card (6)

This is what veterans need now. This is how you can help us. We need a healthcare account funded by the VA for veterans that the veteran could buy non-VA healthcare with. This is how we are going to make that happen: with the following letter. Tell people to join us here, get their copy of the following and send it to their congressmen and senators. The best thing you can do is actual paper, envelope and stamp. If you must, e-mail is better than nothing at all. 

You can find your congressmen easily at:


And your senator at:



Your Name
City, State Zip

Dear (Representative/Senator) (Name),

My name is (your name) and I live in district (your district). I am writing to express my concerns about the VA healthcare system.

As you know our nation is losing twenty-two (22) veterans everyday to suicide. We are losing untold hundreds due to incompetence of the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Much has been said about this nationally. Congress seemed to act quickly with the Veteran’s choice card issued under the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act. However, it is anything but a choice. Veterans are now finding out they cannot choose a doctor; they have little choice as to when their appointment is to be. Veterans are not being paid for mileage as is required by law. Many of the appointments are many miles beyond the absurd distances they are required to drive already to get care. An increasing number of vets are not getting any care under this new system because there are no doctors “signed up” or “in the system”. Vets are still waiting because the VA still has to first diagnose a “need” then try for month to fill the appointment. Moreover, to add insult to what is great injury, veterans are having to pay for the appointments as the VA is delaying payment to the provider, and the vet is made responsible for the VA’s nonpayment. Veterans are finding out there are far too many hoops to jump through for this new program to be in anyway effective. But then that was the point wasn't it? The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act was a political ploy to make the American people think our leadership cares for America’s veterans. It is clear you do not. The VA is spending millions of healthcare dollars on advertising and website development to convince the American people they care about vets. It is clear you do not. This letter is not to tell you how I want you to vote or act as my elected representative. It is a demand. I am demanding you, this day, draft legislation to give American veterans a healthcare account that they may buy their own health care insurance with. The VA hospital system is out of date, out of touch and out of control. It would take hundreds of years to fix the VA and many thousands of American veterans will die waiting for you to fulfill the commitment we as a nation agreed to. It cost the United States approximately $750-$900 to cover a veteran under the current VA hospital system. Those numbers are most likely much higher. Create legislation that will put this money into an account, much like the VA education funds, and let vets buy their own healthcare. Place no restrictions on it save that they can only spend the funds on health insurance, i.e. HMOs or PPOs. Also allow insurance companies to cover and entire family if they can as a way to be competitive. Many families do not pay as much to cover all of their members as the VA spends to cover just one vet. Let them have the whole $750-$900. The current chain of VA hospitals can bid for these funds like any other healthcare provider. After all if VA healthcare is so much better than civilian health care as they say, then vets will overwhelmingly choose the VA hospital system. Give them real choice; give them real healthcare, now!

Credentials: (Teacher, businessman, administrator, parent, etc.) Address:
Phone Number:

Respectively, (Your Name)

Read more…


Attorney General Eric Holder, who has suggested that critics of the Obama administration are motivated by race and referred to America as a "nation of cowards" on race issues while blasting Americans who resist more gun control laws, suggested that those opposed to President Barack Obama's policy agenda of "fundamental transformation" are quietly prejudiced.

In his Saturday commencement address at Morgan State University, a historically black university in Maryland, Holder said that even though there are no more "separate but equal" laws on the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the "vestiges of state-sanctioned discrimination continue to reverberate across the country even today."

POLL: Should Voter ID be required in every state?

He said America is done a disservice when they "trade the noisy discord of honest, tough, and vigorous debate for the quiet prejudice of inaction – and the cold silence of consent." To Holder, dialogue is insufficient to address the "hidden" racism in society but is "a necessary first step that must lead to action."

After comparing Obamacare to the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Holder suggested that those opposed to Obama's "year of action" are silently displaying their prejudices and suggested that "action" is needed in voting rights, school discipline, and criminal justice reform. He blasted voter ID laws and "zero-tolerance school discipline practices" that "affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers." The Justice Department's school guideline reforms have been heavily criticized for effectively forcing schools to enact "de facto racial quotas" in school discipline.

read more:

Read more…

Quick Rant: The Tea Party Misconception

I woke up angry this morning. Last night I had a discussion with a really good friend who is a closet democrat but on the fence.She labeled the tea party racist and equated them to the kkk. When I asked her to give me examples of how they are racist, she was unable to.I then talked to her about the history of the democrat party and she was in disbelief.What irked me the most is, that she is a very well educated woman, with unbelievable intellect.How is it, people are unaware that the party they support have openly been against their beliefs? Democrats/liberals are the most intolerant bigots in the United States.They preach equality, but their history and present are riddled with creating inequality. President Obama is the most extremist liberal, who has ever been in the White House.Since he became president, we have witnessed, class warfare, the war on women, extreme racism, and an explosion of intolerance, that has not been seen since the sixties.I am tired of hearing about racism becoming rampant because people disagree with a black man who was elected to office. The same black man, that was elected twice by white and black people alike.The same people who are accusing the tea party of being racist, are the same people who showed pictures of Mitt Romney's family and made fun of his black grandson.These liberal bigots, use the race card with every argument they lose. Liberals label others who don't agree with them, with every vile name possible. You want examples of liberal intolerance and bigotry?How about Melissa Harris Perry and her attack on the Romney family, or State Representative Alvin Holmes who said; " I don't like Clarence Thomas, because he is married to a white woman" or William Barber, the president of the North Carolina NAACP who said this about Senator Tim Scott, the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction; “a ventriloquist can always find a good dummy,” he continued by saying; “the extreme right wing down here finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party.”If a conservative from the Tea Party said or done any of this, imagine the outrage and the finger pointing. These statements would be used to validate their position that the Tea Party was racist.Who are the Tea Party and what is their agenda? The Tea Party has more diversity than the Democratic Party. We possess a strong belief in the foundational Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents. We believe the responsibility of our beloved nation is etched upon the hearts of true American Patriots from every race, religion, national origin, and walk of life sharing a common belief in the values which made and keep our beloved nation great. Our core beliefs are:1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.3. A strong military is essential.4. Special interests must be eliminated.5. Gun ownership is sacred.6. Government must be downsized.7. The national budget must be balanced.8. Deficit spending must end.9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.13. Intrusive government must be stopped.14. English as our core language is required.15. Traditional family values are encouraged.We believe in; Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.If you feel these values and our mission promote racism, then maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself; who is really the bigot?If you would like to learn more about the Tea Party, visit our webpages at:http://www.teaparty.orghttp://www.officialteapartyusa.comhttps://www.teapartycommunity.com
Read more…

Lame Duck to Quack Vociferously
after November Elections

Rajjpuut's own analysis and a few stray comments taken as hearsay from friends thrice removed quoting blue-dog Democrats who refused to be quoted on the record, in other words nothing a real journalist can take to the bank, have created a potential nightmare scenario for this country. It's all very iffy, nevertheless, you should know . . . . It appears that Obama and his huge majorities in the house and senate aim to "lie low" in the coming months rather than risking alienation of any more voters. After the election, however, things will get lively as the Dems ignoring the standard "gentleman's agreement" that lame duck congresses never deal with controversial matters ignore propriety and instead aim to force cap and trade, union card check, comprehensive immigration "reform," and virtual unionization of police, firefighters and other first responders upon the nation. In effect, the inglorious result of his first half-term will be that Obama will have made the Constitution and congress as well, almost totally irrelevant. If a voting path is created for 12-20 million illegal aliens who will presumably vote Democrat over Republican by 85%-15%, he will have become a virtual dictator for life . . . something even FDR couldn't do.

Another Independence Day has come and gone. We’ve watched our fireworks exhibitions maybe enjoyed a few relatively harmless, but probably illegal firecrackers and modest personal fireworks such as roman candles and even brandished a few sparklers about – never, however, in our history has it been so vital to remember and to understand what exactly the Fourth of July is all about or, by extension, to come to a firm mental grasp of the concepts enlivening our American Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job of creating a government for the thirteen entities, the original colonies made into states, and for the numerous individuals inhabiting them.

One might be tempted to say, the Founding Fathers did the most nearly perfect job that’s ever been done of creating a government . . . however, we are surrounded by legions of those who don’t just doubt the near perfection of the job as many of them do, but literally legions who doubt it was even a good job. Some of them, mostly covertly, would consider “Das Kapital” by Marx as formulating a much more apt and perfect solution to this question as to what kind of government is best for mankind. Of course there are all manner of socialists around too, who would argue they’re merely talking about some needed, harmless and over-all beneficial “tweaking” of the Document in question. All of these individuals and groups are what’s called “progressives.” Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as an outdated and flawed document and see the need to “progress” beyond both the word and the spirit of the Constitution. Should we? Are they correct? Is it outdated? Is it seriously flawed?

The continuum of human government runs from anarchy (total freedom, total lack of responsibility, total lack of government, each man for himself) to totalitarianism (zero freedom, 100% duty; 100% government involvement in every aspect of existence, absolute power concentrated in a central government and thus every man exists only at the pleasure of the state and only to benefit the state). The thirteen colonies had just had two very recent experiences with unsatisfactory government . . . in the first instance the autocratic rule of King George III over the colonies went too far to the left, too far toward totalitarianism for their tastes. But when the British were kicked out, the loose pact created by the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory in its closeness to anarchy.

Within reason, the colonials accepted the proposition that the government which governed (that is interfered with and coerced the citizens) the least was the best form of government. The Founding Fathers, “in order to create a more perfect union,” came up with a Republic in which the peoples’ representatives would be chosen by popular vote, democratic process . . . but as they were building a Constitution for the new government, the central government looked a little too potentially malicious and powerful for many tastes and so the powers of that central entity was dramatically curtailed by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ensuring such personal freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to due process, etc., etc., and most importantly the 10th Amendment stating that except for the seventeen explicitly mentioned powers and responsibilities of the federal government ALL other power was reserved for the individual states and the individual citizens of the Republic.

Since 1901, the succession to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt has marked mostly a succession of progressive presidents intent upon expanding their own powers and the powers of the centralized federal government over the states and the citizens. Obviously some good has been done, the National Park System seems, on balance a good thing, that is NOT the question. It’s a question of progressive aims. There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government owning huge tracts of land, but beside the national parks today, the majority of several western states is actually owned by the federal government and not the states themselves. The congress or the people could have passed an amendment to the Constitution expanding the federal powers to include, national parks and perhaps another allowing the central government to own such huge expanses of a given state’s land . . . but chances are the second one would NOT have passed, and perhaps the national parks as well . . . but it should have been the people’s choice yea or nay.

Teddy, in many ways seems beneficent, but certainly he was progressive to the core. Certain presidents wielded their progressiveness far more malevolently: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and George W. Bush fit that category. Even these did some good things. FDR’s CCC camps come to mind; the Civil Rights Act under Johnson come to mind. The legacy of these progressive "giants" is crushing, today's $14 TRillion national debt pales in comparison to the $110 TRillion in unfunded liabilities attached to Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid . . . of course, Welfare is never attached to this bill, but it certainly should be . . . malevolence surely . . . and now comes cap and trade and the bankrupting of the american coal industry and the skyrocketing electricity prices and the 67% inflation it alone will create, not even talking about general inflation of the money supply by 14X under Obama.

Perhaps we can credit the other four ultra-progressives and men like Clinton and Bush II as being only misguided and truly having good intentions, not so with Barack Obama. From the first days in office, Barack Obama has been poison for the American Dream and his own dream** of a Marxist America has been clear for all to see, unfortunately, the mainstream media has abetted his efforts and the couch potato class has been too busy with their reality shows and sitcoms -- perhaps America deserves the communism he brings -- personally, Rajjpuut deserves anything but . . . so, wake up America!
Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,

** besides the evidence of his origins and point of view from the link above, and the first Obama autobiography "Dreams from My Father," it's worth noting that every scrap of coverage at "Russia Today" and from CPUSA (our own national communist daily) is 100% positive towards Obama, what are the odds?
Read more…

Yes, it’s true, society has changed dramatically since the beginning of the end of the last half of the 20th Century. Fifty years ago, in 1960 when the Donna Reed Show and

Father Knows Best broadcast their visions of the ideal American family, 88% of all American children were raised living with both of their biological parents until they reached adulthood. While that statistic is hugely altered for all Americans, it’s become unrecognizable for Black Americans.

Today, like Obama himself, 80% of all Black children in America are conceived out of wedlock. The president has hidden his birth information fairly effectively so we can’t say for sure about him, but 70% of today’s Black children are born to unmarried women. Whatever happened to the Black family? More importantly, how does this occurrence impact today’s Black child? And how, does this disintegration of the once proud Black family impact today’s political climate, and what does it portend based upon Mr. Obama’s actions? Before answering the first and third question, let’s deal with the second.

In the aggregate, statistics tell a depressing story for all American families, once the bastion of our nation. However, the Black statistics tell a tale of utter ruination. If White society has trouble understanding the Black experience, it is more than anything else a result of the massive changes that have occurred since 1965 to the Black community. Today, less than half of all children – all races examined together -- are raised entirely by their birth parents and 33% of all children are born to unwed mothers. Another 33% of all those children born to married couples will find their parents divorced well before the child reaches adulthood, for Blacks these statistics are much worse.

Looking briefly at just the White children . . . the educational, economic and family stability advantages of being White drop totally away for White kids raised in a family without a father. The high school drop-out numbers for White kids are roughly 3.5 times higher if raised in a family without a father. Such children are between four and five times more likely to live in families with incomes below the poverty line and about three times more likely to divorce or never get married and raise their own children in one-parent families and thus perpetuate the cycle so intimately linked to poverty.

Not too surprisingly, the huge number of fatherless families in the Black community has a slightly less debilitating effect. This situation is the norm among Black families now and almost 90% of Black families exhibit one-parent status. The Black community as groups and individuals have institutionalized some fairly effective responses, often based upon multi-generational families which have tended to be matriarchal. However, that “norm” is certainly not beneficial for mother or children. Living without a father increases the school dropout likelihood for Black children to 175% compared to intact families (and, by the way, for Hispanic children to 196%) compared to 250% for Whites. The impact of living in a fatherless home, however, is definitely even bigger economically for all races.

As a whole for Blacks, as well as Whites and Hispanics, the single biggest social disadvantages seem to align with fatherless families. Since Black families are much more likely than White families to begin below the poverty line and 2.8 times more likely to begin with an unmarried woman at the helm – the economic challenges are much, much greater and the consequences for the Black children are generally negative.

The one-parent household, typically headed by a divorced- or never-married mother, has significantly fewer financial resources than intact families do. Poverty statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, show approximately half of households headed by single mothers in 1995 were below the poverty line, in contrast with the 10 percent figure for two-parent households. Yes, many of these families were poor before divorce, and a significant proportion were headed by mothers who never married. Nevertheless, the lack of a father's income has dire consequences for household finances. Even in well-off families, the fatherless home can suffer disproportionately. The newly established home headed in the vast majority of cases by the principal bread-winner holds typically far fewer members and receives the lion’s share of the divided resources . . . so the economic status of the mother often plummets dramatically.

The most obvious thing is that most children raised in a one-parent family, regardless of race, face a far greater chance of economic hardship. For Black mothers raising children without a father, this situation is much more common and much more devastating. How did the once-proud Black family get to this point?

Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” programs begun in 1965, hold some of the answers. The Civil Rights Bill, Kennedy had sought was signed by LBJ, an unmitigated boon to all of society and the Black community especially. But Johnson didn’t stop there. He launched his “War on Poverty.” The goals of the Great Society were twofold and entirely laudable on their face: elimination of poverty and elimination of social injustice. Truly the greatest of LBJ’s actual accomplishments was the Voting Rights Bill.
The hallmark of all the Great Society effort, from misguided liberal point of view was, however, “Affirmative Action launched by an LBJ speech** on June 4, 1965.” Its ghost haunts the Black citizen still today. Like most government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs), however, much of the GS programming produced entirely the opposite effect at enormous expense. The cost of the Welfare State and the $74 Trillion in unfunded obligations arising from LBJ’s Medicare and the federal portion of his Medicaid today has been enormous and largely negative . . . and that’s just the dollar and cents cost.
In fairness to Johnson and liberal Democrats, the Johnson programs expanded greatly under Republican presidents Nixon and Ford before dramatically taking off under Carter, a Democrat. Under Carter the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA of 1977), the first mortgage-guarantee boondoggle (to be followed later by three more expansions in 1992, ’95 and ‘98) ultimately set us on the path that led to the sub-prime lending crisis and didn’t that turn out well? But mostly, they were “great notions – good intentions” that, like most government programs just weren’t thought out in accord with human nature. Humans need incentives not handouts.

And then there was . . . the juxtaposition of the War on Poverty and Affirmative Action with the undeniable fact that in 1964, after sixteen years the disaffected mostly-southern Democrats known as the Dixiecrats finally found a new home and voted as a bloc for the Republican presidential candidate. Barry Goldwater, who authored “The Conscience of a Conservative,” attracted the Dixiecrats and that was not lost upon the nation’s Blacks. The G.O.P., the party of Lincoln, now in the eyes of Blacks had become the party of Strom Thurmond. In 1968, 72% of Black voters went Democratic . . . in 2008, 95. 8% of Black votes went for Barack Obama. The Dixiecrats found their home and the Black’s found a new political home. The unfortunate result of that fissure was that the Democratic party has become greatly tied up with the notion of advancing Black well-being. Their electoral survival has depended upon it and the Democrats are seeking to add Hispanics as 90% loyal Democrats as well.

The “government dependency” syndrome for the Black community that’s grown out of that situation has had a horrendous effect upon Blacks. It is no exaggeration to say that the Black community is far worse off today than it was before the Democrats started helping them. Black Republicans like Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Claude Allen are without exception such an anomaly in the Black community that all of them have encountered Black backlash for their “betrayal” and “Uncle Tomness.” Democratic Black leaders, for example, excoriated Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. Black people who succeeded without relying upon Democratic largesse are uniformly held is disdain, a sad state of affairs that says more about Black problems today than just about anything else you might think of. The most successful of Blacks outside of the athletic field and show biz are disdained by the Black populace as a whole.

All of this is bad enough, but now we are dealing with a president who, though he promised to unite us, is clearly the most divisive influence in race relations since the Ku Klux Klan. The American Dream is disappearing from our shores with each utterance of Barack, the Divisive, now committed to a policy of creating race war for political benefit. On the one hand, for the first time in history it appears one generation of America will not leave their children better off than they themselves were – the point at which all political discussion should begin.

Barack Obama has decided that the battle will NOT be fought upon that ground, however, but on one of his choosing. Deplorably, the mainstream media has abetted him in this ugly switch of emphasis. Deplorably, too large a percentage of Americans don’t choose to understand the issues, but only to listen to the mainstream media rhetoric seldom sung with evidential accompaniment. He is playing to the weakest part of our natures. Only those locked into self-doubt so deep as to believe they cannot make it without huge amounts of help from the government favor socialisms and dependency, but many do and the media perpetuates that self-limiting stereotype at every opportunity. Instead of really helping poor people by teaching them the skills and attitudes needed to transform themselves, Blacks are almost always portrayed as helpless victims of the system, the only Black success stories routinely shown lie in two fields of endeavor: show business and sports.

Obama, unable to win on the factual basis of his promised job-creation ability has played the “race” card like a master of cacophony. His latest target is one of the most cynical and hateful ploys ever played upon the American public. His sneaking attempt to make Puerto Rico^^ a state; his lying attacks upon the Arizona immigration law, while doing nothing federally to attack the problems that spawned that law; and his hoped for coup de gras Amnesty and overnight citizenship for 14 million illegal aliens is all designed to make the “dependency class” permanent and much, much bigger; and permanently enshrine a whole host of Democratic-favoring welfare-dependents into the voting rolls. Never mind the devastation to the country as a whole. “Hispanicos, que siempre vivan fuertes e independientes y nunca como esclavos del dictador Obama, jamas!” (“Hispanics, may you stand strong and independent and never become slaves to Obama’s oppression!”).

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,


** LBJ paid brief lip service to the fact that Black (he called them “the NE-gro”) economic status had risen dramatically since the end of World War II, but all the other statistics he cited in the speech were about differences between Black and White earning power and how government must intervene in the interest of fairness. Mandated social justice has never worked. Like the American Revolution, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s marches and sit-ins and Gandhi’s non-violent opposition that eventually gained India her freedom, social justice is largely earned or it does not occur. Just imagine . . . what kind of shift would occur in Black consciousness if Clarence Thomas was suddenly considered a prime role model for black youth rather than Rangel, Jesse Jackson, and Sharpe. Unfortunately, the easy way doesn’t work well or frequently, but it’s always more popular than the way of character. Black Americans hearing MLK’s inspiring “I Have a Dream” speech must truly take to heart the sentence about “the content of their characters?” That is the sentence that defines the American Dream.

^^ Obama knows little about the proud people of Puerto Rico. The “51st State” issue is not a hot-button Puerto Rican issue. Puerto Rican people, when they consider “la situation Puertoriquen~a” think independently. This issue comes up routinely for vote about once every decade and is a frequent visitor at kitchen table discussions. Roughly 34% of the islanders called “Independistas” think Puerto Rico needs to become an independent nation. Roughly 32% (the “Estadistas”) hope for big advantages if they were to become an official part of the United States. Meanwhile 33-34% of the populace like things just the way they are. They like the upside of being U.S. citizens without a lot of the downside, they represent the “Estatus Quo” and they always win whenever “la situation” is voted upon. The size of the voting base for each group changes only slightly over time. Two thirds of Puerto Ricans are NOT interested in statehood, period. No act of congress can change that. All said, the racism of Obama is clear and evident and unbelievably, the mainstream media can't see it.

Read more…