Fall of Afghanistan, A New 9/11? It This The End of Our Republic? 09/10 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative

Fall of Afghanistan, A New 9/11? It This The End of Our Republic? 09/10 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative: 

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick-A-Dee" Ubelis, and Curtis "CS" Bennett, co-host. Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey! Southern-Sense 

Former Fl. Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, From enlisted Navy to Lt. Commander to Lt. Gov. she is all that is true Americana http://www.jennifercarroll.com 

James Kitfield author of In the Company of Heroes: The Inspiring Stories of Medal of Honor Recipients from America's Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is a contributing editor and former senior national security correspondent for the Atlantic Media Company and National Journal 

Max Beckwith, Candidate for NC 7th District. Afghanistan War Vet, USMC, Business Owner, Family Man. https://max4congress 

Robert Walter, NY Regional Director of Chosen People Ministry 

Jim Carafano, Heritage Foundation's VP for National Security and Foreign Policy. 

Dedication: To the heroes and fallen of 9/11/2001

What Constitution? Do We Even Have Law And Order? 04/30 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative

What Constitution? Do We Even Have Law And Order? 04/30 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative: 

Southern Sense is conservative talk with Annie "The Radio Chick-A-Dee" Ubelis, and Jani, co-host. Informative, fun, irreverent and politically incorrect, you never know where we'll go, but you'll love the journey! Southern-Sense 

Guests:

Larry Klayman, author of It Takes a Revolution: Forget the Scandal Industry! , is founder and former chairman of the successful non-profit foundation Judicial Watch, and current chairman of Freedom Watch. 

Mary Bawden, founder of Dance Awareness: No Child Exploited 

Fred Lucas is the Chief National Affairs Correspondent for The Daily Signal. 

Jonathan Butcher is the Will Skillman Fellow in Education at The Heritage Foundation. Keeping Racist Critical Race Theory Ideology Out of K-12 Classrooms. 

Dedication: To 33 fallen Law Enforcement Officers, who died in the line of duty from COVID-19

We Need Your Prayers, TODAY

Friends,

Today, I call upon your prayers and ask you spread this message, as far and wide as possible, and ask to those you send it to, do the same.

At stake tomorrow, is the very Religious Liberty and property of our Church,The Parish Church of St. Helena, part of the Anglican Church of North America.  Back in the 1960's we were part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina became part of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TEC) and entered into a Trust with them, involving our property.  In that trust, was a clause that, should we find the need to remove ourselves from the Episcopal Church, we could do so and retain our property placed in trust.  Certain, doctrines were established as common beliefs based firmly upon the Gospel and fundamental Church teachings and laws in this union.

Our leaders, in this disassociation, joined in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) have remained true to the teachings of Our Lord Jesus, the tenets and disciplines of the Holy Gospel.  The Episcopal Church (TEC), has drifted away, following the outright violations and disregard of those very teachings, tenets and disciplines.  Since TEC no longer reflect the values we embrace, it was time to activate that clause in the Trust, which we did.

That action resulted in a law suit, demanding we immediately turn our properties, our very Churches, Homes, Graveyards and Retreats to TEC.  We have fought a valiant fight and the case went before the SC Supreme Court.  One SC Supreme Court Justice with direct and intimate ties with TEC, did not recuse herself, thus the court ruled against us.  However, we persevered and got a stay of action and brought the case to the United States Supreme Court, requesting they hear our case.

This fight has become so vicious, that a Bishop of the TEC has taken it to the gutter.  She was overheard stating that she would rather she our Church, The Parish Church of St. Helena, established since 1712, turned into a mosque.  Pray for us!

We ask for your prayers.  We ask that you make this issue go viral.  We ask for you love and support.  If we fail in this effort, then they will work furiously to suppress our religious liberty and our voices.

If we fall, then precedent set here will allow other religious groups to suppress more conservative members by threat and intimdation of taking their property, and places of worship.

But, in the words of  Luke 12:35-40 (ESV)

We Must Be Ready

³⁵ “Stay dressed for action^[a] and keep your lamps burning, ³⁶ and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. ³⁷ Blessed are those servants^[b] whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. ³⁸ If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! ³⁹ But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he^[c] would not have left his house to be broken into. ⁴⁰ You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

So, while, we may in reality lose all, we must stay true and strong in faith.  Your prayers, love and support by spreading this message will go a long way in helping us in Spirit and joy.

Thank you. May God bless and protect you . - Ann Ubelis

This past Thursday, June 7th, SCOTUS heard arguments for placing the case on their docket.  Tomorrow, June 11, 2018, they will rule as to if we will have a final day in court.  The link to the LIVE podcast, which starts at 9:30am EDT is below.

 Supreme Court LIVE Feed for June 11, 2018 - Click here

If the link doesn't work, copy and paste:

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_11_2018

Linger with Langer & Matt, Longer! 07/12 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Linger with Langer & Matt, Longer! 07/12 by Southern Sense Talk Radio | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Guest: Andrew Langer, is the President of The Institute For Liberty, and a contributor to The American Spectator, and Townhall.com. He is the host of The Langer Cast on the RELM Network.



Since 2008, Andrew has been President of the Institute for Liberty.
IFL works on a variety of issues—promoting and protecting small
business, linking trade and prosperity, tilting against the regulatory
state.  But at the organization’s core, and Andrew’s, is the desire to
promote freedom and individual rights.  Andrew has been involved in
free-market and limited-government causes for nearly 20 years, has
testified before Congress nearly two dozen times, and spoke at the
historic 912DC March.  http://www.instituteforliberty.org/index.php





Guest: Matt Fitzgibbons, PatriotMusic.com started in 2004 with the marriage of Matts’ three passions: Writing music, political philosophy and history. It’s about
award-winning, non-partisan music that celebrates the best of America
and inspires people to think, learn, and talk about individual liberty
and how to secure it. We’re interested in good music, reason and
history, not angry red versus blue arguments.



With three CDs, singles, multiple awards, live performances,
interviews on TV, radio, podcasts and newspapers, original videos, and
online shows, PatriotMusic.com has reached hundreds of thousands of
people around the world. http://patriotmusic.com/





Dedication: Army Master Sgt. Robert Horrigan, killed in action June 17, 2005 during Operation Iraqi Freedom

Will you help advance the fight or sit home?

This coming Tuesday, May 7th our battle to advance the Conservative Cause in the US House of Representatives continues with the Special Election in South Carolina District 1.  The candidates are Democrat Elizabeth Colbert-Busch and Republican Mark Sanford.  The decision should be clear, but the waters have been muddied by main stream media and political pundits.

There is no reason the Libertarians, Independents, Conservatives and Republicans shouldn't get behind Mark Sanford, but we seem to need to bring Republicans to the polls kicking and screaming.  Let's see if we can calm these temper tantrums and speak logically and bring it down to six main points, they are:

1. Mark Sanford did not get the support of the National Republican Congressional Committee which dates back to 1866.  This first and foremost should be the reason we must support and vote for him.  He is not a Washington insider, but he knows Washington as well as they do and they fear him.  He makes the RINO's (Republican In Name Only) apocalytic! He will make enemies, but when he joins forces with Mick Mulvaney and Trey Goudy, they will weld a powerful block of power on behalf of the 1st District in Congress.
2. Mark Sanford has garnered the endorsement of Rand Paul and other conservative leaders and groups.
3. Mark Sanford has a proven track record as a fiscal conservative.  He angered the RINO's in the State House by challenging them to cut pork from the state budget by showing up with the two piglets "Pork" and "Barrel".  Yes, it was a publicity stunt, but he poignantly got the point across.  You have to love his originality and courage to buck the "Old Boy's Network".  His ability to tangle with the RINOs in this state's Congress helped South Carolina rein in a runaway budget and enact state legislation to prevent and hinder Federal intrusion.  It speaks volumes.
4. Yes, Ethic Violations were leveled against Governor Sanford.  However, he publicly stated, that in line with his fiscal conservative policy, he would not fight the charges, in order to save the State the cost of a trial and to avoid unnecessary extended publicity.  The charges were neither proven or disproved.  Which would you have preferred? A protracted drawn out public media circus over a trial  at great taxpayer expense? Or a swift end of the incident with repayment of all budget expenses and fines, which enabled our elected officials to continue to concentrate of the budget and pending legislation.
5. Yes, Mark Sanford had an affair. If having an affair was criminal, half of the married couples would find their spouse in jail.  He has been compared to Bill Clinton by his opponent who inferred he should have been impeached.  We are talking apples and oranges.  Mark Sanford sinned, but he did not commit a crime.  Bill Clinton, not only sinned, he committed a crime. President Clinton was impeached for the criminal act of lying under oath.  He was found guilty of perjury.  Mark Sanford did not perjured himself.  He did not commit a crime. He has been out spoken, honest and repentant about the incident.
6. Recently, charges were leveled against Mark Sanford of violating an order of protection issued to his wife against him preventing him from entering her home.  The incident centered around he escorting his son home on Superbowl Sunday at Half-Time.  Rather than leave his son home alone because his wife was out of time, he attempted to call her on his cell and remained so his son would not be at home, alone watching the game.  Now tell me, who has not had difficult relationships and break-ups?  Divorces are nasty and messy.  Often innocent events get grossly blown out of proportion.  That said, an even more serious question should be asked.  Who violated a court order that sealed the document?  Who committed a crime to publicly expose the incident to derail Mark Sanford's campaign? Why is this crime not being investigated and the culprit brought to justice?

The Progressives are watching this race closely.  Nancy Pelosi has poured funds into Elizabeth Colbert-Busch's campaign in the tune of over $300,000, yet Mrs. Busch claims she will be independent.  Nancy Pelosi has already begun her campaign to regain the Speakers Chair.  For those who say they cannot vote for Mark Sanford, remember this, if you fail to vote then you have helped cast a vote for Colbert-Busch and thus aided Nancy Pelosi in her agenda.

The final question is, if a Nation can forgive Bill Clinton his sins and re-elect him to a second term, then what is stopping us for forgiving Mark Sanford his sins and making him work hard for the Conservative issues?

I for one am voting this Tuesday, will you and help us retain the House of Representatives?

Do you know the answer to this riddle?

I was sitting in my Archie Bunker chair feeling miserable with the flu, when a friend forwarded a chain email letter.  You know, one of those that has been forwarded through who knows how many other people and in the end tells you to forward it to ten other people.

The emails usually attribute a quote from Andy Rooney or Paul Harvey and 90% are often wrong when they do.  In this case Paul Harvey was attributed with something Lee Pitts wrote in his 1995 book "People Who Live At The End Of  Dirt Roads".  But, I scrolled down to the end anyway.

At the end was a riddle, which read, "What is greater than God, More evil than the devil, The poor have it, The rich need it, And if you eat it, you'll die?".  As I sat there feeling miserable hoping I would feel better for church tomorrow, this first thought that popped into my head was, "That's stupid, there's nothing greater than God!", then the light bulb went off.

I know the answer - It's NOTHING!
Nothing is greater than God,
Nothing is more evil than the Devil,
The poor have Nothing,
The rich need Nothing,
If you eat Nothing, you will die! 

To answer the riddle, you only need to believe in God and know

that God is the Alpha and Omega, therefor, nothing can be greater than he.  Once you hold that in your heart all of the other questions answer themselves.   Somehow, I started to feel just a little bit better and I knew God was with me always.

Why I won't support Gay Marriage - Don't get angry yet, read on!

Have you read the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, the Supreme Law of our land?  If not, I'll help you (forgive the sarcasm):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice, please the section in RED.  I shall reiterate "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (of religion).

Now, I'll explain, simply Marriage is a RELIGIOUS RITE, not a governmental function.  CIVIL UNIONS, of which you receive a "Marriage License, which in fact is a CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE" is governments function.

Simply put, Marriage is Religious.

Civil Unions are Government recognized and subject to all of the rights, benefits and legal ramifications that can not and must not fall under a religious ceremony/rite.

Couples may and do CIVILLY UNITE outside of religious institutions.  Couples unite outside of GOVERNMENT SANCTIONS and are prohibited from receiving the benefits, which the Rainbow League claims to be fighting for.  They unite BY CHOICE for various and inconceivable reasons. They also marry outside of religious institutions - The Civil license which you purchase, that document you get at town hall!  A civil contract between two people to share their lives, assets, child & pet custody.

Marriage is a Religious Rite, where two people agree to unite their souls, hearts and lives under the eyes of God within their Church, Temple, Mosque or Shrine.  One is spiritual - Marriage, the other legal - Civil Unions.

This is the heart of the Gay Marriage issue.  The overthrow of religions and the implementation of government authority over God.

They are attempting to force us to accept the Marriage in place of the Civil Union recognition.  By altering state laws and federal laws, Civil Unions as each state recognizes covers the inheritance benefits of ALL COUPLES, regardless of sexual preference.  The local license issued to recognize that union should be proof enough.  It is not.  By redefining Marriage, you redefine all religions and place them now under government control and regulation.

The calling for Marriage alters the definition BY LAW of a religious rite.  In effect, they redefine a religion by telling all religions what a Marriage is by law.  Therefore, if a religion  recognizes same sex unions as unacceptable in the eyes of God, but is tolerant in society, government has the power to FORCE them to perform same sex marriage.  They can dictate and police your chosen religion!

If you think I am wrong, look to New Jersey, where a Christian organization denied a same sex couple access to their property so they may be married.  A Judge ruled in favor of the couple, stating that social justice must trump religious belief.  This is wrong not only in it's violation of the 1st Amendment which I quoted at the beginning of this rant, but also violated property rights.  Government can now tell you what activities can and can not be performed on your private property.  Finally, what about free speech, to vocally debate ANY issue without penalty?

I do not hate gays/lesbians or anyone else.  I do object when they attempt overtake my religion by imposing their dictates and mores.  It is not just Christianity, of which I am a proud member, but Judaism, Islam and all others, for which I speak.  They should also speak out & NOW!

Government has no business in defining a religions belief, they have no Constitutional basis in defining marriage.  The LEGAL recourse is the recognition of Civil Unions.  If a religion DOES recognize same sex unions, then THEY can perform that marriage, just don't demand my church does so! 

So, I say, what about you?

 

Bogus Micro-Chips Risks Military & Civilian Lives & Safety

 

Since 2005 The US Commerce Department has warned of an increase of the import of counterfeit microchips which are used in Military Hardware, including F-15 jets, as well as civilian applications such as power grids and nuclear reactors.  The US Military has purchased over 59,000 of these chips.

Many of these chips are cheap knock-offs, while others are "Trojan Horses" programmed to fail intentionally.

As this story breaks, look for updates on the Southern Sense radio show and this blog!

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB - ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB

We need to call, email or FAX members of the US Senate and protest an upcoming bill.  S 679 is titled: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 The complete text is here: Click Here This bill removes from the Senate the power to vote their consent for Senior Government Appointments, placing in the Office of the President powers contrary to those accorded in the Constitution.  While it is tacit that the process to name and approve these appointments needs to be streamlined, it should not be upon the backs of our rights and freedoms declared in the United States Constitution. The Constitution's Appointment Clause reads: "... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." The Heritage Foundation wrote in a recent article the following: "The Senate Should Preserve, But Speed Up, Its Role in Senior Presidential Appointments When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate's consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office. Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head."   By removing these offices from the Senate consent process, they diminish the power of the Senate and increase the power and role of the Presidency, further reducing the Checks and Balances set up by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.  Furthermore, S 679 does not determine if the offices named in the bill are of "little or no consequence".  Rather, it deems that because the Senate is too slow, the sponsors feel that they should streamline the process and bypass the Senate Confirmation process.  Now wouldn't it make more sense that if speeding up the process of appointments, then the Senate shouldn't the Senators review their internal process and look to modify it?  Also, the Executive Branch  should look internally at their own procedures in an effort to streamline the vetting process which has become over-burdensome and invasive as it travels through the federal bureaucracy before reaching the Senate.  As usual, this legislation uses a sledgehammer to fix a problem, when a Love-Tap is more appropriate.  Legislation should not be necessary to "mandate" that the President tell his staff to cut the layers of bureaucracy, communicate with other departments and agencies (You know - Play nice boys!), nor to tailor the vetting process to the needs of the actual job the appointment is being made.  The "Working Group"created under the Executive Branch and appointed directly by the President not only is an additional power grab, but another layer of bureaucracy we can ill afford and a relinquishment of powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. ** More than 200 positions will be affected - this is a sampling of some of the Appointments to be directly under the Power of the President: The Agriculture Department's Commodities Credit Board Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Administrator The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information The Defense Department's Assistant Secretary for Networks and Information Integration The Assistant Secretaries of each of the armed services for financial management The Education Department's Assistant Secretary for Management Education's Commissioner of Education Statistics All 7 of the Assistant Secretaries of Energy The Department of Homeland Security's Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness Homeland Security's Assistant Administrator of FEMA for Grant Programs The Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer The Treasurer of the United States Director of the US Mint The Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (amending Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank (amending Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund (amending Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act) Managing Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service The Office of Management and Budget's Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management Director of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund  If this doesn't scare you?  How about this fact - The bill sponsor is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and includes Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) as co-sponsor.  The following Republicans also signed onto S 679: Alexander (TN) Brown (MA) Collins (ME) Johanns (NE) Kyl (AZ) Lugar (IN) McConnell (KY) Hot Air also has a good article on this boondoggle! Read it here!

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE NOW AND TELL THEM

VOTE NO!

ON S 679 AND ANY COMPANION BILLS THAT WILL DIMINISH THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND INCREASE THE POWER ACCORDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

How All Liberal S.I.N. (So Says The Herman Cain)

The following editorial was published in my local paper (link embedded below).  Please read and an my online response to it.  It is amusing!  Enjoy!

National health care not a radical change
Published Friday, January 21, 2011
Read more: http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/01/21/1517941/national-health-care-not-a-radical.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1BnIloPeG

     Let me see if I have this right.  Many citizens of the United States, along with some politicians in Congress, have access to: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, disaster recovery (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.), yet they are objecting to a national health care program that will help 32 million uninsured Americans. And why? Because they don't want the government running their lives? Who's selling whom the farm?
     Stop and think about that for a moment. "Ludicrous" comes to my mind. That along with all this political posturing lately gives me a headache. If there are some things wrong with the health care law, then address those specific issues by prioritizing. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
     Wake up, America, and tell your elected officials to concentrate on more important things, such as bank bonuses, pork-barrel spending and a "Weeper of the House" who incites vitriol. Besides, I didn't vote for him as president, and he doesn't speak for me.
     Finally, I see a modest recovery under way in spite of all the negativity. President Barack Obama is doing his job and doing it well. The proof is in the pudding.
 
Joseph W. James III Beaufort

**********************************************************

How Liberals S.I.N. (so says The Herman Cain)
(Switch the subject, Ignore the facts, Name call)

** Take a moment and find in the above editorial how the author in four simple papragraphs manages to S.I.N.  

I am always amazed at the ability of the left to ignore and distort facts and in using unrelated subjects to prove a bogus argument.  With this in mind, I may be wasting words and time on Mr. Joseph W. James III (Love how they have to quantify their name instead of just signing Joe James), but it just may make a difference to another reader.  So here goes.....

Mr. James does have one fact correct, in that he stated that "Many.... have access to:" various public programs.  The key word is "access" not mandatory participation.  The individual must voluntarily apply and meet certain criteria to be eligible for the services he mentions.  No where in the Constitution does Congress, the Executive Branch or the Judicial branch have the authority to mandate all citizens to purchase a service or good as a prerequisite to citizenship or residency.  If such a power did exist, then government could mandate that everyone  must purchase and wear only pink underwear or some other inane item or service.

The very premise of a mandate is unconstitutional, therefor the entire legislation must be nullified, because each section of it is based upon the mandate to purchase by everyone.  With this in mind, the best plan of action is to return to square one, look at the sections of the bill that can work as stand alone programs, such as forgiving pre-existing conditions, portability, etc. and begin to overhaul health care in a logical fashion.  Build a sunset clause into these programs, so that if it is found they are unsustainable, impractical or just plan failures they can die out and be replaced with workable programs that are within the framework of the Constitution.

Health care does exist on varying levels for all people (note I did not say citizens) residing within the United States.  Federal law mandates that anyone who goes to an hospital emergency room must be treated, they can not be turned away.  If the patient is indigent or lack adequate funds, each hospital has a social services department which will assist the individual obtain Medicaid, charitable funding, grants, loans or work out discounted payment plans.  They also assist in helping them to obtain follow-up care through community clinics, pro-bono doctors or medical facilities.  Medications can be obtained from the the hospital or pharmaceutical companies with their various programs at low or no costs.  I downloaded a coupon from http://www.SmartSource.com which offers a 75% discount on ANY medication at ANY pharmacy for ANY person WITHOUT insurance.  It is being offered to a local pharmacy (at my own cost of time, ink and paper) so they can use it for someone in dire need.  If Mr. Joseph W. James III is so concerned with the uninsured, maybe he'll take the time, ink and paper, to download a few of these coupons and offer them to his local pharmacy to help the uninsured.

I personally have experienced instances where I could not afford certain care.  Simply sitting down with the Doctor's staff, I was able to work out programs and payment plans which enable me to receive the full and proper care needed.  Many Doctors and Nursing staff when faced with an uninsured patient, based upon the medical and financial situation may offer their care for free.

I will agree with Mr. Joseph W. James III that we need our elected officials to concentrate on more important matters, such as "pork-barrel spending".  He can help by going to http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/ and tell Congress what programs to cut to help balance the budget.  However, he mentions bank bonuses without qualifying the statement.  This is a free market, capitalistic society, so what is wrong with making a profit or being rewarded for a job well done?  Would he deny Andruw Young his $2 million dollar contract with the Yankees or the performance bonus of an additional $1.2 million?  Would he deny Spike Lee a portion of the box office receipts on each of his movies or the royalties on the movie rentals or broadcasts?  Would he deny Michael Jordon, in his post basketball career, the dividends on his holdings or returns on his properties?  If honestly earned and not taxpayer funded, I think not. 

The idea of the big bad "Fat Cat" versus the little average Joe is being stretched too far.  Wealth, honestly earned is good.  It generates jobs, improves standards of living of those it surrounds and promotes a robust economy.  Why do others wish to tear that down, unless it is to control and impose their unconstitutional mandates upon us.

As for Mr. James W. James III attack upon Speaker of the House John Boehner, it was undignified.  Representative Boehner has not in the past, nor announced a future run for President, so I can see why he didn't vote for him.  However, when control of the House of Representatives returns to the Democrats, I do encourage him to contact his elected Representative to voice his choice for a new Speaker of the House. Barring that, maybe if he wants to be able to directly cast a vote for a new Speaker in 2012, he may want to contemplate a run for his district's seat in the next election.

I do respect Mr. Joseph W. James III opinion of the job performance of President Barak Hussain Obama and unlike others in his political party (Such as Bill Mahr, Chris Matthews, Joy Behr, etc)  have and will refrain from vitriol.  Instead, I will quietly smile and voice my opinion discretely in the voting booth next year.

May God Bless America and help us protect and defend The Constitution!

Senator Barbara Boxer Says She's Just Like A Vet Or Cop! Really?

In the latest act of stupidity, Senator Barbara Boxer compares her own and Maxine Waters accomplishments to that of the brave men and women in the military and those of police officers and fire fighters. PLEASE!  REALLY?

In a complete mockery of these tremendously brave persons, she seems to feel sitting on her posterior and doling out political favors is on par with placing one's life in the line of fire, protecting and serving the American people. 

This past July 24th in Inglewood, California at a campaign fund raiser, Ms. Boxer stated; "We know when you have veterans in one place where they can befriend each other and talk to each other.  You know when you've gone through similar things you need to share it.  I don't care if you're a policeman or a fireman or a veteran or by chance a member of congress.  Maxine and I can look at each other and roll our eyes.  We know what we are up against.  And it is hard for people who are not there to understand the pressure and the great things that go along with it and the tough things that go along with it."

In case I transcribed the words wrong, here is the YouTube video.

Really Ms. Boxer, (and no, you no longer deserve the title of Senator) are your Herculean efforts on par with running into a fire fight against an enemy who wants to destroy your country, your family and anything you hold dear?  Does your daily routine cause you to place your body between a criminal or terrorist and the innocent civilian, to take whatever blows, knife jabs and bullets in order to protect and serve the public safety?  Do your tireless duties cause you to risk life and limb by running into blazing buildings to rescue not only human victims, but pets as well? 

Ms. Boxer, please tell your constituents the one time you risked life and limb to defend or rescue them from harm?  Did you ever deliver their babies or rush them to the hospital in a medical emergency?  Did you ever spend long hours tirelessly standing duty to prevent the worst horrors from occurring to them?  And when they fell victim to some crime, where you there to help pick up the pieces, give comfort and seek out the perpetrators to bring them to justice?

Ms. Boxer, did you ever once, without doing a photo op, bring aid and much needed supplies to the neediest, without receiving a thank you, public acclaim or publishing a press release? 

Ms. Boxer, were you ever injured in a career ending line of duty incident, then sent into a bureaucratic maze of impossibility that would delay or deny your proper care and compensation?

Ms. Boxer, did you ever execute your duties according to the laws and your training, only to find yourself on the wrong end of a civil or criminal prosecution, fearing the loss of your financial security, job security or even your very freedom?

Ms.Boxer, did you ever walk out of your comfy home on your way to work and leave your spouse and children to wonder if you will make it home alive or even in one piece at the end of the day, much less months long tour?  Did you ever spend months on end under fire in the most God forsaken part of the world unable to call your loved ones and let them know you're still alive?

Well Ms. Boxer, when you have walked in the real shoes of veterans, police officers or fire fighters, then you will earn our respect.  Until then, spare us your sanctimonious and pompous statements.  From whence do I speak?  I speak from experience as a retired, disabled in the line of duty, Police Officer!  I stand in awe of our fire fighters and fellow police officers.  And, in greater awe of our military men and women, who give up months even years away from home and family to defend us.

Shame on you, Ms. Boxer!  It is not by "chance" but choice that you are a member of Congress.  Come this November, I pray it is by the choice of your constituents that they will do more than roll their eyes by voting you out and you no longer will be one!