has written 202 articles so far, you can find them below.

Who’s Looking out for you? Another tough day in Hawaii

By GOPUSA Staff December 30, 2011 8:59 am

Have you seen any coverage of the president’s $4,000,000 vacation in Hawaii? Never fear, the British press is doing the job that American media refuses to do.

Yes, your president spent yesterday on the links, but this time with a john. That’s not with John, it’s with a john, arrested, convicted and vacationing in Hawaii with the leader of the free world. His name is Robert ‘Bobby’ Titcomb, and the UK Daily Mail will tell you rest of the story and even show you some pictures.

Just lay those unpaid bills aside and settle in to see how rough your president has it.


A five-course meal at Honolulu’s priciest restaurant after golf with his hooker-loving buddy… Obama faces another tough day in Hawaii







President Obama is clearly not roughing it as he plays a lot of golf between trips to the beach with his wife and two daughters. But as the commander-in-chief teed off at the Ko’olau Golf Club yesterday, the one thing more eye-opening than his handicap is who he golfs with.

With him at Ko’alau was Robert ‘Bobby’ Titcomb, a close friend of Obama’s since high school, who was arrested in a prostitution sting. Titcomb was one of four men who allegedly approached an undercover police officer for sex in downtown Hawaii on April 4. A judge fined him $500 but accepted his request for a deferral, meaning the charge will be wiped off his record if Titcomb stays out of trouble for six months.

After several hours on the course with Titcomb and two others, the president kicked back with the First Lady, his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, and several other friends at one of Honolulu’s priciest restaurants.

The presidential motorcade made a stop last night at Alan Wong’s Restaurant, located close to the Honolulu area where Obama spent his teenage years.

Read more…






Morgan Stanley to Cut 580 Jobs in New York

Morgan Stanley headquarters in Manhattan.Richard Drew/Associated PressMorgan Stanley headquarters in Manhattan.

Morgan Stanley will slash 580 jobs in New York as part of a broader wave of layoffs underway at the bank, according to a public filing.

In a notice filed with the New York State Department of Labor, Morgan Stanley cited “economic” woes as the cause of the layoffs. The cuts began Dec. 15 on a “rolling” basis, according to the filing, known as a WARN, or Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification.

Earlier this month, Morgan Stanley said it would cut 1,600 jobs, or 2.6 percent of its work force, by the first quarter of 2012. The bank plans to spread the round of reductions across all divisions, including investment banking and trading.

The layoffs at Morgan Stanley are the latest round of severe cutbacks on Wall Street, which has suffered a year of humbling returns and enormous cost-cutting. Citigroup recently announced it would shed 4,500 jobs. Bank of America and Goldman Sachs have also begun carrying out major staff reductions. In June, Goldman told the New York Department of Labor that it would layoff 230 New York workers through March 2012.

Morgan Stanley

The job losses have taken a toll on New York City, the center of the financial industry. The securities industry in the city lost nearly $3 billion in the third quarter, according to a report released this month by the New York State comptroller. In October, the comptroller disclosed that an estimated 10,000 Wall Street workers could lose their jobs by the end of 2012.

Some of the cuts at Morgan Stanley in New York, the filing said, will impact workers at the firm’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters, 1585 Broadway. The layoffs will also affect three smaller Morgan Stanley offices in New York: 1 New York Plaza, 750 Seventh Avenue and 1221 Avenue of Americas.

Growing wealth widens distance between lawmakers and constituents


Click Here to View Full Graphic Story

The odds were long. At 34, Myers was the shift foreman at the “hot mill” of the Armco plant here. He had no political experience, little or no money, and he was a Republican in a district that tilted Democrat.

But standing in the dining room, still in his work clothes, he said he felt voters deserved a better choice.

Three years later, he won.Back when Myers entered Congress in 1975, it wasn’t nearly so unusual for a person with few assets besides a home to win and serve in Congress. Though representatives have long been more prosperous than other Americans, others of that time included a barber, a pipe fitter and a house painter. A handful had even organized into what was called the “Blue Collar Caucus.”

But the financial gap between Americans and their representatives in Congress has widened considerably since then, according to an analysis of financial disclosures by The Washington Post.

Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House has risen 21 / times, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, rising from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the median sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan.

All figures have been adjusted for inflation and exclude home equity, which is not included in congressional reporting. The year 1984 was chosen because it was the earliest for which consistent wealth data were available.

The growing disparity between the representatives and the represented means that there is a greater distance between the economic experience of Americans and those of lawmakers.

“My mother and I used to joke we were like the Beverly Hillbillies when we rolled into McLean, and we really were,” said Michele Myers, the congressman’s daughter, now 46. “My dad was driving this awful lime green Ford Maverick, and I bought my clothes at Kmart.”

Today, this area of Pennsylvania just north of Pittsburgh is represented in Congress by another Republican, Mike Kelly, a wealthy car dealer elected for the first time in 2010. Kelly, as it happens, grew up just a few houses down the street from the Myers family, in a larger brick home.

Kelly’s dad owned the local Chevrolet and Cadillac dealership in Butler, and Kelly, an affable former football recruit to Notre Dame, had worked there since he was a kid. Three years after graduating from college, he married Victoria, an heir to the Phillips oil fortune. He eventually bought and took control of the family car business, and today, the net worth of Kelly and his wife runs in the millions of dollars, according to financial disclosure forms.

Both men refer to their personal life experiences in explaining their political outlook.

Myers, the son of a bricklayer, had worked his way through college to a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and looked at issues of work and security at least partly through the lens of his own experience. For example, he bucked other Republicans to vote to raise the minimum wage and favored expanding a program to aid workers affected by foreign imports. He said he understood the need for what was then called “the safety net.”  Read whole article

The Solyndra Scandal Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs

By  and , Published: December 25

Linda Sterio remembers the excitement when President Obama arrived at Solyndra last year and described how his administration’s financial support for the plant was helping create hundreds of jobs. The company’s prospects appeared unlimited as Solyn

dra executives described the backlog of orders for its solar panels.

Then came the August morning when Sterio heard a newscaster announce that more than a thousand Solyndra employees were out of work. Only recently did she learn that, within the Obama administration, the company’s potential collapse had long been discussed.


“It’s not about the people; it’s politics,” said Sterio, who remains jobless and at risk of losing her home. “We all feel betrayed.”

Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-
technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.

Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ­e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.

The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra.

The documents reviewed by The Post, which began examining the clean-technology program a year ago, provide a detailed look inside the day-to-day workings of the upper levels of the Obama administration. They also give an unprecedented glimpse into high-level maneuvering by politically connected clean-technology investors.

They show that as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the “optics” in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on the president’s prospects for a second term. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-
energy technology.

“What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’ ”

The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policymaking positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-
energy program.

Documents show that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision on the loan so Vice President Biden could announce it during a trip to California. The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors, but they suggest that there was an unwavering focus on promoting Solyndra and clean energy. Officials with the company and the administration have said that nothing untoward occurred and that the loan was granted on its merits.

A Message we should Follow next year … Election 2012


This is a great message for all Freedom loving Americans from Zan Green of the Rainy Day Patriots.  The Tea Party has been hit hard and it would seem that the air has been let out of the cause which is right and just.  Please read this letter and get ready for the battle next year.  It’s for your Country, your Children’s and your Grand Children’s.  Do not give up with excuses but prepare for the greatest battle of the Tea party.



Fellow Patriots,


As another year closes, it might seem that the war we are fighting for our personal freedoms is being lost, and that those who want to crush our still young country are the ones winning. Although it has been a long hard slog, a brutal battle against the never ending political attacks and the sing-song chorus of the left-leaning media’s distorted messages, we the people still stand defiant.

There is a desperate need of a strong leader who can be entrusted to lead our country. So with trudging determination, and an indomitable spirit with unflappable energy, the Tea Party must continue to step up; leading in small groups, often unfunded and in an unorganized fashion, but leading all the same. We must succeed where the elected officials have failed. Remember George Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day, cold and with little hope.

We face the same tyranny, the same usurpation of our liberties.  It’s almost Christmas and we face this coming New Year with challenges, high hurdles, and more battles. The war will be won, we will Restore our Country.  We are Tea Party, and we will accept no less.  George Washington gave hope and a renewed morale with his Christmas Day Miracle.  Let us renew our spirits, our commitment, and our energies.  Let us restore faith in our movement and our mission this Christmas Season.  Let us look forward to the New Year with positive energy and determination to solidify our Liberties and recapture our Beloved Country.

We have no other option; we have no mission more important.  We have no one else to look to, no George Washington to cross the frozen landscape in our stead. We are the ragged army, the shoeless soldiers; we must be the ones to take the lead, the determined, and the miracle makers.


To you and your family,


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.


Zan Green, RainyDayPatriots.org Tea Party

Consumers Paid More for Food in 2011, CPI Data Show

By Penny Starr
coffee(Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) show that despite some decreases in the price of certain types of food, U.S. consumers paid more to eat overall in 2011.

According to a Dec. 16 Consumer Price Index (CPI) Summary from the BLS, the index for “food at home” overall has risen 5.9 percent over the past 12 months, with “all six major grocery store food groups up at least 4.4 percent.”

The six major grocery store food groups are: cereal and bakery; meat, poultry, fish, and eggs; dairy and related food items; fruits and vegetables; non-alcoholic beverages; and other food at home, such as spices.

The CPI Summary further shows, for comparison, that “food at home” seasonally adjusted rose 0.5 percent in May 2001; 0.2 percent in June; 0.6 percent, July; 0.6 percent, August; 0.6 percent, September; 0.1 percent, October; and then declined 0.1 percent for November. But overall unadjusted for the last 12 months, the “food at home” CPI rose 5.9 percent.

The index for “food away from home” – food from fast-  or full-service restaurants – also increased in November, up 0.3 percent, after rising 0.2 percent in October, and “has risen 2.9 percent over the past year” overall unadjusted for the seasons, said the BLS.

As for decreases in specific groups, the fruits and vegetables index, which fell 1.7 percent in October, declined 0.6 percent in November, and the index for dairy and related products fell 0.3 percent last month.

bread(Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

The CPI “is a measure of the average change in prices over time of goods and services purchased by households,” and is important because it is “the most widely used measure of inflation,” according to the BLS.

Using a “basket of goods” approach, the CPI is calculated by taking price changes of each item in the basket, averaging them and then weighting that average based on the importance of goods and services to consumers. The CPI uses a base year of cost for its comparisons and calculations.

With that methodology, the data show that the CPI for “food and beverages” for “all urban consumers” and “not seasonally adjusted,” rose from 219.729 in January 2009 – when Barack Obama was inaugurated – to a level of 230.656 in November 2011, an increase in that CPI category of 10.927.

That CPI measurement category went down slightly in late 2009 but was on the rise again in March 2010. For a longer time span comparison, that same CPI measurement was at 175.2 in November 2001 and hit 218.752 in November 2008, when voters elected Obama.

The CPI Average Price Data table, which is different than the CPI Summary, provides a “snapshot” of the price that consumers pay for specific foods. The price does not reflect the exact price of items on grocery store shelves, but rather the average price of a food item based on the collection of prices in stores around the country.

hamburger(Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Accordingly, the average cost of one pound of 100 percent ground beef went from $2.03 in January 2001 to $3.91 last month, an increase of 92.6 percent. One gallon milk was $2.82, on average, in January 2001, and it is $3.55 today – an increase of 25.8 percent.

One pound of coffee was $3.22 in January 2001 and today it is $5.63 per pound, on average – an increase of 74.8 percent.

According to the CPI, the highest average seasonally adjusted percent increase in food over the past decade came in October 2008, which saw a 6.3 percent rise in index levels. This past year has seen the largest increases since 2008, with index levels showing a gradual increase from 1.8 percent in January 2011 to 4.7 in October. November’s percentage dropped by 1/10 of 1 percent to 4.6 percent, according to CPI’s latest figures.

Ricky Volte, research economist with the United States Department of Agriculture, said that weak economic growth has led more consumers to buy food at the grocery store and prepare it at home rather than going out to eat. This has increased demand for “food at home,” which has increased prices, Volte said.

Volte said more factors contribute to the rise and fall of the price of “food away from home, which is reflected in a lower increase than for “food at home.”

Overall, the factors that drive prices have had a “more tangible affect on food at home prices,” Volte said.

Why the establishment fears Newt Gingrich

By Robert S. Walker, Published: December 22

Robert S. Walker, executive chairman of the public policy firm Wexler & Walker, represented Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1996. He is an unpaid adviser to the Gingrich campaign.

After Newt Gingrich rose in the polls, criticism of the former House speaker began grabbing headlines. But Republican establishment attacks on Newt are not new. Newt’s political career has been devoted to mounting a conservative challenge to the establishment’s desire to play the Washington power game of go along to get along.

As a junior congressman, Newt founded the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group of activist members of Congress whose goal was to challenge the liberal welfare state but whose first target was the Republican establishment in the House of Representatives. The “old bulls” who dominated the party in the House had become quite comfortable in their minority status and saw little chance they would ever become a majority. Newt and the COS knew that, to create a true conservative agenda, the party needed to focus on becoming a majority. We used the House floor and C-SPAN to promote our ideas. We attacked spending bills and efforts to expand government, some of which the establishment had endorsed. It reacted by telling newly elected members to stay away from those COS guys because they are trouble

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich trims the Judicial branch.

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich trims the Judicial branch.

Newt really stirred up establishment backlash by taking on then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) for ethics violations. The further Newt pushed his case against Wright, the more uncomfortable establishment leaders became. When Newt won, they leaned more toward agreeing with Wright’s characterization of the result as “cannibalism” rather than seeing it as a victory for Republicans against an increasingly corrupt majority.
In 1989 Newt scored a stunning victory over the establishment candidate to win the job of Republican whip. It was a hard-fought battle decided by one vote. But that victory meant that the party was moving toward a conservative activist profile, shedding its passive minority attitude.

Newt really upset the establishment when he refused to go along with the tax increases that had been engineered in negotiations between Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration. Party leaders put him on the negotiating team in an effort to neutralize him. Instead, Newt made it clear that he would not accept tax increases and his message to President Bush was that tax increases would destroy his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. When the negotiations produced new taxes, Newt refused to sign on and led the Republican opposition to the settlement in the House. To this day, establishment figures harbor a grudge against Newt for not joining their “revenue enhancement” conspiracy.

When the 1994 election seemed likely to produce significant Republican gains in the House and Senate, it was Newt who engineered the Contract With America. He saw the need for a conservative governing document because he believed we would become a majority with the power to change the course of policy toward conservative values. Many of those values were spelled out in the contract, which included the legislation that we intended to pass. Much of the establishment opposed the contract, believing it was too specific and would subject us to criticism that might cost us victories. The real story was the angst from the establishment about the conservative reforms evident in the contract. Most eventually signed on, only because many of them still believed we would never get a majority and therefore would not have to act on the contract’s provisions.

When Newt became speaker, he was focused, disciplined and tough. He insisted on moving the Contract With America intact. He abolished committees and denied “old bulls” chairmanships. He insisted on using the majority to win conservative victories such as balancing budgets, achieving welfare reform and producing 11 million new jobs with tax cuts that spurred economic growth. He made some people unhappy when he pursued legislation that could win instead of pet bills that would have divided Republicans rather than uniting them. And he negotiated with a Democratic president to get the conservative legislation being passed signed into law. Some Republicans were left unhappy in the wake of all of that activity — some of them are still complaining today.

While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he’s still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.

It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.


Is the Social Security tax holiday good or bad?

Commentary by Stewart Topping December 22, 2011

As I was researching the Tax holiday Bills in Congress I did it with the purpose of trying to understanding whether there was more to the difference of opinion that I could not see or hear. 
Today it is hard to trust any party or any Politician because it seems that a lot of politician are clueless on the workings of socialism and will say anything to get re-elected, pass any legislation, and yes to go home for Christmas.

The one thing politicians are good at is talk but with little or no action at all, just enough to please the majority.  Some politicians make a good case that we should be like being Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor.  I call that wealth distributions, or how does President Obama say it; spread the wealth.  It is part of the platform of socialism.

Hopefully the new Tea Party elect-tee in the House will over time make a difference.  We must give them time and elect more to the Senate and House.  It may be our only hope.  Senator’s McConnell, Brown, Snow and yes Senate McCain are examples of progressive Republicans. They neither like the Tea party nor for what it stand for.  Why should we listen to them?  They have done nothing to cut the debt of our Country or stop spending

The battle over the Tax Holiday is a great example of what’s wrong with Washington. The House Republican Tea Parties are trying to make a stand.

What is deep down under the noise we hear?  

  • The Senate bill does not pay for itself. 
  •  The House bill does pay for it self by cutting spending.

So who’s looking out for us, I think in part it is the House Bill and the Tea party Republican.

Read the following comment made on the issue, looking at the bill itself.

Lots of debating and maneuvering with the social security tax holiday set to expire. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Since social security benefits are based upon what you actually made and paid in isn’t it shooting yourself in the foot down the road? The less you pay in the less you will get. Sure it puts a few more dollars in peoples pockets right now (which is absolutely needed) but whats the trade off?
Is this how they (both parties) plan to shore up social security by reducing the amount of future payments to eligible retiree’s? Government actuaries are paid to calculate things such as life expectancy and projected benefit payouts years down the road. Have they calculated an estimated payout at present rates and future rates? Of course they have.
This tax break will affect the American citizens spending ultimately once retired. Personally I would favor leaving the social security tax rate alone and reduce federal wasteful spending and reduce the income tax rate to give people the extra money now. Just seems to me they have us cutting our own throats with this one.

What say you?

Elections 2012

Obtained at the Tea Party 911 website;

We are at a pivotal point in American history, and the 2012 elections could possibly be the most important elections in our lifetime.

The stakes have never been higher. The liberal agenda is progressing at an unprecedented rate, and it will be full steam ahead until these out of control senators and congressmen are removed from office and replaced by men and women of integrity.

This is where the Tea Party Movement comes in. When choosing candidates to support, we must be extremely careful and choose candidates whose values align with our own. Our three main issues of concern are fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

On average, government worker wages are 35% higher than their private sector counterparts and also have a 69% greater benefits package.

The national debt is now over 14 trillion and growing daily. Does this sound like fiscal responsibility? Federal, state, and local governments now employ over 23 million people (not including military personnel), and is the fastest growing job sector in America. Does this sound like limited government?

The federal government is now the owner of or directly involved in the banking industry, the automobile industry, and the healthcare industry. Now on the agenda for the EPA in an “end around” of Congress are the cap and trade regulations which would amount to the largest tax increase in America’s history.

Does this sound like free markets?

This has got to stop!

We have got to replace these politicians who will say and do anything just to get elected.

We need elected officials who actually have honor and will do what they say and not make promises that they can’t keep just to get elected. Tea Party members, please look at the individual and not a party. Be informed about the candidates and know where they really stand on the issues. Your vote in the 2012 elections could be the most important vote you cast in your lifetime and may determine the course of America for generations. Choose wisely. Read More at http://www.teaparty911.com

Gingrich Wins Tea Party Straw Poll

Monday, 19 Dec 2011 11:17 PM

By Newsmax Wires

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored a huge victory Monday, winning a key straw poll of Tea Party supporters.
The poll, taken among 23,000 Tea Party enthusiasts organized by the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation’s biggest Tea Party organizations, had Gingrich winning with with 31 percent of their vote, registered in a conference call on Sunday night.

Coming in a close second was Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, with 28 percent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, pulled 20 percent; former Sen. Rick Santorum, 16 percent; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 3 percent; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 2 percent, and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., 0.3 percent, The New York Times reported.

The results come as Gingrich is seeing some of his once-formidable lead slipping away. In some recent polls, he is either slightly leading in Iowa or behind Paul.

The candidates, who spoke in succession, were asked 10 minutes’ worth of identical questions, all of which assumed agreement in the premise of the question. For example, all were asked how they would repeal President Obama’s health care law — not whether they would repeal it.

Gingrich said he would ask the House and Senate to pass legislation to repeal it and move the bill in time so that he could sign it on Inauguration Day. He said he would ask all House and Senate candidates who are running to pledge in advance to vote for repeal.

Romney said he would issue an executive order to grant a waiver to each state. For states that did not accept the waiver, he would introduce legislation to repeal it.

Bachmann said she would campaign for those candidates who pledged to repeal the health care law and argued that waivers would not work.

Santorum, meanwhile, said he would use the budget reconciliation process, in which only 50 votes in the Senate, not a supermajority, are necessary to pass a budget, which could be stripped of all health care spending. “Gut it,” he said.

Rep. Steve King, a Republican and tea party favorite from, told the listeners that so far, he was disappointed in the field. He lamented that none of them had “articulated the depth of the financial problem we’re in.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Wins Tea Party Straw Poll
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Page 1 of 21123456»1020...Last »

Faith In The Word

118 Brushy Lane
Arley, Alabama 35541

plugin by DynamicWP