<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>If Bush Had Done That</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com</link>
	<description>He would have been impeached</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:15:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Now It’s Romney Targeting the “1%”</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/now-its-romney-targeting-the-1/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/now-its-romney-targeting-the-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resigned-the]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-tuesday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/now-its-romney-targeting-the-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I have been resigned the last month or so that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee.  Here&#8217;s a scenario:  if Romney does well in Arizona and outright wins Michigan, no one will be able to compete with him on Super Tuesday.  As a result, money for Rick and Newt will begin to dry-up, while Ron Paul holds out all the way to convention to get Rand on as Veep.  Done. That what makes this so damn painful to watch: Pure ready-made DNC attack ad material come late Spring.  Awesome:  [ grimy attack ad voice ] &#8220; Is the GOP on the verge of nominating a flip-flopper from Massachusetts? &#8220;  Plus, how can this class warfare rhetoric jazz-up the conservative base?  It won&#8217;t &#8212; it&#8217;ll just annoy us.  The &#8220;1%&#8221; pay enough.  I&#8217;m in the 50.5% and I pay too much!  In truth it&#8217;s the 49.5% that needs to pick up the slack !  Our government&#8217;s problem is not about revenues, it&#8217;s about spending. While a President Romney is still better than Obama, why do I get the sinking feeling that I&#8217;ll likely be attending a Tea Party rally protesting Romney&#8217;s big-spending, debt-ballooning, interest-group pandering, weak-kneed RINOism one day? I hate holding my nose. Rubio-Paul 2012! ( if only ) ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/now-its-romney-targeting-the-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sick of Fake Conservatives</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/sick-of-fake-conservatives/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/sick-of-fake-conservatives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a-sinking-ship-]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/sick-of-fake-conservatives/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ There are some great champions for conservatism on talk radio and the internet and true conservatives owe a debt of gratitude for their insight and encouragement. They have captivated the hearts of millions of listeners who highly esteem their words and wisdom. Their influence has made a difference in awakening multitudes from their drugged sleep of the opiate of the modern media. However, I wish some of them would stop trying to convince real conservatives that the only option they have in an election is for anyone with an R attached to their name. I constantly hear how the Republican Party needs rebuilding, revamping and revitalizing as was done under Ronald Reagan, arguably the greatest President in modern American history. He did an outstanding job in strengthening the party and turning it around. However, looking at Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and others, it is obvious we do not have a Reagan today and we certainly do not have the same quality of party he had to work with. The Democrat party went over the cliff decades ago and is incorrigible with no hope of change. Unfortunately, the Republican party may have finally reached the same state. THIS IS NOT REAGAN&#8217;S REPUBLICAN PARTY. Times have changed and so have people and their values. When something is broken, you fix it. When it is broken beyond repair, you replace it. I am tired of being lied to by Republicans who pretend to be conservative long enough to get into office and then after winning, conduct business as usual. People are FINALLY beginning to wake up to reality. Theodore Roosevelt once said, &#8220;The American people are slow to wrath, but once that wrath is kindled, it burns like a consuming flame.&#8221; I am hoping and praying this wrath will be kindled into a fire that burns out the corruption in Washington. Yet, we will continue to hear the &#8220;wasted vote&#8221; mantra, with pleas to not abandon the ship, but I for one am tired of plugging the holes on a sinking ship. I long for a vessel that stays true to course and can weather the storms, based on conservative, constitutional principles, not the platitudes of a party. Again, I know what Reagan did in his day, but this is a new day. There is a real grassroots conservative movement that is steadily gaining momentum and has the potential to take back this country, replace the liberals in Congress with sane, common sense average Joes who know what makes this country work, and repeal the Marxist healthcare Frankenstein brought to life on 3-21-2010. This recent problem with government forcing religious institutions to cover abortions through employee insurance benefits is a reminder that Obamacare will spread its tentacles and do what it does best: dictate and control. Obama must not only be replaced in November 2012, but EVERY member of Congress who refuses to repeal this so-called healthcare monstrosity must be replaced also. It is time to face reality and stop propping up this party dominated by liberal elites. Even now, leadership in the Republican party has accepted the current healthcare monstrosity and are going to try and make the best of it, trim it where possible, &#8220;make it more conservative&#8221;, cut their losses and go on. The current Republican establishment has no plans to repeal it. There must be a transfusion of some new blood in DC. Remember, this is the party that ran John McCain, and who in their right mind would consider him to be a conservative? Conservatives who voted for McCain did not vote FOR McCain; they voted against Obama. If a real conservative with or without an R attached to their name, holding to constitutional principles, guided by Biblical values, runs for any level of office, I can vote for that person in good conscience, and the vote will be based on principles, philosophy of government and their value system, not on the letter following the name. If the Presidential Republican nominee turns out to be a quasi-conservative, then every real conservative should support a third party conservative, if that candidate is a true blue conservative. Solidarity among all real conservatives would produce a winning vote, not a wasted vote. True liberty means freedom to vote conscience guided by principle, and not follow the dictates of the elite ruling class of any party. The Republicans proved their impotence when, as the majority party for a brief time a few years back, they made no real substantive changes. The changes made were superficial and short lived. Had they really grabbed the bull by the horns, (or should I say donkey by the ears?) acted like real conservatives who were concerned about this country and not their own careers, they would have established policies to cut spending, restore liberty and limit government. They also might still be in power, since they would have won the respect and loyalty of true conservatives, who are tired of being lied to, taken for a ride, driven off a bridge and left to drown, in a Kennedy-sort-of way. Real freedom loving, God fearing, patriotic Americans are sick of liberalism, but are also now  just as sick of faux conservatives. The Republicans had their chance, but blew it. The authentic conservatives left in this party are the ones with enough character and sense to see that they need to stop clinging to a name, heritage, and tradition and be guided once again by principles, not platitudes. It is time to reject those who only want another term in office and a lucrative retirement. Time is short, freedom is shrinking and November is coming. It&#8217;s now or never. If a real change is not made in November, then it’s over for this nation. America, prepare to meet God! Sick of Fake Conservatives by Joseph Harris syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/sick-of-fake-conservatives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Deadbeats</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/tax-deadbeats/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/tax-deadbeats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[break-the-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs-billions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[postal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syndicated-from]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury-dept]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[various-income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work-directly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/tax-deadbeats/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Our federal tax code is broken.  Fifty-one percent of Americans don&#8217;t pay any federal income tax.  I&#8217;ll repeat that.  51 out of every 100 Americans do not have any federal income tax liability.  49% pay all personal income taxes. What&#8217;s worse is that with various income tax credits millions who pay nothing actually get money from the federal government.  For them, April 15th isn&#8217;t tax day &#8212; it&#8217;s pay day. And there&#8217;s more.  According to IRS records , federal workers owe $3.4 billion in back taxes for the year 2010. 26,000 Postal Service employees owe $270 million.   It&#8217;s $100 million for D-O-D military and civilians. Congressional employees owe $10 million.   Workers in the Treasury Dept &#8212; home of the IRS &#8212; owe $9 million. More than $800,000 is owed by people who work directly for the President. Federal workers who don&#8217;t pay their taxes is as bad as cops who break the law, firemen who commit arson and doctors who violate the Hippocratic oath. But I will say this in defense.  Our tax code is too complicated.  It&#8217;s about 70,000 pages long.  And it costs billions in direct costs and lost productivity to figure out how much we owe. Tax returns should be on a 3]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/tax-deadbeats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UNESCO Must Choose – “Palestine” or the World?</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/unesco-must-choose-palestine-or-the-world/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/unesco-must-choose-palestine-or-the-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a-member-state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[following]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/unesco-must-choose-palestine-or-the-world/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Obama administration formally announced its intention this week to ask Congress to waive a ban on American funding of 22% of UNESCO’s budget following UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine“ as its 195th member state on 31 October 2011. The announcement did not come in a White House press release from President Obama. Rather it was surreptitiously tucked away in an innocuous footnote to the budget that the White House presented to Congress &#8211; which contained the following  statement: &#8220;The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO,&#8221; The State Department has squirreled away nearly $79 million into its 2013 budget in the hope that Congress will grant a legal waiver allowing such American funding to UNESCO to be restored. That this is a forlorn hope was signalled by Rep.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen &#8211; the Chairperson of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee &#8211; who  stated : &#8220;Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make,&#8221; American funding of  UNESCO was cut off automatically under U.S. legislation dating back to the 1990s, which mandated the spending freeze for any UN agency granting full membership to Palestine before the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This law recognized that any such unilateral decisions would work against &#8211; rather than assist &#8211; any such agreement ever being concluded. This loss of American funding will result in a black hole of $260 million in UNESCO ‘s budget to 2013. UNESCO’s Director General &#8211; Ms Irina Bokova &#8211; has already signalled she is looking at achieving an overall cut of 29% in UNESCO programs for 2012 -2013 &#8211; which will adversely impact on UNESCO’s proposed global programs for the benefit of scores of millions of people over the next two years Ms Bokova intends to reveal where she will be making her proposed cuts at the next meeting of UNESCO’s Executive Board commencing on 27 February. Desperate to replace this lost American funding Ms Bokova has been accepting “donations” from some countries such as Turkey, Gabon and Timor Leste &#8211; which are conditional on being spent in those countries or neighbouring States &#8211; irrespective of where they rank in UNESCO’s scheme of priorities. This will lead to even greater curtailment or abandonment of other programs &#8211; as UNESCO’s decision making power is subordinated to the demands of these individual states. The US State Department needs to rethink its view that only an explicit waiver of the law can now free up American funding to avert the humanitarian crisis staring UNESCO in the face. There is an alternative option that has been with UNESCO for almost three months &#8211; an alternative which UNESCO has refused to even discuss. It involves UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the following two legal issues relating to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO in breach of UNESCO’s own constitution: What are the requirements that qualify an applicant to be admitted  as a member state of UNESCO under its Constitution and were these requirements satisfied in the case of “Palestine“? What were the number of votes required under the Constitution to admit “Palestine” as a member state of UNESCO? The cost to UNESCO of having these issues determined by the International Court would be $100000 in my estimate. UNESCO’s continuing refusal to even discuss the merits of the legal arguments advanced in questioning the legality of its decision to admit Palestine &#8211; indicates that UNESCO has no answer to the detailed submission given to it. Even if UNESCO sought to rebut that submission &#8211; then there still is a need for those two competing viewpoints to be judicially resolved. In failing to approach the Court &#8211; UNESCO is clearly signalling that it is more interested in protecting its decision on “Palestine” from judicial review &#8211; rather than finding a possible legal way out of such decision &#8211; thus enabling it to regain the lost American funding and so allow  its existing global programs to be maintained. . Continuing to play a narrow political game at the expense of a vast all embracing global humanitarian game can only have serious repercussions for UNESCO’s continued existence and relevance in the future. If UNESCO is so confident of its legal position then spending $100000 to have that opinion set in stone will be money well spent and will result in the Court clarifying and defining the meaning of the Constitution when future applications for membership are made. Ironically it is not a waiver of the law that the State Department should be futilely spending its time and effort trying to achieve. Rather it should be whispering in UNESCO&#8217;s ear the virtues of subjecting its decision to the law to try and get a favorable ruling that would immediately release the withheld American funds. That of course would mean the demise of Palestine&#8217;s membership of UNESCO. Would that be so bad &#8211; if in fact it was found to have been granted in breach of UNESCO&#8217;s Constitution? UNESCO is apparently not yet ready to face up to such a prospect. Until it does &#8211; people around the world will continue to suffer. UNESCO Must Choose &#8211; “Palestine” or the World? by David Singer syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/unesco-must-choose-palestine-or-the-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Occupy Pipers: Where tolerating treason has led us</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/occupy-pipers-where-tolerating-treason-has-led-us/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/occupy-pipers-where-tolerating-treason-has-led-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a-floor-debate-]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a-man-consort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupiers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-majority]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/occupy-pipers-where-tolerating-treason-has-led-us/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Is it okay to start questioning their patriotism yet? On January 29 th , Occupy Oakland demonstrators broke into City Hall and stole several American flags, two of which they have since set on fire. Other flag-burnings have been caught on camera at Occupy events in Denver and Portland, Maine. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/occupy-pipers-where-tolerating-treason-has-led-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Greece Gets $170 Billion Bailout</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/greece-gets-170-billion-bailout/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/greece-gets-170-billion-bailout/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advantages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bailouts-have]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eurozone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prolonging-the]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/greece-gets-170-billion-bailout/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Eurozone decided today to spend around $170 billion to prevent Greece from defaulting next month.  Those who hold Greek bonds were asked to take 53.5 cents on the dollar as part of the deal.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is also lurking in the shadows as billions of American dollars have already gone to various IMF bailouts of European welfare states, including Greece. The problem is that if Greece defaults or is booted from the Eurozone, then there&#8217;s real trouble:  seeing the advantages of default, other tumbling Eurozone nations will see how easy it was and how their nation&#8217;s sovereignty remained in tact;  they may follow suit, ruining the euro.  The chain reaction would be devastating to Europe, then to us since we&#8217;re so heavily invested in Europe. I wonder how much of this is merely postponing the inevitable &#8212; bailouts have a habit of prolonging the pain without solving the underlying problem.  Plus, it&#8217;s another hit to Greek sovereignty as none of this was put before the voters. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/greece-gets-170-billion-bailout/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>There is no Winner in Syria</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/there-is-no-winner-in-syria/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/there-is-no-winner-in-syria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hezbollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/there-is-no-winner-in-syria/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ There are instances in international politics that are a catch-22. These are situations where there are no good options, and no one really comes out a winner. Right now the world is looking at such a situation in Syria. It should be an easy problem, we have a murderous regime headed by a ruthless dictator, they have murdered thousands of their own people in their quest to stay in power, and the Assad dynasty is one of the most ruthless in the world. It should be easy but its not. Despite the undeniable brutality of the Alawite oligarchy Syria has the full backing of the Iranians, the Russians, and the Chinese(who never saw an uprising they didn&#8217;t want massacred). But the question isn&#8217;t about the interests of the Chinese or the Russians, it&#8217;s about our interests. Where do we stand in the Syrian mess? There is no rational, strategic, or moral, defense of the Assad regime. The Baathists have been in power in Syria since the 1940&#8242;s and have ruled by cruelty and brute force ever since. They have waged two wars on Israel, occupied Lebanon, assassinated their Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, support Hezbollah, and massacred their own people whenever their power is challenged. Hafaz Al Assad slaughtered up to 20,000 of his own people in Hama in 1982, and this current uprising has cost at least 7,000 Syrians their lives. By any account this is not a regime that anyone should support. This Iranian client state is a supporter of Terrorism and should be regarded as a criminal government. There are interests in removing the Syrian regime from power. It weakens the Iranians, it weakens Hezbollah, and Hamas, and to put it mildly it gets some real monsters out of power. But, and their is always a but, it&#8217;s not so simple. This is not like our invasion of Iraq where aside from toppling a brutal dictatorship we could have some say on who got into power. We celebrated when Hosni Mubarak was toppled from power, and now the Muslim Brotherhood, and the even more extreme Salafist groups are in charge. So much for Democracy along the Nile. We aided and abetted the Libyan rebels in their overthrow of the disgusting Qaddafi. We were rewarded by having the new Libyan regime instituting Sharia law and declaring Tripoli open for terrorist business. It&#8217;s the same thing in Syria. This &#8220;Arab Spring&#8221; is nothing but an Islamist revolution. As morally repugnant as the Assad regime is we have no guarantees that anything that replaces them would be any less violent, less supportive of terrorism, and more peaceful towards its people and neighbors. Just as in Egypt and Libya the rebels would have us believe that this is a movement by young, secular, liberal youths who only want freedom, westernization, and peace. If we fall for that it&#8217;s a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me again shame on me. In every instance of the Arab spring these regimes have been replaced by regimes that implement Sharia law, and espouse an anti American Islamic supremacy. Syria will be no different. The real movers and shakers behind the uprising in Syria is our old friend the Muslim Brotherhood. Do we allow the Assad regime to stand, and leave an anti American regime in place, or do we as some in Washington want, aid the rebels and bring another anti American regime to power. There isn&#8217;t a good choice here. No matter who wins we lose.  Keep the Baathists in power or Bring the Brotherhood to power. Washington should resist the urge to get involved. While the killing in Syria is a humanitarian tragedy there is no interest involved for the United States. If we think we can work with the Brotherhood, that they will be in some way grateful for our assistance we are sorely mistaken. We are the Great Satan, and no matter how nice we attempt to be to the Muslim world we are always going to be very unpopular. Neutrality is our only real option. Getting involved gets us nothing, except a lot of money poorly spent. Assad is our enemy, but so is the Brotherhood, which contrary to the administrations stupid statements is neither democratic or secular.There are no good guys fighting in the streets of Damascus, just hired killers fighting it out over which brand of totalitarianism will govern the country. We have interests in the Middle East, and we should defend them. But Syria is not in our interest no matter who wins out in the end. There is no Winner in Syria by Craig Chamberlain syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/there-is-no-winner-in-syria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Man Who Would Be King</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/the-man-who-would-be-king/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/the-man-who-would-be-king/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emperor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics in general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/the-man-who-would-be-king/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In 114 BC, Rome was a democratic Republic.  Representatives elected by popular vote filled the Senate, and the Senate ran Rome.  The Empire was conquered in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome, symbolized by the ever present SPQR seen on every Roman standard in every gladiator movie you have ever watched. At the beginning of the first century BC sovereignty in Rome resided in the People, which may have inspired the most famous attribution of sovereignty in American History, “We the People” as the proclaimed authors of the Constitution.  The power in republican Rome resided in the people.  In a revolution that was by then legendary, they had banished their kings and established themselves as a free republic where the people assembled together to elect the Senators, the magistrates, and made all major decisions such as whether or not to go to war.  And far beyond mere words much of what was early Rome was the target the Founding Fathers shot at when they established our later day republic. And yet, by 14 AD, when Augustus died, popular elections were but a memory.  Power was no longer located in the people, or in their assemblies, or their representatives in the Senate, instead power was concentrated in an Imperial Palace which was guarded, unapproachable, and foreboding. How did this revolution occur? What led the freedom loving Romans to lay down their liberty and put on the yoke of oppression?  Later Romans who longed for the freedom their ancestors had discarded pointed to 133 BC when a rich young man named Tiberius Gracchus bought his way into the office of Tribune, an executive position one step below magistrate that was meant to protect the interests of the poor.  Gracchus used his office to curry personal power by giving bread and circuses to the people paid for by the public treasury.  Eventually he hit on a very popular plan.  He proposed to seize the lands of the rich and give them to the poor and he imposed this under his own authority, an authority he lacked under the Roman constitution.  Later when he put himself forward for a second term in opposition to custom and law he was assassinated by a group of Senators. Several generations of corrupt politicians using the same formula sought to buy personal power and popular adoration by looting the public treasury to give the people ever increasing benefits.  Finally another rich young ruler arose by the name of Julius Caesar .  He rose through various public offices eventually gaining the office of Proconsul or Governor of Gaul (France).  He knew that to be a true Roman hero and paramount leader he needed to be a successful conqueror, so that is what he spent the next nine years doing.  He conquered not only all of Gaul but much of central Europe even leading the first Roman expedition to Britain .  While he accomplishing this he sent back well written dispatches to Rome which were published and widely distributed recounting his bravery and skill as a general. All of this was too much for his political rivals in Rome.  They gained enough votes to have him branded a traitor which meant little in Gaul where he had absolute power thanks to his well trained and veteran army.  His rivals promised his arrest and conviction if and when he returned to the capitol.  However Caesar was not to be denied so he compounded the accusations of his treason with a treasonable act leading his army across the Rubicon River to Rome. With his troops behind him Caesar secured all power and after many adventures to suppress the forces loyal to the old order he had a compliant Senate elect him dictator for life.  As his grasp of power solidified it became clear his rule would be the end of the republic.  Breaking completely with tradition he began to wear purple, the color of royalty in public.   Finally when his chief Lieutenant, Anthony, publicly offered him a crown it was too much and just as with Gracchus one hundred years before, Caesar was assassinated by a group of senators. Caesar was followed by Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome who was never called Emperor.  He was instead known by the republican sounding title of princeps , or first citizen.  Kings were hated in Rome.  The traditions of the Republic ran deep.  Both Gracchus and Caesar had been killed because people thought they would make themselves king.  The genius of Caesar’s nephew and successor was that Augustus made himself king in all but name while keeping the outward forms of the Republic.  The elections were rigged, the Senate only did what they were told, and the people were kept happy by giveaways from the public treasury and kept in line by a smothering blanket of laws and regulations. Fast forward to the 20 th century and two other would be kings include Mussolini who decreed that calendars in Italy should begin again with October 29, 1922 the date he assumed power as the first day of year one.  He proclaimed the Fascist Era was the dawn of a new age.  And Hitler who said his National Socialist Nazis would reign for a thousand years. In America today we have a leader who campaigned on a platform of cutting taxes and regulations.  A man who when the economy melted down said if he didn’t solve the problem in three years he wasn’t worthy of a second term.  In a classic example of bait and switch he walked over his promises to restore American greatness and suddenly announced five days before the election that he would instead transform America . Presidents are elected to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.  Nowhere in the job description does it mention anything about transforming America.  He was elected to do one job and decided instead to do another.  TARP was passed to clear the toxic assets out of the banks and restart the system but instead was used to seize controlling interests in AIG, GM and Chrysler and in general assert government ownership over a significant portion of the American economy.  The stimulus was passed to re-energize the economy but instead it became a gift bag for the President’s supporters and a slush fund for his re-election. Mr. Obama, with the corporations once known as the major media clearing his way and covering his tracks, compares himself to Lincoln , Teddy Roosevelt , FDR , Reagan and God , ridicules those who cling to the old ways, and decrees that he can rule without Congress because he can’t wait .  His spending has impoverished future generations and will eventually sink the ship of state.  His foreign policy ignores our allies and empowers our enemies.  Instead of uniting our country to get out of the hole dug by generations of failed Progressive boondoggles and giveaways he incites class warfare while the welfare rolls expand daily. Whether we are dealing with one man devoted to personal aggrandizement or merely a teleprompter reading front man for a well-oiled CABAL we are face to face with someone who has been positioned by the generosity of American voters to do irreparable damage to our nation.  We have one last chance to save the republic as we have known it.  The Republicans who operate as the other half of the party of power seek to nominate another big government operator who promises little more than driving us to the poor house a little slower with new wars along the way. What we need is a man who will work as president to re-impose the limits of the constitution. We need a man who will educate Americans as to what a constitutional government is and what it should do and not do.  We need a leader who will reverse course and take us back to the days of individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic liberty. We need a leader who isn’t afraid to jettison the empire to save the republic.  Now is the time for such a leader. If only enough Americans will recognize the signs of the times and rally round the flag they will still call it America. Just as the Rome of Caligula and Nero still called itself a republic so too in the coming era of Progressive centralization and control will our beloved country still be America.  The Constitution will remain on display in Washington.  However, in the world turned upside down liberty will be circumscribed by political correctness and freedom will be defined by government regulations.  Our schools and media will assure us that we are the most free and prosperous nation on earth while other countries that have gained their freedom pass us by.  History as it is taught in America today tries to tell us that socialism works.  It doesn’t.  It leads to a stunted, shabby future where everyone sinks to the level of the lowest common denominator.  What we need is a rebirth of republicanism with a small “r” and a big dream. Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome. The Man Who Would Be King by Dr. Robert R. Owens syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/the-man-who-would-be-king/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Contraception Law is an Idiot’s Nightmare.</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/new-contraception-law-is-an-idiots-nightmare/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/new-contraception-law-is-an-idiots-nightmare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a-morning-after]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planned]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planned-parenthood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premiums]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/new-contraception-law-is-an-idiots-nightmare/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ When the smoke clears and people start looking at this new level of socialism, I believe that the disapproval rating of Obama will go to a new level. Look at the Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act and you will start to understand why the communists passed this bill. You can look through this entire bill and will find nothing pertaining to contraception for non-school age women. So what the crooks at Obama’s lair have improvised is a new concept. Under the provision in Obamacare, they are trying to bootstrap in contraceptive care. So let’s think about this a minute. Obamacare was offered mainly to women because they wanted to screw men, men never get sick or need healthcare. They were to offer women preventive care. Preventive care is basically a means to do exams to catch any ills before they get too far along and to teach people how to take better care of themselves and to be aware of telltale signs of disease. You would think preventative medicine would apply to both women and men since women outlive men, but not in Obama’s world. For example if you can’t breath too good, that’s easy you go get it checked out. But if you have a lump in your breast, it may lead to something serious, so it is nice to have it checked out before it gets to be a serious problem. So the purpose of preventive healthcare is to prevent disease. Cancer is a disease. High blood pressure is caused by a disease. And so on and so forth. Now what the liberal commies are saying is pregnancy is a disease! A birth of a child is now a disease that should be exorcised as soon as it is identified. The Catholics were looking at the wrong end of the problem. If they had a half a brain just file a suit and declare this provision is not covered under Obamacare. The providing of contraception is not preventative medicine. Pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be prevented. And Abortionists may disagree with us. But an unwanted pregnancy by any stretch of any imagination is not a disease. It is actually a miracle and a blessing. But let’s not kid ourselves, you could have people beating drums all over the land and there would still be women getting themselves pregnant. There are many women that want to become pregnant. If all women were this stupid wouldn’t the average women be having a kid a year? The demographics in the US are 2 children per female. Either they know how to use and buy contraception or they have stopped having sex. The real problem with this unconstitutional provision is that some people really think that this is a FREE gift from Obama. Now here’s the rub, how much are the premiums going to go up. The insurance companies are not going to give away free contraceptives, only surgeon generals and Planned Parenthood can do that… (Wink, wink). My guess is that the average premium will go up about $300 DOLLARS annually. Now that is to cover the added cost of all those birth control pills. Morning after pill could be extra. Sterilization could be more expensive. So now the question becomes clearer. Do you want to pay about $300 a year to buy contraceptives for yourself and everyone else? Remember in my famous book I made the point that it makes no sense to have insurance that pays for something that you need every year. You really should only have catastrophic insurance for emergencies. Next thing you know they will be covering toothbrushes! I can also guarantee you that once insurance gets involved with contraception the cost for it will go up. Just think of the paperwork alone. You go into the local drug store to load up on some contraceptives and instead of paying cash you whip out your insurance card. That’s going to be expensive. Let’s look at Obama’s website and look at the baloney. First off Morris is wrong, this is about winning the women’s vote. How many dumb women voted for liberals because they won for them abortions? How many dumb women will vote for Obama because they don’t have to pay for birth control pills anymore? Either the employer will pay or it will be paid for by you. There is another problem. First off there are many government workers that are covered already with their prescription plan. The women on Medicaid are covered. So who really will benefit from this nonsense? And will the $300 be enough to cause your employer to make you pay more of the healthcare costs. If so, there is a good chance it will cost you more than what the Pill costs you now when you pay for it out of pocket. And let’s face it, if you don’t use contraception do you want to pay for someone else’s? So this is stupid. You just need to pass the word around and make it clear that Obama is nothing but a snake oil salesman. Obama will give you FREE contraceptives. But it will cost you more. How many idiots will line up to vote for this sham? With disapproval rating of almost 50% this commie has no chance. On the Obama website they make some statements. Such as: 99% of all women aged 15 – 44 who have ever had heterosexual sex have at least used one contraceptive method. And only 62 million women age 15-44 are currently using a method of contraception. Another 31 % of the 62 million do not need contraception because they are pregnant, infertile, postpartum, trying to get pregnant, no sex or not sexually active with heterosexual partners. And only 7% (I assume of the 62 million) are at risk of getting pregnant because they don’t use contraception. So this looks like the biggest pile of bull that one can imagine. So Obama wants you to pay $300 dollars annually because 4.34 million jerks may get pregnant. My guess is that these are probably teenagers. And are they really going to go out and get free contraceptives with or without their parent’s consent. This also assumes that all males are virile. No males in this Obama study have been sterilized or are not virile. One of the problems with all of this is that a women’s chance of getting pregnant without protection is about 20%, unless they are related to guppies. So at the end of the day many people will still take the risk even though the method is free. And if the male is more comfortable without protection, then why should the women protest. If they don’t they are taking the chance of getting pregnant. And if the activity occurs at the opportune time, then the chance of getting pregnant is 100%. There are no studies presented by Obama that would prove that this 7% would become risk free. The only thing that is certain is that unprotected sex can result in pregnancy. But what is interesting in the latest Times poll is that 66% are in favor of FREE contraceptives. The follow-up question should have been how much are you willing to pay for the FREE contraceptives? I would bet the 66% would go down to zero as the annual cost differential for the premiums approached $300 dollars. So the basis of this stupidity is that there are unwanted pregnancies because people can’t afford contraception. They are forced to decide between their (cat) food and their contraception. Give me a break! And let me see some proof. This is a sham and Obama’a disapproval numbers should reach an all time high. We don’t need to spend more money. Let’s look at the facts. According to the Planned Parenthood’s website the chances of getting pregnant with contraception is anywhere from 1% to 25%. The Pill by the way comes in at 2-9 %. Now most of these methods are 100% effective if you followed the directions and they work well with your bodily function. If you forget to take the pill, then you are screwed in more ways then one. But the point is if birth control is 7% ineffective, then how can these idiots claim 7% of the population is not using contraception. And if it costs a dollar for contraception, why would one have unprotected sex? You mean one dollar is going to be the difference between eating food and having sex? Let’s be truthful here, the 4 million unwanted pregnancies are caused in the most part by people who are stupid, or irresponsible and or uneducated. Giving them free contraception is not going to change that. They will still get pregnant. But keep in mind, they can now run down to the candy machine and get a morning after pill, if they remember to do it the morning after, or they can run down to Planned Parenthood and get a FREE abortion. I would also imagine that Planned Parenthood must have a candy dish at its location with contraception available. We don’t want anyone catching that disease. So bottom line is why would 300 million people want to pay over $300 dollars a year added to their premiums to pay for contraception for people who are too stupid to use them? So the next time Obama says he wants to give you something for FREE, ask him how much the snake oil will cost. Then think twice before you vote for him again. New Contraception Law is an Idiot’s Nightmare. by Dr. Phil Taverna syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/new-contraception-law-is-an-idiots-nightmare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What If We Removed Wartime Conscience Exemptions?</title>
		<link>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/what-if-we-removed-wartime-conscience-exemptions/</link>
		<comments>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/what-if-we-removed-wartime-conscience-exemptions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shon Jimenez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Heroes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic-league]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slippery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/what-if-we-removed-wartime-conscience-exemptions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Last Friday, President Obama responded to Catholic bishops ’ concerns over his controversial mandate compelling Catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. Many media sources reported Obama’s action as an “accommodation,” with some describing it as a “reversal.” It is hardly that. Many Catholics find it arguably worse. Without dissecting the president’s action, the overriding problem remains: We are facing a continuing creep—really, an assault—on the consciences of not only committed Roman Catholics but millions of pro-lifers when it comes to abortion . Slowly but surely, whether through taxpayer funding of abortifacients or Planned Parenthood or Planned Parenthood International or the deliberate destruction of embryos—just for starters—we are sliding down the slippery slope. I fully agree with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who believes the ultimate objective is for taxpayers—all of them, regardless of religion—to forcibly pay for women’s abortions. As a Roman Catholic intimately involved in the pro-life movement, I can report that many of us are certain that “ Obama-care ” is carrying us across that dark threshold. Moreover, it pains me that the Obama administration is proceeding with far higher support among liberals than I ever imagined in America. All of my life, my pro-choice friends insisted that they simply want the “right” to an abortion. They told me to back off, to leave them alone, to allow them their “choice.” Well, they have that, and more—but apparently it isn’t enough. An alarmingly high number of them will not rest until my pro-life allies and I help pay for their decisions and send our tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider. It is truly shocking to watch them casually and crassly disregard or deny us the quintessentially American notion of conscience exemption. And there, I warn them of another slippery slope they ought to consider: Do they really want to go down this road of banning conscience exemptions? Think about it. How many liberals reading this article embraced the right of conscientious objection during the Vietnam War? During times of mandatory military service, this nation has mercifully granted conscientious objection. If you were convinced, based on your faith in particular, that war was wrong, you had the option to not participate. I could fill this page with the words of Catholic monks and priests who publicly defended that right during Vietnam, from Thomas Merton to the Berrigan brothers. They were heroes of liberals for taking that stand. In fact, here, too, the Catholic Church, as an institution, has a lot to say: The monumental Second Vatican Council (“Vatican II”), which convened in the early 1960s, issued a Declaration on Religious Freedom affirming that Catholics are duty-bound to faithfully follow not the dictates of a government but their conscience, and that no person should be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.” The Church’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World states that governments cannot compel a citizen to engage in military service if that person is convinced that physical combat is sinful. The Church condemns “blind obedience” to unjust regimes that commit unjust actions. Popes and bishops and Catholic theologians before and after have consistently reaffirmed these positions. During the heart of the Vietnam War, the American bishops issued major documents supporting both universal and selective conscientious objection. On a related point—which, again, liberals will applaud—the Church has demanded humane treatment for wartime non-combatants, for the wounded, and for POWs. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this explicitly. Generally speaking, the Catechism , which is the official teaching of the Church, proclaims that, “Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order.” Quoting the New Testament ( Acts 5:29), the Catechism states: “We must obey God rather than men.” The Church is firmly against the unjust violation of human life, beginning in the womb. Importantly, though I’ve cited Catholic teaching, millions of non-Catholics follow these principles. And huge numbers of secular liberals adamantly endorse these teachings on conscience and war. Conscientious objection is a precious right in this nation. It must remain so. Have “abortion rights” become so sacred to liberals that they are willing to sacrifice conscience exemptions at the altar of Roe v. Wade ? Do they really want to head down this road? I suggest they stop and think hard about what they’re advocating. What If We Removed Wartime Conscience Exemptions? by Dr. Paul Kengor syndicated from The Land of the Free .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/what-if-we-removed-wartime-conscience-exemptions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

