Archive for December, 2009


December 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Team Obama is unwavering in their committment to make the war with Al Qaeda a criminal matter.  Eric Holder is still intent on jeopardizing the safety of millions of New York residents to make a statement against the Bush Administration.  But Barry’s voting record on criminal policy is not reassuring to those who are concerned about America’s security. 

Al Qaeda is not concerned about  nation borders, so the fight against them in Afghanistan is no different from the fight against them in America.  therefore, if the Detroit bomber and KSM’s actions here are to be defined as criminal matters, than the fight against them in Pakistan is as well. 

If that is the case, then the drone attacks against Al Qaeda are police brutality, since they have not been read their Miranda rights before being bombed! 

And Obama voted against allowing police to move in on dangerous criminals in a way that would give them to drop on them.

So if the issue is criminal justice, then Barry is the wrong guy to be heading the operation.

And by the way, what happened to Michelle’s law license in 1993?  Is that a criminal matter?

Categories: Uncategorized


December 30, 2009 Leave a comment

By the basic ideological differences between liberals and conservatives are fairly clear to just about everyone.  Conservatives are known for advocating lower taxes, reduced government intervention, and strong national defense.  Liberals tend to seek higher taxes, more social programs, and cuts in defense spending.  Though these philosophies appear to be quite divergent from one another in terms of domestic agendas, when it comes to how they apply to a world a view things become a little more complicated.

Conservatives moral objection to expanding the welfare state is that it diminishes the recipients incentive to provide for themselves.  They also stress personal responsibility and the notion that it is wrong to take from those who have earned what they have to give to someone else.  Conservatives basically see that people’s fortunes as being controlled by their own hard work and character.

Liberals generally support expanded entitlement programs and increased federal regulation of industry.  They have historically identifies historical currents as determining people’s economic position, and that the government has a responsibility to provide for the poor.  They believe that the disparities in income are primarily caused by historical injustice, and that these disparities are a problem that needs to be corrected. 

But when it comes to foreign policy, the dialog reverses.  Modern conservatives have tended to emphasize America’s role in combatting evil throughout the world, based on the idea that America is a great and just nation. Here, conservatives emphasize the state’s responsibility to provide for the less fortunate, seeing them as needing American help to promote Democracy and liberty.  Also, conservatives see our nation’s strategic interests as being advanced by rooting out Islamic fascism wherever it exists.

Liberals, particularly the Obama camp, have suggested that American international military involvement in other nations struggles “undermines the people’s ability to achieve liberty on their own”.  this was Obama’s reasoning for not making a clearer and strong statement after the Iranian uprising against their corrupt regime.  On the issue of  extreme repression, they tend to say, “it’s not our problem” or “we need to mind our own business.”  Also, this is rooted in the notion that America does not have the right to see itself as an exceptional nation, and that we are not on the right side of history.

The camp or group of leaders who can take command of this conflicting issues in a unified dialog will dominate the conversation in the upcoming years.

The Greyfalcon sees a significant distinction in conservatives position on this.  The conservatives have answers for how to help the poor without government intervention.  Conservatives have actually done more for those in need though personal donation, faith-based charity, and volunteer foundations.  The Left has no such answer for how they can help those suffering under the tyranny of despots.


Categories: Uncategorized


December 29, 2009 2 comments

There has been a lot of talk about what is going to happen in the 2010 Congressional elections.   Some are talking about Republicans winning+30 senate eats while others are predicting a disappointment due to public disaffection with both parties. 

We believe that there really is no way to know this earlier in the game.  And actually, the number of seats the Republicans win is not of primary concern to us.

It does us no good to win 30 seats if 25 of those who win are like Arlen Spector.  The great victory of the Tea Party is that it shows that Republicans who do not command the confidence of the citizenship movement can be defeated by independents.  So we predict that the Republican candidates who do win will be better for the people than they were eight years ago.

And what we really looking for is inspirational, innovative leaders who can bring both parties into the consciousness of this American  Awakening. 

Carly Fiorina is challenging Barbra “please call me Senator” Boxer in California.  Fiorina ran a company, so she offers the experience in financial matters that is lacking in today’s federal government.  She is also a cancer survivor, and gave and passionate radio address about how she may have been denied a chance to leave by the measures of the current health care reform. 

If Fiorina defeats Boxer, we believe the improvement in character and intelligence for that one seat would equal the impact of winning five seats.

AlsoLt. Col. Allan West is running for Florida’s 22 District.  He is incredible speaker, and he also a veteran of Iraq.  Allan west is a black conservative who embodies the values of the Tea Party and town hall protests.  He isn’t a “big tent” conservative, he is just a conservative.

The Greyfalcon believes that West and Fiorina themselves could be tremendous difference makers simply based on their talent and vision.

Categories: Uncategorized


December 29, 2009 Leave a comment

It’s very simple.  When you prosecute Navy Seals for capturing enemy combatants, when you threaten to prosecute your intelligence operatives for extracting information from combatants, and when you constantly apologize for your nation’s strength, you encourage these attacks.  Obama is conveying weakness to the enemy, and they do not love us more for it.  They are  emboldened by it.  And when your homeland security secretary issues statements about how returning soldiers are threats to “snap”, and when she also identifies Tea Party members as “possible domestic terrorists”, you convey vulnerability to these monsters.

Some claim these attacks are the result of a world’s coarsening feelings toward America, and obviously that coarsening has been caused by George Bush.  However, this is a simplistic, untenable position.  Many precending events, such as the CIA backed Iranian coup, caused tension for the USA in the Middle East.

Actually, the formal Islamic crusade against America began with Syd Qyd in the 1950’s.  Qyd came to this great nation to study, and decided that our culture was too permissive, and that our economic power and values were a threat to the Islamic world. 

This actually reflects a lack of confidence in his religion’s cultural viability.  Why would our way of life be a threat to theirs if his people were true believers?  Technology doesn’t stop Hindus or Buddhists from practicing their faith.  No, the  issue was that American ascendancy was a threat to Qyd’s ability to control other Muslims. 

 Just like our ascendancy is a threat to Reverend Wright’s  ability to control black people.  But that’s another story.

But Obama refuses to advocate this American ascendancy.  That is because this ascendancy is a threat to his ability to control the private sector.  Small business owners are at the forefront in the resistance against his agenda.

So instead of declaring is unconditional support for the military and intelligence community by dropping these prosecutions, he uses them to appease what Rush Limbaugh calls “the fringe cook base”.  He needs them to provide him with the necessary public capital to hold on to his quest for unconstitutional transformation.

So for Obama, his facilitation of  this terrorists designs was not an issue of incompetence, it was an issue of malice.

It took  him three days to issue that insipid, pre-written statement about stepping up security.  But it took him about two seconds to defend his little buddy professor Gates, not even waiting to get all of the facts.  “Whether or  not I was a black person or not, um um um …… race is still a problem in America today”.  Yeah, because of  substandard leaders like you.


Categories: Uncategorized


December 28, 2009 1 comment

Andrea Mitchel said “we must start giving up for the greater good” and that we might have to start “rationing”.  So when she isn’t harassing Sarah Palin at her book signing she is must be working on her Marxist economics.  But before this health care reform bill was moving through Congress, Obama supporters were not so openly willing to acknowledge that they wanted to redistribute health care.  Mitchel’s prediction points to the real reason why the town hall protesters were outraged, not the “ethnic considerations” Chris Mathews consistently refers to.

Andrea Mitchel, who is usually very good at demonstrating that she  an irrelevant pop-culture wanna be, has finally gotten something right.  This bill is not going to reduce the deficit on its own.  It’s designed to force a transfer of services from older people who have worked all their life to earn their benefits.  The recipients are going to be those whose representatives offer votes in exchange for subsidies and payoffs for their state. 

People’s health care will be bargained and traded for political favor.  We have already seen this with Mary Landrieaux, Bob Nelson, The Congressional Black Caucus, and the $1.2 billion given to members of the Senate in order to get this wonderful piece of legislation passed.

Still tens of millions of people are going to remain on covered, but this time the capacity to serve those with health care insurance will be reduced.  There is no guarantee that just because someone is covered that they will get the help they need.  If there are not enough doctors and health staff, there will not be enough service.

And they have not discussed measures to increase the number of doctors in the nation, because all of their proposals involve reducing compensation, which  obviously does not bring more  people into a profession.  In fact, just about every economic issue they discuss involves reducing compensation to those who malcontents claim “make too much  money”

But then they want card-check to increase wages for union workers.  And many of us have seen road crews of a dozen people where one guy is drilling while everyone else is standing around looking at him.  This is why we are angry at them, not the color of the half-black president’s skin. 

So Andrea and Chris may be the ones who need to take a cultural sensitivity class.


December 28, 2009 Leave a comment

When Chuck Schumer called an airline attendant a bitch, he though he would get away with it.  However, now many feminists are calling for those on th Left to oppose Schumer in his upcoming election, so he may not be as safe as he thought.  Many of these disaffected citizens are also citing the reform bill’s harmful impact to women, objecting to the recent attempt to discourage women from getting regular and early cancer screening.  Whether or not this results in the long shot upset of Schumer is not the  most important part of this. 

The real breakthrough is that for the first time in a long time conservatives and liberals are doing what we ought to be doing: using our differences as assets to the nation.  Liberals are not our enemy, but the Statists must be stopped because they see America as their enemy.

We are not going down the “reach across the aisle and sell out your base” road that  some well-known Republicans travelled in the recent past.  In fact, we believe that by maintaining our core principles we actually bring about more cooperation, because the choices become more clearly defined.  Those on the Left know that we are not going to support higher income taxes and coercive state control, so they are better served working on something else to achieve common ground with us.

Likewise, we respect liberals, like Dennis Kucinich, who appear to be driven by the idea that their approach will help those in need.  Barbra Boxer, is driven by the desire to punish those who she is threatened by, and cannot possibly be guided by altruistic convictions.  Her  demand that a member of our military call her “Senator” was a reflection of that.

Boxer, we do not respect you.  And hopefully, in 2010, a better woman will replace you.  We will have no problem calling her Senator.



December 27, 2009 Leave a comment

Many commentators compared the Obama McCain race to  a “Classic Reagan Carter Debate”.  Not even close.  McCain was nothing like Reagan and Obama ran far to the left of Carter.  Now, he is promising to enforce unconstitutional mandates that have been proven to do nothing to improve the conditions for the less fortunate.  As a many of the genuinely compassionate liberals who voted for Obama have learned, Michelle Obama’s patient dumping well not officially hospital practices actually denied care to low-income Chicago residents.  And Barry used his state senate position to send over a billion dollars into a failed city housing program that enriched Jarrett and Rezko while leaving many poor residents still without housing.


Throughout the last year we saw a contentious debate about the merits of conservative verse liberal political philosophy.  While many polls have revealed 40% of the nation is conservative vs. 21% liberal, those are only polls.  I believe the real indication of conservative viability is in the fortunes of the Tea Party Movement vs. the Hope and Change coalition.

Conservative Republicans have come to together with non-partisan conservatives, disaffected Democrats, and libertarians to forge a citizenship movement that has changed the entire political landscape.  High level politicians are actually courting the grassroots voters, something that has not happened for a very long time.

No longer forcing candidates through Republican political gauntlets oe special interest loyalty tests, we are now vetting them based on their committment to freedom, national strength, and the Constitution.  We no longer pitting the pro-life South vs the fiscal conscious East Coast.  We are now looking for leaders to HELP US save the country, not to try to do it themselves.

In this, there is an opportunity not trust for us conservatives, but for liberals and moderate voters as well.  Our goal is not to eradicate liberalism, it is a necessary part of the conversation.  Our victory was not over you, for you are Americans too, and your convictions are part of what makes this nation what it is.  I real, heart-felt liberal is someone who is concerned that more needs to be done for the less fortunate, and that government has a responsibility to help them. 

Our role is to respond to the problems we identify, then go to the private citizens and see if we can handle the problem ourselves, if we can help if their is indeed an example of unfairness or injustice that needs to be addressed.  We just don’t want to help loafers and parasites that can do better if they just tried.  And you, the liberals, probably feel the same way. 

But the Statists want to use those people as an excuse to impose draconian, measures to “correct” the unfairness, never actually promoting independence for those people.  By controlling them,they seek to control us, including well-meaning liberals.

You see, now they going after you harder than they are going after the Republicans they used to decry.  In fact, the progressive authoritarians are actually beginning to side with the out of touch, hypocritical Republicans that we reject.  Mathews says “the net-rooters” are all the sudden irrelevant because you are not going along with the program.

And make no mistake, Republicans can not get elected unless they convince conservative and independent voters that they will adhere to the core values of this new movement. 

Even if we do not agree on the exact methods on what needs to be done, we can agree that Obama’s Statism and the administration lavish spending on parties and cronies is equally odious to all of us.


Then we can have an honest, constructive discourse involving all of the people’s views who love this nation. 

The result will not include the subjugation of our freedoms, where Left, Right, and Center all move toward frame of reference that is toward the advancement of our fortunes, not the punishment of the other side.

Then we can have a Nixon Kennedy, not a Karl Marx George Washington debate.

Categories: Uncategorized


December 26, 2009 2 comments

The American Awakening has confronted the Obama Pelosi machine’s drive to subordinate the nation’s private sector, and ultimately us.   Yet Sheldon Whitehouse sees our objections to his side’s agenda as unfounded and “radical”.  He also called us a bunch of “Aryans”, though I am not sure if he knows exactly what that means.  What he is trying to suggest is that we are a white power reaction to this wonderful “young president”, even though he did not offer one piece of evidence to support that our resistance to this madness is racially motivated.

And because of this fact, Whitehouse is the one who reflects Heinrich Himmler’s vision of racial ideology. 

First , he and the other black Statists who consistently declare you to be racists for rejecting Barrack Obama are denying your right to political question based on the color of YOUR skin.  This contention assumes that they can  scientifically prove that every single person in America is benefitted by his programs, and that they should know these benefits without examination.  This has not been the case for any president in our nation’s history.  Every president has been met with dissention. 

There were even many who disparaged George Washington as being a “sell-out” for his support of Jay’s Treaty.  Was that racially motivated?

Also Diana Watson said that “Rush Limbaugh wants “the first president who looks like me to fail.”  WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE ANYWAY!  That’s your defense for this guy?   He doesn’t even look like most of the black people in America!  And by the way HE IS ONLY HALF BLACK.  AND HIS FATHER IS NOT THE DESCENDANT OF AMERICAN SLAVES.

But isn’t Sheldon part of a group that protested Obama not doing enough for black people.  So it’s OK for them to reject Obama’s agenda, but not for you, or for us black conservatives who are “betraying our people”. This is the  racial nationalism of the very “Aryans” that they accuse us of being. 

And we know the truth, much of Barry’s 44% approval is maintained by people’s concern that they might be identified with those “who don’t want to accept a black president”.   And many of them also say they do not agree with his agenda, but do not want to see him fail because they like him, or feel sorry for them.  I believe his real approval rating is far below 44%.

A friend of mine, a white woman,  said to me “I think he (Joe Wilson) yelled ‘you lie’, because he though the could get away with it, being that Obama was a black president.”  When I said that it was unfair to assume that he was racist because he is a southern Republican she said “I don’t know about that”.

She is an intelligent woman, but she was given bad information. 

I would love to have a black president, as long as he is not falling into the media partisanship that those in his office shoud rise above, at in presentation.  This has not been the case with Barack Obama, and that, not some “Aryan” movement is what is causing him to fail.


December 24, 2009 2 comments

The Greyfalcon considers Obama/Statist Cabal’s imposition of this authoritarian program the end to the black white racial paradigm, as it is being driven by a black president, progressive Congressional leadership, and a left leaning media.  Therefore, the blackness as being defined as a lack of institutional power is no long tenable.  What’s more is that the majority of black voters have been denied the benefits of this coup, as their condition has not improved anymore than anyone else’s.

Charlie Rangel is above the law, Maxine Waters is free to channel millions to her husbands bank, Diane Watson can call on people to agree with  the president simply based on the color of his skin.  And Sheldon can use his position to confuse voters into thinking the Tea Party practices an ancient religion.

Barrack Obama can declare he willing legislation that two-thirds of the nation does not want, and he can control the salaries of bank CEO’s he doesn’t like while allowing the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie make as much as they can.

One can no longer suggest that black people can not be to be racist, simply because they do no have institutional power.  Bad black leaders can deny us our rights just as well as bad white leaders.

But what is the notion of black “disenfranchisement” based on?  Slavery did not stop Oprah Winfrey, Beatrice Co., Russel Simmons, Madam C. J. Walker, and countless other blacks from becoming extremely wealthy in this society, wealthier than they could have in the Congo, Liberia, or Algeria.  Therefore the slavery explanation does not hold up. 

Jim Crow laws could not did not stop millions of blacks from achieving education and enlightenment.  They were not brought down by the opportunistic former segregationist Lyndon Johnson, but by Martin Luther King and other Christian leaders who led movements that forced the communities to provide justice.  The Southern communities that finally capitulated not out of compassion, but because of the economic impact of the boycotts. 

After the Civil Rights Act was passed, their was an ideological synthesis between the ideas of the black militants and the anti-American, anti-establishment, radical politics of the hard Left.  Groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers began to work together, and many university professors were embracing their subversive doctrines.

Together, the radical white Left and the Black Power Movement added new destructive elements to the mental construct known as race.  Radical white socialists joined black separatists in denouncing blacks they saw as being too middle class, too American.  How terrible.

Stokely Charmichael, a particularly loathsome character, described his approach to us racial sellouts.  “As for the Uncle Toms, when they slap us we’re going to kneel, when they slap us we’re going to kneel, and if they don’t come with us we’re going to off them.”  He also said “We should not be killing each other, we should be killing those cracker cops out there.”  Al Sharpton also declared that he in believed in killing cops, and was willing to do so.  That’s was about twenty years ago, before he became a Fox regular, and good friends with Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

The modern concept of the black identity is still dominated by this monstrous fusion of these deleterious movements. 

 Richard Brookshire of the National Review best explains the problem with “The worst thing that could have happened to the black community was when they joined the “Tune in and Drop Out” movement of the radical hippies.

Mr. Brookshire, as we can see, it may be far worse than we expected.  Now a protegé of the William Ayers Reverend Wright version of this union is putting into practice the theories of late 1960’s university politics.



December 24, 2009 Leave a comment

Time Magazine named Ben Bernanke man of the year for his 2009 management of the financial meltdown.  Bernanke , along with Hank Paulson, Congress, and George Bush, engineered a massive bank bailout and “added liquidity” to the system.  Barrack Obama signed another TARP bill in 2009, only this time he and his czar’s imposed compensation and capitalization restrictions on those institutions. 

 The awards committee may think Bernanke saved the economy, see things differently.   However, the fact is that through business loans, the actually money supply increased from 55-60% between July 1921 and July 1929.  The amount of currency in circulation stayed constant throughout the decade.  This lead to the stock market boom and the eventual bust. 

Many claim that The Crash of 1929 was the primary cause of the Depression, but tis is not the case.  Stock market prices merely reflect the value of a company’s capital, and the demnad for the shares does not necessarrily indicate the firms productivity. 

.Many say that The Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 caused the Depression, but this is not so.  Stock prices only reflect the value of a companies capital, and it is not necessarily an indication of the firms  productivity. points out that stock prices for a company “ merely reflects current information about the future income stream of that company.  Thus, it is a change in available information that changes the stock price.  When the Fed began to raise interest rates in early 1929, this began the tumble.”

So those who point to the 2009 stock market recovery as a case for the Fed’s weak dollar approach forget that the values are just movements amongst an already monetarily distorted set of values.  The artificial low interest rates that the Fed has maintained through the decade precipated these stock and real estate cycles, and Bernake is just maintaining the same approach.

Also, this weak dollar, not greedy oil CEO’s, was the cause of the devasting spike in 2009 gas prices.  Consumers and busnesses having to pay +$4.00 a gallon damaged the employment mearket, not the Bush era tax cuts.

Only this time he is doing it in conjunction with an 800 billion dollar TARP fund and a regulation obsessed administration.  So all Bernanke is really doing is forestalling the necessary market correction that needs to occur.  This adjustment would be brought about through  raising interest rates to a realistic level and returning the value to the money people have saved. 

 But that might mean that unemployment might rise at an even faster rate in the short term, and that would make an already failing presidency look even worse.