of mine, he is the one who physically assaulted a college student doing a class project that dared question Etheridge’s position on the Obama agenda. North Carolina voters, you have got some real pieces of work there, just Remember in November.


by Todd Starnes

A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.


“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.

Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”

“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”

When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of HOUSE SPEAKER JOE HACKNEY.

“I told her I was highly offended when she asked me not to pray in the name of Jesus because that does constitute my faith,” Baity said. “My faith requires that I pray in His name. The Bible is very clear.”

When the clerk returned, Baity said he was told that he would be allowed to deliver the day’s prayer – but after that – his services would no longer be needed.

Hackney, a Democrat, and House Republican Leader Paul Stam released a joint statement to FOX News Radio:

“It has been our practice in the North Carolina House of Representatives for many years to request, but not require, that our guest chaplains deliver a nonsectarian prayer. This is intended as a show of respect for all the religions practiced by the members of the House and the people we represent.”

“In this instance, we allowed Pastor Baity to deliver his prayer, without interference, even though it was sectarian in nature. Nonetheless, we will review our procedures and guidelines concerning guest chaplains, and we will make sure we abide by applicable constitutional procedures. The House will adjourn within the next few days, but the results of this review will be publicly available whenever it is complete.”

Baity said he’s not happy with the way he was treated.

“When the state tells you how to pray, that you cannot use the name of Jesus – that’s mandating a state religion,” he said. “They talk about not offending other people but at the same time, if they are telling me how to pray – that’s the very thing our forefathers left England for.”

The Christian Law Association helped Baity draft a letter asking for an apology and an opportunity to return to the state capitol and finish his tenure.

“The First Amendment promises all Americans the free exercise of their religion, which includes the right to pray as their faith requires, even when they are invited to open state legislative sessions with prayer,” attorney David Gibbs told WXII-TV. “We trust that the North Carolina House of Representatives will realize its mistake and will offer Pastor Baity another opportunity to pray without requiring him to use a prayer that is mandated by government.”

Baity said he is still stunned by what happened.

“You would expect this somewhere else – Cuba, Saudi Arabia,” he told FOX News Radio. “You would never anticipate this happening in the United States of America.”

In a word – the pastor said – the decision is “anti-Christian.”

Todd Starnes is a FOX News Radio reporter and author.

First off, “we allowed Paster Baity to deliver his prayer without interference . . .” Speaker Hackney, you had no choice. Refer to the FIRST AMENDMENT, you know that pesky one up top there that guarantees EVERYONE freedom of speech, expression, and religion?

“We will review our procedures and guidelines concerning guest chaplains, and we will make sure we abide by applicable constitutional procedures.” With all due respect, Mr. Hackney, I doubt that. If you did, then there would have been no problem to start with and the clerk that started it would have been sent U.S. Constitution class 101. Of course, we all know how this “review” of “procedures” will go. Especially considering that Mr. Hackney is big buddies with none other than . . . Barack Obama.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if this were an Islamic Imam rather than a Christian minister, there would have been absolutely nothing said about his closing the prayer in the name of Allah with no regard for who it offended. This is just another outstanding example of the “tolerance” the left constantly preaches. The liberals’ definition of tolerance for all religions in reality is tolerate all religions except those which believe the Bible.


Here’s a song by Ray Stevens that sums up illegal immigration very well. Enjoy!


Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

By Diane Macedo

Published June 09, 2010


A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they “might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don’t pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

“Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,” Olson told “…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you’re wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history.”

The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the “dangerous ideas” it’s trying to protect children from: “limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy.”

And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.

“Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told “The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document.”

As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.

“By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence,” he said.

Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don’t buy from this publisher.

Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

All I have to say to this is this is obviously a “progressive” publishing company. The “progressives” have believed the Constitution is outdated as far back as 1938. A quote from the book, American Progressivism: “The Progressive Era was the first major period in American political development to feature, as a primary characteristic, the open and direct criticism of the Constitution.” The progressives believe that the limitations on the Federal government only serve to hinder the evolution of our country, and that it was only written to deal with the issues of the time. The reality is the Constitution was written to control something that has never changed for thousands of years: human nature.


Here is a video of one of Congress’s finest at his best, at least when asked about his stand on an issue.

As you can see, Representative Etheridge went totally off his nut when one of us “commoners” dared ask him a question. I don’t recall seeing anywhere in the Constitution or Federal law that requires us to show an elected official any identification to ask them a question. This is a classic example of the Democrats’ elitist attitude towards those for whom they work.

My response to Representative Etheridge, D-NC, is this: Just who are YOU to question on of US when WE want to know how you stand on a particular issue? Here’s a high school civics lesson for you Mr. Etheridge: WE THE PEOPLE vote and elect you. You represent US and carry out the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Therefore, WE are YOUR boss, NOT the other way around.

This one incident is enough to vote him out. Voters in Etheridge’s district in North Carolina, which is the Second District, vote him out. In case you don’t know if you are in Etheridge’s district or not, the Second Congressional District includes all or part of Chatham, Cumberland, Franklin, Harnett, Johnston, Lee, Nash, Sampson, Vance, and Wake Counties.

Someone with this attitude and reacting with violence to someone asking him a simple question (in this case, college students doing a class project), is certainly not level-headed enough to carry out this country’s business, especially matters of national security. Again, North Carolina voters, get this man out of office. There is absolutely no justification or excuse for this kind of behavior for any elected official from dog catcher up to Washington. Mr. Etheridge is too hot-headed to be entrusted with a Congressional seat. North Carolina voters should fire him.

Oh by the way voters, what was the question? Mr. Etheridge was asked if he fully supported the Obama agenda. Guess he doesn’t want you to know, but his reaction is your answer.