Protesters Occupy Vacant Building in Washington, D.C.

I'm telling you, this story is the gift that keeps on giving !

The Democratic version of the Tea Party, a.k.a."OCCUPY WALL ST." has broken new ground, or should I say, stolen another building.

Like I said, this story is growing more legs by the minute.

The group known as "FREE FRANKLIN" has decided to OCCUPY a former school and homeless shelter.This building is a city-owned structure located about two blocks from OCCUPY D.C.'S official encampment.

I think it's great that a few of B.H.O.'S supporters stopped by for the long term to visit The President. These people are not a good reflection of his fan base, but hey, you take what you can get (or better yet, take what is attracted to you.)

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

Fireproofing the U.S.Flag...........Let's make it an ammendment to the Constition

As many of you know, The American Flag is something I hold near and dear to my heart, burning it is wrong, unless it is done in a correct setting. We should leave that to the professionals, I.E. The American Legion. Burning it for the sake of protest is not freedom of speech, it's a crime. I think it should be a felony. I found an article that says it all. It might be a few years old, yet the message is timeless.

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

Mike Rosen: Fireproofing the flag

Rocky Mountain News column 
July 8th, 2005
Mike Rosen

Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 7:20:20 AM by ajolympian2004

Rosen: Fireproofing the flag July 8, 2005

Linda Grist Cunningham is the executive editor of the Rockford (Illinois) Register Star, a Gannett newspaper owned by the publishers of USA Today. She's angry with members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, who voted in favor of House Resolution 10, which reads as follows: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Cunningham pledged that, "If the U.S. Senate follows its silly siblings in the House of Representatives and votes for a ban on burning the American flag, I'm going to burn one."

That's her prerogative without risk of prosecution, for now. But if HR 10 is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and ultimately ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures, flag burning could be illegal again. In the meantime, her employer would be free to fire her for a crass and senseless act, or the paper's readers and advertisers could choose to take their business elsewhere.

But why would Cunningham burn the flag? What might she be rationally protesting? The democratic process? The fact that her viewpoint was outvoted by 286 members of the U.S. House, while only 130 voted her way? The prescribed procedure for amending the Constitution? As she sees it, "Just the idea that Congress has nothing better to do than spend time on this nutty issue makes me want to burn one." Congress considers and votes for lots of things I don't like, but I don't take my frustration out on the flag.

"I am assuming," declares Cunningham, "that if we ban burning, we'll also ban purses that look like flags, flags painted on cars, and flags tattooed on butts?" Now, it's becoming clear. Cunningham likes to make paranoid assumptions. I assume no such things. More likely, prosecutions for flag-burning would take place only under extreme circumstances when the intent of the desecrater would be blatant and clear. That was the case with Gregory "Joey" Johnson, a self-proclaimed communist revolutionary with an animus for America, who was convicted of flag desecration in Texas in the late 1980s. For 200 years before that, Congress and the states had the authority to make flag desecration an illegal act. The nation somehow survived that Dark Age.

Then, in 1989, reviewing the Johnson case, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority suddenly declared such legislation unconstitutional.

Free speech has always had limitations for things like libel, national security, incitement to riot, fighting words, child pornography, etc. The First Amendment would, once again, survive laws outlawing flag desecration. Moreover, speech and physical expression are not synonymous. For example, mounting a soapbox in the park and advocating public nudity is legal; taking your clothes off during your speech isn't. The First Amendment might protect your verbalized hatred of America. It doesn't have to tolerate your burning of the flag.

I've heard assorted liberals and pacifists claim that American soldiers have fought and died for the right of others to burn our flag. Nonsense. Tell that to most vets and they'll laugh in your face. Burt Pines of the Heritage Foundation has spoken eloquently of the symbolism of the American flag:

It is only the flag that is entitled to a salute; only the flag to which men doff their hats and all citizens place their hands across their hearts. It is to the flag - not the president, the Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the Constitution - that Americans pledge their allegiance. It is the survival of the flag, of its broad stripes and bright stars, that is celebrated in the national anthem.

"It is the stirring image of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima that more than anything else has come to depict America's victory in war. It is the flag that flutters over countless graves of American soldiers, the flag that drapes their coffins, the flag that is lowered to half-mast when great citizens die, the flag that is affixed to foreign street posts when the president travels abroad. It is the sight of the flag that makes American hearts beat faster and chills their spines."

Can our traditionally tolerant nation also tolerate those who hate it? Sure. Can we tolerate the act of flag burning? Yes. Must we? No. Why? Because this act of desecrating a national symbol we cherish so deeply offends us that we simply won't permit it. This is our right as a society. And we can reclaim it from the errant opinion of five Supreme Court justices.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.

Good for Business? D.C. Bucks Move to Crack Down on Protesters, Welcomes Occupy Crowd

Some days it's impossible to find a story to write about, other days the politicians give you a treasure trove
of items to write about.

Today is one of those days full of treasure.

A bunch of B.H.O. supporters, the " OCCUPY WALL ST. " militia, dropped by D.C. to pay their respects to their savior B.H.O.

Normally D.C. officials would take hornswaggling rabblerousers like this and show them the exit door of D.C. Not this bunch of loons, they are more than welcome in D.C. because that is where there savior resides (at least until 1.20.13 then things will start to get back to normal !)

not many people realize this but the "OCCUPY" crowd is code for B.H.O. supporters. OCCUPY is like B.H.O.'S own private tea party. He would never come right out and embrace these thugs because, well because they ate thugs.

All you have to do is ask any one of these tent dwelling, anti-capitalist ....thugs  who the voted or are going to vote for and they will proudly answer, B.H.O.

To the people, getting arrested in the name of B.H.O. is the highest of honors. I wonder who they will follow after 1.20.13 ?

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

Lawmakers Prepare for Showdown Over Balanced-Budget Amendment

THANK YOU FOX NEWS FOR THIS ARTICLE ..............



Published November 17, 2011
FoxNews.com

Conservatives are rallying in support of a balanced-budget amendment in the run-up to a Friday vote, warning fellow lawmakers that it's just about the only way to ensure Congress follows through on vows to cut spending.

The debate comes the same week the national debt crossed the $15 trillion mark. The milestone was a timely reminder of Washington's hard-to-break habit of spending way more than it takes in.

As a bipartisan committee remains stuck on how to cut $1.2 trillion from the 10-year deficit, lawmakers skeptical about the government's fiscal track record pushed Thursday for the amendment.

"We need a fiscal fix that will last for generations," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said. "If we want to make lasting cuts to federal spending, a constitutional amendment is the only solution. It is our last line of defense against Congress's unending desire to overspend and overtax."

Republicans earlier this year took up the rallying cry of "cut, cap and balance," the nickname for their budget plan to cut spending, cap future spending levels and back a balanced-budget amendment.

Little progress has been made on those fronts. Congress voted over the summer to cut spending by $900 billion, in exchange for a much bigger debt-ceiling increase. The so-called Super Committee was then tasked with finding another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in savings, if not more. But with a Wednesday deadline approaching, the GOP and Democratic members are at odds over how to balance tax hikes and spending cuts in pursuit of that target.

Some are talking about changing the rules of the Super Committee altogether.

With the committee clash as a backdrop, supporters of a balanced-budget amendment say it's critical.

The amendment, requiring that spending not exceed revenues in any given fiscal year, is essentially the same as one proposed the last time Republicans regained control of the House, in 1995. At that time it passed, with 72 Democrats joining 228 Republicans in voting yes. The measure fell just one vote short of getting the needed two-thirds majority in the Senate.

This time there are 242 Republicans, 12 more than in 1995, and only 48 Democrats are needed to come up with a two-thirds margin, but the outcome of the vote on Friday is far from certain.

The Democratic leadership is actively urging its members to vote against the amendment, and the White House has come out strongly against it. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who voted for the measure in 1995, is leading the effort to defeat it this time.

Hoyer said that in 1995 he didn't "contemplate the irresponsibility that I have seen fiscally" during the George W. Bush administration and in more recent months when "Republicans took America to the brink of default" over raising the debt ceiling.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote in a letter to fellow lawmakers that the GOP proposal would deprive Congress of the "flexibility" to address national emergencies. He described the plan as a ploy to "impose the Republican budget priorities of deep spending cuts."

Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., the chief sponsor of the measure, said Americans "understand what it means to live within their means and they expect nothing less from the federal government. A balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution is the only way to ensure that Congress curtails its spending on an annual basis."

To attract Democrats, Republicans opted for the Goodlatte version, which does not, as many conservatives wanted, set a tight cap on government spending or require a supermajority to raise taxes. It does require a three-fifths vote by both chambers to raise the debt ceiling and a three-fifths vote to approve a deficit in any one year. Congress can also waive the amendment in times of serious military conflict.

The amendment has the overall support of the so-called Blue Dogs, a 25-member group of fiscally conservative Democrats.

"I think this is long overdue," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., told Fox News.

But other Democrats pointed to dire predictions of what could happen if a balanced-budget amendment were in effect. Some 275 labor and other mostly liberal groups wrote a letter to lawmakers saying that forced spending cuts or raised taxes needed to balance the budget when the economy is slow "would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large number of jobs."

Democrats also cited a report by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimating that, if there is not an increase in revenues, the amendment could force Congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018. It said that would mean hundreds of billions in cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The amendment would not go into effect until 2017, or two years after it is ratified, whichever comes later, and supporters say that would give Congress time to avoid dramatic spending cuts.

A constitutional amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Another issue of contention is how the amendment would be enforced. Neil Kinkopf, a law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, said in a report he wrote for the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy that there could be "catastrophic consequences" if Congress fails to resolve disputes over how to reach balance.

"This would mean judges would be required to order either spending cuts or tax increases. This prospect is so troubling that it has justly alarmed commentators across the political spectrum."

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, argued that Washington can't be trusted to balance its books without new limits.

"Washington has shown that it cannot curb its unlimited appetite to spend money we simply do not have, opting instead to borrow billions from foreign countries that may not have our best interests at heart and to pass the buck to our children and grandchildren," he wrote Thursday in the Dallas Morning News.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

SPECIAL THANKS TO FOX NEWS

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

HERE'S ONE THAT SLIPPED UNDER THE RADAR ! ! !

Tea Party Patriots


‎"Democrats were silent on the $15 trillion debt milepost, though on the broader issue of deficits they say the economy is so weak that it needs more spending in the short term. Senate Democrats haven’t brought a budget to their chamber floor in more than two years."

"Mr. Obama is averaging a debt increase of more than $1.5 trillion a year during his term in office, compared with an average of $612.4 billion for Mr. Bush and $192.5 billion a year under President Clinton"

And Obama has only been in 3yr

I'M BACK ! ! !

After a brief sabbatical, I'm back writing my blog. Today, due to time constraints, I borrowed a piece from FOX NEWS...............the best news company on the planet.

\YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager 

On Debt, Dems Work to Narrow Discussion

THANK YOU FOX NEWS ! ! !

By Chris Stirewalt

Published November 16, 2011
FoxNews.com

On Debt, Dems Work to Narrow Discussion; Public-Private Partnerships in the Crosshairs; Cain versus Krauthammer

Dems Take Risk in Opposing Balanced Budget Amendment

“Unfortunately, I did not contemplate the irresponsibility that I have seen fiscally where Republicans took America to the brink of default and placed the confidence of the world in America’s fiscal judgment at question.”

-- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer explaining to reporters why he now opposes a balanced budget amendment, a measure he voted for in 1995.

Whatever happened to the balanced budget amendment?

Like term limits and “virtual town halls,” the idea of a BBA faded from Washington when the electorate’s Perotist, independent fever finally broke more than a decade ago.

Republicans made the president’s $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling increase conditional on, among many other tripwires and blame-avoidance measures, a vote on a balanced budget amendment. But it’s mention seemed somehow anachronistic, like suddenly cueing up some Milli Vanilli.

But it makes sense that the BBA would matter to House Republicans, since it was the very same anti-establishment outrage that fueled the original movement that was eventually channeled into the 2010 remodeling of the GOP and subsequent midterm electoral wave.

Few have dared to say the words “term limits” yet, perhaps because that phrase may be one of the most potent in the political lexicon. Voters love the idea and politicians hate it with a white-hot passion. Remember that former House Speaker Tom Foley lost his Washington State seat in 1994 in large part because a led lawsuit to roll back a state constitutional amendment there imposing term limits on members of Congress. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that states could not impose federal term limits.

It’s hard to remember now, but term limits were a central part of the 1994 “Contract with America” and once had nearly unanimous Republican support. Many incumbent GOPers came to gradually oppose the idea on the grounds that it would deprive voters of the chance to elect the best, most qualified candidates, namely themselves.

But, like Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposing to make Congress a part-time body and slashing lawmakers’ pay, ideas for placing external constraints on the power and conduct of Congress continue to resonate.

There are arguments on the left and right against the idea of a balanced budget amendment, just as there are many kinds of measures that would meet that definition.

The most rigorous would cap federal spending at revenues and forbid borrowing without supermajority votes. The version that passed the House in 1995 and came one vote short in the Senate required 3/5ths majorities in both houses of Congress to spend more than the government took in.

This is the pure form of the concept – a cap on spending that sets obstacles to increasing the government’s income.

But there are liberal varieties, like the one backed by Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, which is a balanced budget amendment that would restrict tax decreases for top earners and shield entitlement programs. There are also conservative addendums, like provisions that make it harder to raise taxes stemming from fears that hard-pressed Congresses of the future would resort to tax increases to save pet projects.

The reasons for the ebbing of the idea of a balanced budget amendment, once one of the hottest tickets in politics and with substantial support from Democrats, are many.

The dawn of the era of al Qaeda squelched much of the Republican drive for small, austere government. How else to explain a party that could nearly push through a balanced budget amendment and a law providing free prescription drugs to old people in the span of eight years?

And the formerly wide streak of fiscal conservatism among Democrats has turned into a tiny vein as the party has moved dramatically to the left. Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer is a great example. Hoyer, having once been a Blue Dog champion of the measure, now opposes it on the grounds that the economy is too fragile to not have massive deficit spending.

Hoyer also blames Republicans for his shift, saying their opposition to tax increases has exceeded his expectations and that it would put the credit of the nation at risk. The legislation Hoyer voted for in 1995 and the measure that House Republicans will offer up this week both have measures to allow borrowing to pay off existing debts.

Power Play submits that the Democratic shift toward hard Keynesian economics – the embrace of a subsidy and federal spending driven model – has more to do with it. Hoyer’s caucus is much more liberal than it was in the days of southern Blue Dogs and Clintonian triangulation.

The House GOP has settled on a softer version of the amendment to put forward this week, with checks on tax increases and only a two-thirds majority required to take on new debt. It is expected to have wide Republican support and near-universal Democratic opposition. President Obama opposes the measure on the grounds that he believes Congress should work together to give everyone everything they want without having arbitrary restrictions on how to obtain it.

Democrats are instead working to keep the focus on the small-bore, procedural battle over the debt-ceiling supercommittee as if the fate of the republic depended on the difference of a few hundred billion dollars of cuts to the increase in future deficit spending over a decade.

Obama is guaranteed his next debt ceiling increase of $1.2 trillion. How the out-year forecasts of deficit spending are jiggered to compensate of that borrowing today is a relatively small thing. These abstruse triggers and rule-making mumbo jumbo, which self-centered lawmakers believe will matter so much to voters are largely ignored. A government shutdown or default, yes. Which trigger triggers the trigger for 2022 tax revenue estimates, no.

The question for the Blue Team is how to avoid electoral anger on the big stuff, which includes the easy to understand balanced budget amendment. The angry independent streak is back in a big way and Republicans may make Democrats who oppose such measures pay a hefty price.
........................................................................................................................................................................

SPECIAL THANKS TO FOX NEWS FOR THIS STORY...................

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

Giuliani: "Obama Owns Occupy Wall Street"

I was starting to think I was crazy.............

I really believed the "OCCUPY" agenda belonged to B.H.O.

According to FOX NEWS, I was correct. Read on : Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says responsibility for the Occupy Wall Street movement rests squarely on the shoulders of President Obama.

According to Mayor Giuliani, "This is a very dangerous movement, and it's ironic it's happening under a president who promised to unify us," Giuliani said. "Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement, it would not have happened but for his class warfare."

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate also predicted the movement will eventually lead to the end of Obama's presidency. "Barack Obama praised it, sympathizes with it," he said. "As it gets worse and worse, I believe this will be the millstone around Barack Obama's neck that will take his presidency down."

This silly bunch of political wannabes, started their movement right after B.H.O. called for a tax hike on the richest people in America.

In Oakland, California, more than 100 people were arrested and eight were seriously injured Thursday, with protesters leaving stores in flames, and streets littered with broken glass and debris. A week earlier a former Marine suffered a fractured skull in a confrontation with Oakland police.

Dear Mr. President, Please keep these people on your side, they seem to fit the liberal mold quite well.

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

Press Should Occupy History Books Before Protest Coverage

OK, I'm disabled, I'm homeless, I'm unemployeed.

The only thing I'm interested in occupying is the homeless shelter I live in.

I came to the conclusion that I am just thick-headed when it comes to the new craze in the people that don't have anything better to to than"OCCUPY" crew.

First it was Wall st., then D.C., now they are occupying anything they can get their hands on !

Go back home and watch Jerry Springer you goof balls. His ratings have probablt tanked since this "OCCUPY" virus broke out. I thought the cold weather would send these clowns indoors, unfortunately their just moving to California.

Wasit a minute, that's a good place for them. They can set up little camps in Berckly, California and it will be just like the 60'S all over again.

I guess we will have to put up with these clowns until they find something better to do. I can't wait to see what they come up wil next.

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager

House Panel Votes to Subpoena White House for Solyndra Records

Can you say SolyndraGate...............

The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives can. They would like to see the records that the White House has concerning the $528 MILLION  loan granted to the now bankrupt solar panel company.

Of course Democrats tried to delay the vote, after The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the resolution 14-9. This sounds like one of those slippery slopes B.H.O. really doesn't need right now.

Republicans said a subpoena was necessary because the White House has denied or delayed requests for thousands of documents related to Solyndra. Democrats argued the resolution was too broad and gave Chairman Fred Upton too much power.

On Wednesday, the government released nearly 1,200 pages of documents that revealed the Obama administration considered a bailout of Solyndra days before it collapsed. The bailout that would have provided an infusion of cash and a new board of directors, including two directors appointed by the Energy Department.

With out going far and wide with this story, I'd say the Obama Administration has some explaining to do.And do it in a really fast manner.

The clock is ticking on this one.

YOURS IN LIBERTY ! ! !

Bob Yeager