Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Ms. Fluke Off To See Europe--Some Poverty Stricken Student She Is!

Sandra Fluke's parents must really be proud. She testifies in front of Congress, forces Conservatives to apologize and then flies off to Europe with her boyfriend, all the while claiming she is living in poverty and cannot afford the $1000 per year that she needs for contraceptives.  Her parents must be beaming.

However, when her chickens come home to roost, it will not be a pretty scene. How can one make statements in front of Congress, plead that you have no money and then go on a trip overseas? This is obviously a very devious person, agenda motivated and one who believes that anything is OK, as long as the outcome is what you want. 

We do not believe that this type of person should be an attorney nor should she be held up as an example. She should be held up to ridicule and should never be allowed to become an attorney.  She obviously is not impoverished as she can afford a very expensive law school and can take a trip abroad. In other words, she lied in front of Congress.  That alone should disqualify her.

If she is able to become an attorney she will feel she can mislead, lie to, and present false information to anyone who opposes her. Is that the type of lawyer that we should be confirming?  We do not think so.

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom

Sex in Spain and Italy on a Budget

March 15, 2012   ·   By    ·   1 Comments
As we learn via Twitchy and Gateway Pundit, it seems (gasp, such surprise!) Sandra Fluke isn’t nearly so poverty-stricken as we were led to believe.
You may recall that she went before congress a few weeks ago to testify that she was having so much sex that she needed $1,000 a year to pay for the contraceptives necessary to prevent the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. Being a law student at one of the nation’s most prestigious (if not expensive) universities left her and her fellow female law students with little or no cash to purchase contraceptives, we were told.
It was therefore necessary to quash the religious freedom of others using government coercion to force them to provide the contraceptives she and her fellow law school students could not afford–even though several investigative reports found that such contraceptives could be obtained for less than $10 a month within 3 miles or less of Georgetown University.
But now we learn that this deprived law school student is now off in Spain and Italy with her boyfriend (is she struggling to pay for contraceptives there, or do their socialist governments provide contraceptives to impoverished tourists?), doing things most working Americans (who pay for many of the things she wants to suck through the teat of government largess) can only dream of.
In reality, we once again see that we have been fed a line of bull by a Leftist who wants to force others to provide for them what they should (and could) be providing for themselves.
In fact, she could have a little charity (as her independent, non-government-teat-sucking forefathers had) and pay for the contraceptives of another or two of her “needy” fellow Georgetown University law students.
But no: it’s easier to trample someone else’s freedom than to provide for yourself or help your needy friends

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Try Your Hand At Pew Political Knowledge Exam

The following link to Pew Research lets you test your knowledge of current events and politics. Let us know how you did.  By the way, we were not perfect, we did miss one.  Can you beat us?

Conservative Tom 

Job Gains Manipulations--Are We In Never Never Land?

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the job loss or gains every month, however, lately we have speculated in previous posts that these job numbers were made up.  Now other voices are out there saying the same.  It goes back to the old saw: figures don't lie but liars figure." Job growth has not been robust ( if 8.3% unemployment is great when full employment is figured at 4%) but Obama needs these numbers to be better to get re-elected.  So, damn the torpedoes they will be better.

We repeat our prediction that by November 1, the unemployment will be in the 5-6% range and Obama and his surrogates will be crowing about cutting the rate in half! In reality it won't be, but hey, it's just numbers.

In the following post by Dick Morris, he agrees with us and supports it with other data that the numbers are being massaged to get the outcome the White House wants.

Do you agree? Let us know.

Conservative Tom

No Truth To January Job Gains
Published on on March 13, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
Obama's entire claim that the economy is reviving is based on phony numbers and rigged statistics. Nothing is more misleading than the recent administration claims that the economy added over 200,000 jobs during each of the past three months and that unemployment is stable at 8.3 percent.
Dr. John Hussman of the Hussman Fund says that the claims of job gains are based entirely on weighted figures. "Total non-farm employment in the U.S., before seasonal adjustments, fell by 2,689,000 jobs in January." Then the spin doctors at the Bureau of Labor Statistics went to work. Hussman explains: "because it's typical for the economy to lose a large number of jobs after the holidays, largely in retail trade, construction and manufacturing, the BLS estimated that the 'normal' seasonal decline in employment should have been 2,932,000 jobs in January. The difference between the two numbers ... was 243,000 jobs, which was reported as an increase in employment."

Hussman notes that this "adjustment" in 2011 and 2012 was far more extreme than in any previous year since the 1960s. Had the standard adjustment been used, instead of the souped-up figure BLS applied, the total number of new jobs created would be only about 60,000 for January.

And even that might be an overestimation.

Hussman points out that "moreover, we've had a remarkably mild winter in the U.S., particularly in January, and it's clear that this has favorably affected both construction and retail activity. Ironically, however, nothing in the seasonal adjustment actually adjusts for this purely seasonal effect."

The stable-unemployment-rate fantasy is also based on a steady decline in the number of people in the labor force, despite population increases. The current number of people in the labor force -- the denominator in determining the unemployment rate -- is the lowest since 1981. Economist Peter Morici writes that "if the adult participation rate [in the labor force] was the same today as when Obama became president, unemployment would be 11 percent."

Morici also notes that "adding adults ... who say they [would] re-enter the labor market if conditions improved and part-time workers who would prefer full-time positions, the unemployment rate becomes 15.2 percent. Factoring in college graduates in low skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks ... unemployment is closer to 20 percent."

Such is the happy math upon which the administration bases its claims of economic recovery.

Gallup, which predicts election results with incredible accuracy, uses the same survey methodology to develop its own unemployment rate and now reports that it stands at 9.1 percent, a 0.6 percentage-point increase since last month. 

Fortunately, the American people are using their own eyes, not Obama's statistics, to figure out what is really going on. Obama's approval ratings, as measured most accurately by Gallup and Rasmussen, show a drop from 51 percent a month or two ago to the low 40s now. And Rasmussen shows Romney beating Obama by 4 to 6 points. At 42 percent of the vote in the trial heat, the president is facing a crushing defeat, because the vast bulk of the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.

With gas prices surging, the economic data will only get worse. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the economy predicts slow growth and higher unemployment in the near future, and Hussman says that "overall, an economic downturn remains the most likely prospect."

The ability of my former Democratic brethren at self-deception is legendary, but the current optimism about both the economy and their chances of holding the White House and the Senate -- and regaining the House?! -- is downright nuts.

Americans Are Reasonable When It Comes To Contraceptive Mandate

A majority of Americans in the most recent poll, say that individual employers should have the right to decide if they want to provide contraceptives. This is a rational decision by citizens who realize that Obama is on the wrong track.

Read the rest of the story at

Conservative Tom

Common Sense in Washington??

Finally, we get some people on both sides of the aisle who are trying to do something about the budget which is one of the reasons we send them to the funny town on the Potomac.  It is about time that someone is bringing the subject to the floor of the House and Senate. We will see how far it goes. Our bet is that it goes nowhere. What do you think?

Conservative Tom

Here is the link: 

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Obama Puts Israel Between A Rock And A Hard Spot

Charles Krauthammer in his post on Israel Commentary  scared us to the bone when he quoted an Obama Administration official as saying: "So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”

Just think about that comment for a minute. The President of the United States and his administration are intentionally endangering six million human beings with incineration because they want to be re-elected! He wants to put Israel in a position that they cannot act on their own to eliminate the risk to their country. That is criminal! If Iran should attack Israel and several million die, should there be consequences for the Administration?
We believe so.

Read the rest of the article and see if you agree.

Conservative Tom

Obama Admin: Distruptive Students Must Be Punished The Same As Good Students

This administration has lost it good sense, that is if it had any in the first place.  Thomas Sowell writes today about a program between the Justice Department and the Education Department to equalize punishment in schools.  In other words, girls should be punished as much as boys, Asian females as much as black males and while males as much as black males.  Is this crazy or what?  

It is call "equity" and as such means that certain groups will be punished less. Guess who that might be?  It is race pandering and is hurting the very people that it is meant to help, those black and other minority students who want to learn and make something of themselves.  

We say throw the trouble makers out of school and bring back the schools for delinquents, re-institute corporal punishment in the schools and give teachers the authority to ban students from their class if they are disrupting the educational process. In other words, let the teachers teach and the students learn.  Maybe then we can have "no child left behind."

This whole movement toward making things equal is idiotic. No two people are equal, we all have different abilities, drive and aspirations, so why are we trying to make everyone the same? Encourage the differences but let it be in a caring, nurturing educational environment that all students can learn without having to put up with troublemakers.

Read more what Thomas Sowell has to say in the following link.

Conservative Tom

Palin Challenges Obama to a Debate

Today on Facebook, Sarah Palin challenged the Emperor of the United States (aka President Obama) to a debate.  She lays out some of the discussion points in her article. We would like to see such a conversation occur, but doubt that it will.  She is being used as a punching bag for the President to make his points, however, misdirected and dishonest they are.

Sarah has no power, yet the press loves to keep her in the forefront as they believe she is a lovely dumb woman who they think is an example of the right. They follow her everywhere, hang on every word but think she is a nothing.  We are of a different opinion.  She is a gutsy politician who took on the Republican party in Alaska and won and gained an 80% approval rating at the time of her acceptance as McCain's  running mate. She tells it like it is, is introspective and knows how to communicate. She talks from her heart. Her negatives are that she is not a slick politician who will tell you the "talking points", is not scripted so that when she talks she wants to be right and therefore does not look smooth. As the VP candidate, she had to adopt McCain's positions, which were not hers, therefore she had to think through every answer before answering.  This resulted in the NBC interview disaster with Katie Courek.  

We will hear more from Sarah and we would not be surprised to see her in other roles in the future.  We respect her considerably.

Do yourself a favor and check out her facebook challenge.

Conservative Tom

Obama's Friends Coming To The Fore

As more information comes to the forefront, Obama's radical friends are starting to come out and it is not a pretty picture.  Is the Administration so confident  of re-election that they feel these people are not a danger to a second term?  If so, you better buy your guns, ammo, food, fuel and prepare your bunker because "things are a-changin."

As we wrote the above, it sent a chill down our back as the thoughts went back to 

Germany and Hitler's rise to power. Could we be facing an situation where Obama

is planning to become President for Life? Where he does not care what we know about 

his friends?  Where he attacks his enemies with virulent racist abd language? Where he 

declares that he plans to find ways around the Congress "to get things done."  Where 

he refuses to enforce the laws of the land and sues states who do.

These are our thoughts, you are welcome to join our merry group or think we are 

wacky, it is your choice. Regardless as we read more about this man and his attitudes,  

we see where they came from. Men like Derrick Bell and Jeremiah Wright are his teachers and we should expect no difference from the student than his instructors!

Conservative Tom 


Derrick Bell’s Love for New Black Panther Party Founder, and White House Counsel

March 12, 2012 - 6:02 pm - by J. Christian Adams
Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell praised the anti-Semitic founder of the New Black Panther Party. Another strong supporter of Bell was eventually Obama White House counsel Cassandra Butts, the White House lawyer when the New Black Panther voter intimidation case was dismissed.
Powerline has the story of Derrick Bell praising the venomous anti-Semite Khalid Muhammad, former head of the New Black Panther Party. The dots that Powerline connected are the dots between Derrick Bell, Khalid Muhammad and the New Black Panther Party. But White House counsel Cassandra Butts was also involved in the now-famous Harvard Law School rally for Bell. Butts helped organize the rally supporting Bell and escorted him to be introduced.
Butts, nearly 20 years later, may have played a role in the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case according to multiple reports.
As a member of the DOJ team that brought the case against the New Black Panther Party, it staggers the imagination that Barack Obama’s beloved law professor Derrick Bell had anything positive to say about this radical racist anti-Semite. This is simply disheartening. You would think “esteemed” Harvard Law professors wouldn’t say nice things about a man who called for the murder of white women and children:
We kill the women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the crazies. We kill ‘em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all.
Bell’s view of Khalid Muhammad? “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.”
We are beginning to see why the Left went into warp drive to tell us Derrick Bell wasn’t important.
If we’ve learned anything in the last week, we learned there are some very strange social and legal circles from the far fringes, and unfortunately, the far fringes are now in power.
Now consider the strange case of Cassandra Butts (left of Bell in photo below):
In the video where Obama introduces Bell is Butts, escorting Bell to the rally. Butts is another possible player in the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal. Butts was counsel to the NAACP, but Deputy White House Counsel when the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Hans von Spakovsky, PJ Media contributor, has this 2011 piece possibly placing Butts in the center of the New Black Panther dismissal.
While a student, Butts praised Bell to the Pittsburgh Press:
She calls [Bell's departure from Harvard Law] “a big loss for the law school.  He is very special and we need him there. . .  But we also need what he is asking for.”
The Washington Times also has this series detailing key dates in the New Black Panther dismissal. Again, Butts is at the center of meetings in the White House with key DOJ officials on key dates.
Whether Butts played any role in dismissing the New Black Panther case from her perch in the White House is still unknown. We do know that Derrick Bell had kind words to say about one of the most vile racists on the American scene in the last 20 years. We also know that Cassandra Butts was, and remained, one of Derrick Bell’s biggest fans. You can’t help but wonder what other nasty surprises will be found under rocks turned over by the new media in the next few months.

Is Palin Running For President?

The Obama campaign  must think that Sarah Palin is their best weapon against the Republican Party even though she is not running for President.  That must mean she is scary to them or they want to use her as a used up punching bag.  It may mean their polling shows that their supporters believe she is the best spokesman (or should we say spokeswoman) for the party and if they are able to marginalize her or paint her as a racist, it will wash over the balance of the Republican party. Sort of a guilt by association.

Or it could mean they think that she is damaged goods that most Americans think of as a "dumb bimbo from Alaska", so by marginalizing her, they minimize the eventual Republican Candidate, whoever that might be.  Our guess is that the latter is their opinion.

We say that because we think the Obama campaign believes that Americans are so stupid that they will believe the propaganda they produce as factual and will not dig into the actual statements that Ms. Palin has made. Are they right? Hopefully, not. However, the news media and most Americans did such a poor job vetting the President in 2008,  that one might assume they will do the same sub par job this time.  Maybe Americans are really dumb!

What follows is a Breitbart analysis of the ad (it also includes the ad itself), to give you more information. We do not want to be part of the dumb American crowd. Do you?

Conservative Tom

The Obama re-election campaign has released an internet ad targeting Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and Coming up short in the fundraising department and under fire for President Obama’s longtime association with the radical ideas of Professor Derrick Bell, the Obama campaign video features the McCain/Palin logo, and claims that right-wingers are dog-whistling racism.

The video opens with words flying in, white on blue, with the trademark McCain/Palin yellow stripe. “MORE THAN FOUR YEARS LATER,” the ad proclaims, “SARAH PALIN AND THE FAR RIGHT SAY PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL BRING BACK RACIAL DISCRIMINATION … AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.”
The video then cuts to Palin on Hannity stating, “Barack Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor … And his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism … He is bringing us back, Sean, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War ... What Barack Obama seems to want to do is to go back to those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin, why are we allowing our country to move backwards?”
Let’s parse this for a second. Palin was talking about the Derrick Bell story when she said all of this. Here’s the actual transcript, unspliced together by the Obama campaign. Here’s the “man of valor” clip – she was clearly talking about how Obama was accepting campaign cash from Bill Maher, a man who had called Palin a “c---“:
I don't know how anyone can sit in the audience of a commentator like Bill Maher and chuckle and laugh and think that that's entertaining. I think it's disgusting and it's dirty money that he has now provided Barack Obama's campaign, and I don't know how Barack Obama can sleep at night if he really thinks about Sasha and Malia and the treatment of some women today, how he can accept that dirty money. And granted Barack Obama has never been, I think, seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor, so it shouldn't surprise us that Barack Obama would accept that dirty money and try to get re-elected with it. But I think it does not bode well for our president's character to not speak out against that dirty money.
So she wasn’t saying anything at all about race.
As for the rest of this, she’s talking about Professor Derrick Bell. But the Obama campaign splices the footage so you have no idea what she’s talking about. The purpose is to avoid any association between Obama and Bell, of course. Here’s the full context of what Palin said:
It is a tragedy that the media did not do its job in vetting Barack Obama in 2008. Here, this is belated vetting of Barack Obama, but it must be done. People must be aware of his radical past, his radical associations … He has chosen these people because what went into his thinking through those college years, through years probably before his college years and his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism, based on the people whom he chose to be around. He has chosen now to help lead this country more of these radicals.
So far, uncontroversial stuff. Obama’s past matters, and his philosophy matters.
But what about those Civil War comments? Again, roll tape:
He is bringing us back to days, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War, when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal. And it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes we are equal, and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin, you have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace God-given opportunities to develop resources and work extremely hard and as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand the gravity of that mistake that took place before the Civil War and why the Civil War had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward with that understanding that as our charters of liberty spell out for us, we are all created equally?
In other words, she’s opposing Obama’s attempt to divide us along racial and class lines. Which is what Critical Race Theory is all about – it suggests that our charters of liberty are fundamentally corrupted and there is no possibility of true change so long as they hold sway.
Notice what Obama’s team left on the cutting room floor: the vast bulk of the interview about Bell and Maher. This is a selective editing hit-job designed to make Palin look like a racist. That’s how Obama’s team is fighting back. And that’s why we must not be afraid to vet this president. The dangerous rhetoric here isn’t Palin’s – it’s the rhetoric and philosophy that infused this president with his views on race relations. That must be exposed, despite all the bully tactics of the Obama left.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Obama Files Suit Against Texas Voter ID Law

For followers of this blog, you know that we are four-square in favor of the requirement that a voter present an ID prior to voting. It is only common sense that anyone who wants to vote should prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote in the precinct. We do it here in Michigan and there have not been any concerns that someone who was not who they said they were.

Texas is being fought by the Obama Administration (another attack on the 10th amendment) to invalidate their law which requires an ID before voting.  In the following article Bobby Eberle clearly explains how common sense is not used when it comes to this subject.  We especially like the double negatives the Administration is using to fight the law. Ya gotta be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand what they are trying to do which means they are being slick!

Conservative Tom

Voter ID Law: Obama Throws Common Sense out the Window

By Bobby Eberle 
Barack Obama and his team have done it again. Whenever faced with choosing common sense, they decide they would rather go left-wing radical on the American people. In this case, Obama's Justice Department has attacked Texas' voter identification law, saying that Texas has not proven that the law is not discriminatory. Give me a break! Is it too much to ask that someone be able to prove his or her identity before voting?
This kind of nonsense just drives me crazy. In America, the vote is sacred. It's how our entire system of government runs. Americans vote for the direction they want the country to go, whether through elections of officials, ballot initiatives, or other propositions. In order for the country to run properly, the vote must be respected and must be a pure process.
We read all the time about voter fraud. ACORN, Obama's puppet agency, registered thousands of bogus people, and the list goes on and on. It makes perfect sense that if the vote is such an important part of American society, that being able to vote should and being able to prove you are who you say your are go hand in hand. Apparently, that's not what Obama believes.
According to a report by Fox News, the "Justice Department is objecting to a new photo ID law in Texas for voters, saying the state has failed to demonstrate that the the law is not discriminatory by design against Hispanic voters."
The department's head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas' director of elections saying that Texas has not "sustained its burden" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.
Perez wrote that while the state says the new photo ID requirement is to "ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting" the state "did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws."
Perez added that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver's license issued by the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38 percent of them are Hispanic.
In the Associated Press story on GOPUSA, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said "the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas."
Hostile? I'd say that's an understatement. This is a common sense law designed to protect the integrity of the ballot box. Is that so hard to understand? Can someone please beat this guy in November while we still have the right to vote? Who knows what will happen if he gets reelected.